Eli Pariser, internet activist and chief executive of Upworthy, explores the problematic nature of online search engines in his Ted Talk, "Beware Online Filter Bubbles." He begins his assertion with a quote from Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, “A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.” This infers that our society is choosing to settle with information that is sheltering and immediately relevant to us. If we’re pleased only knowing the things happening in our immediate environment, then what was the internet’s use in the first place?
This “invisible shift in how information is flowing online,” as Pariser calls it, may have gone completely unnoticed to the Internet-using population. But I agree with Pariser’s theory of the filter bubble existence and have become aware of its increasing detriment to the modern population.
Pariser explained one obvious problem arising in the search results of his peers. Two people, searching the same word in the Google engine, can have completely different results. He then inserts an example of this case, using two of his own colleagues. This candidly proved Google’s use of filter bubbles. In another case, Pariser proves the use of filter bubbles by social media outlets.
Facebook, like Google, eliminates the pieces of information that they do not find suitable or “likable” to the user. Pariser became aware of this situation when he realized that conservative political posts were not appearing as often as liberal posts were on his newsfeed. He stated, “Facebook, without consulting me about it, had edited them out, they had disappeared.” Facebook, with knowledge that he had clicked more often on liberal articles than conservative articles, deleted posts and links he had originally wished to view.
The filter bubble conversation is still generally new, making it difficult to refute. Every article on this topic is strictly opinion-based, which makes Pariser an admirable speaker to advocate against such an unknown and controversial topic. There is a myriad of issues that can come from the existence of the filter bubble, many of which are ironically dependent on what is important to an individual as well. An example of individual skepticism was asserted in an MIT Technology Review article. “This is the filter bubble -- being surrounded only by people you like and content that you agree with. And the danger is that it can polarize populations creating potentially harmful divisions in society.” Essentially unable to form our own unbiased opinions supplied by only specific, filtered information, fear of future internet-based societal divisions come into play. This article suggests that Internet consumers could potentially be split into societal factions based on what they choose to search and click on -- oblivious victims to a multitude of variables that influence personalization.
Despite individual skepticism, the most relevant issue with tailored content is what people of the internet are not seeing. Knowing that the Internet is a database filled with controversial material ready to be debated, and that “public” search engines and social media platforms are limiting, the internet user is left to wonder what information they are missing out on. “Tailoring” available information is a euphemism for keeping other pieces of information hidden.
