The concept of the “filter bubble” has received both public and scholarly attention. The notion is that online services want to make us happy and using our past data show us what we want to see. Hence, the argument goes, we end up seldom challenging our personal beliefs rather than search for actual truth.<\/p>\n
Most folks, including me, have been persuaded that the filter bubble exists because we have at least some understanding of the interest of online companies in collecting data about our interests and behavior and because we have heard that if multiple individuals conduct the same search at the same time on topics that tend to encourage differences of opinion (e.g, political positions), they will see different things. It all makes some sense.<\/p>\n
The recent article from\u00a0Neiman Labs offers a counter position<\/a>. This article claims that people self-report bias in their online preferences, but actual data on their behavior suggests they actually consume a much greater variety of positions than they claim. Why – they prefer to affiliate with a particular position and make the claim that their consumption habits fit their preference.<\/p>\n What about the claim that people experience different things from the same search? The Neiman Labs article says that this happens, but it also happens for search engines such as DuckDuckGo that claim their company collects no personal information that would bias search results.<\/p>\n I think it is great when a scholarly approach is taken to investigate claims such as the filter bubble. I admit I don’t know what to believe at this point, but I look forward to reports from those who collect data.<\/p>\n BTW – the Knight report from which the Neiman Labs post was derived offers some additional interesting insights. Among the insights – the online focus of many and the many viewing options on cable television actually means many actually consume little political news. Political junkies consume more, but many consume none at all focusing on ESPN or some other personal interest. So asking questions about online influence needs to be more specific about exactly who they are talking about. A second observation – the priority of online sources for news has encouraged a focus on national issues at the expense of local issues. Many are now unable to name local politicians, but are aware of the nuances of national politics. They may not read the local paper, but they constantly check Facebook.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The concept of the “filter bubble” has received both public and scholarly attention. The notion is that online services want to make us happy and using our past data show us what we want to see. Hence, the argument goes, … Continue reading