Eli Pariser’s Filter Bubble Debate

Eli Pariser’s Filter Bubble Debate

            Eli Pariser is debating that there are invisible online filters that determine what you can and cannot see online.  I am here to say that I do not believe it is that large of a problem, and I can support that purely by saying it is the people’s responsibility to search for what they want to find out.  Pariser stated that this can cause people to become unknowledgeable on some rather important topics that range from politics to wars.  I do not blame the companies that enforce these “Filter Bubbles,” nor do I believe they are doing something in malice to contribute to the deterioration of the mental status of society.  However, I do believe there should be some sort of way to turn the filter bubbles off. 

             On the surface, Pariser has a very compelling argument, but when you start to really think about, he is just blaming a “Laziness to search for what is going on in the world” on somebody else.  I believe it is the job of the person to search for what he/she may need to know in the world.  The company that runs an internet site has written an algorithm in the sites history allowing it to display articles that may be more relevant to you the individual.  Pariser does list a very interesting point when it comes to Facebook.  He mentioned that after liking more of one set of friend’s links, the site started to only show that group of friends.  Depending on what you enjoy seeing on Facebook, this could get rather annoying, not necessarily bad, but just annoying. 

            I look at the “Filter Bubble” as a way of making it much easier for you to access what you are probably getting on the computer to access.  The way Pariser describes the algorithm makes it sound as if it would be impossible for anyone to find anything outside of their bubble.  That is not the case YET, but for now, I find it much nicer to see all of my music related news on the front page rather than seeing a bunch of political nonsense that I was never interested in.  I still have the ability to search for said political nonsense if I feel it would be beneficial to read.  Nothing prohibits me from seeing any other non-music related news, both global and personal.  There are always ways to counteract internet filters like this, you can delete your history, reset your cookies, a mixture of both, or even just turn off browser history. 

            I found the argument to be rather exaggerated, but if it progresses to a degree of seriousness that Pariser described, then it could become a very large problem.  If somebody is interested in finding information on something, most will use more than one article, as well as search the topic him/herself.  I guess I do not find the seriousness of the article either.  At the exact moment, no harm is being caused by it, and it is making things easier on people just doing their daily reading.  I just feel that this is being blown way out of proportion. 

            For argument sake, let’s say that our “Filter Bubbles” are that extreme, and that there no ways to get rid of them.  If that was the case, Pariser would have an outstanding argument, and I believe he would have done an excellent job conveying it.  He would have been correct in saying that we would all live in our own little bubble, and that it would cause people to become unaware of what could be going on in the world around them.  If you truly break down the algorithm into what it actually does, you would find that it does nothing more than take all of the links you click, and average them out.  The links you have a higher average of clicking, it displays first.  The program does not erase all possibility for you to see news and entertainment besides what your “Filter Bubble” “thinks” you are going to click on.  I still believe whether it is the extreme version, or the version of “Filter Bubbles” we have now, that there should be an option for what can and should not be filtered. 

            There is however, one flaw in my argument.  My main idea is that people will actually do something for themselves.  My argument is flawed by the same reason “Filter Bubbles” were created.  People are trying to make everything easier and require less effort, or in blatant terms, being lazy.  Pariser would have made a great point if he had stated that people will inevitably become too lazy to search for other news outside of their bubble.  I know that this sounds bleak, but give it some thought.  We have become as a nation, lazy.  Everything that is being designed or produced nowadays is purely for laziness and a refusal to put effort into simple tasks. 

            My final argument is the same, these “Filter Bubbles” are not dangerous, but there should still be a way to view the settings of the filter, and enable us to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to implement into our web browsing.  Pariser still did an excellent job posing an argument, whether you agree with him or not.  I just do not personally find them to be a great foe in the world of online entertainment/news. 

 

Self-Assessment

            I have learned some interesting things from the video.  I find it interesting that people are finding anything and everything to have a problem with, especially something as minor as this.  I personally struggle with grammar, and occasionally using the wrong word.  Any help with that would be greatly appreciated! 

 

 

Works Cited

• “Eli Pariser: Beware Online “filter Bubbles”” TED: Ideas worth Spreading. N.p., n.d. Web. 11    Feb.2014.