We talked in class about the Filter Bubble, and how it effects our lives. One thing that we discussed was the pros and cons of such a thing in our world, as well as how to use things like track me not to step away from it for a time, as best as is algorithmically possible. But does something like that, or like clearing your cache or deleting cookies, or even Disconnect really protect us when we’re going to go log onto a web site that actively circumvents all of those measures? When you give that site the ability to circumvent those measures, simply by logging in? All of that might help if you were simply doing a Google search, without being logged into Gmail or Google plus or.. I don’t know… Youtube. However, once you sign in to somehting, be it google or facebook… you are giving them the nod as to who you are. You are repainting the targets on your eyes and showing them where to aim. Because not all of the filter is from cookies and guesses. You TELL these services what to show you, every time you click a link or open a page. My dad used to talk about voting with your wallet, meaning that if you support something you approve of financially, it is more likely to succeed. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to voting with your mouse.
However, this is not to say that I am entirely against the filter bubble. I just think that there is a time and a place. And even Pariser seems to be implying that if the algorithms were altered to be more “morally balanced” like the editorial gatekeepers of old that he references, it might not be such a horrible thing. Frankly, there is too much in this world to see EVERYTHING, and that is WHY search engines became what they are today in the first place. And while I agree with him that I should be able to control my own filters, and that on a site like facebook I wouldn’t want a computer to choose what friends I can and cannot easily see, When I search for “apples” on Google, I want to see things about apples, maybe even about how they are used in pop culture (11th doctor: apples are rubbish, Doctro Who: how 11 uses an apple to prove…) However, if I am looking up apples, I really have no need to see an article about why meat butchering plants are the way of the future, just because googling an apple might mark me as a vegan, and that would be a challenging concept to my world view. Frankly, if Google or another engine was marking that some one was a vegetarian or vegan, I think it would be morally reprehensible for their searches about salads to show animal butchery. There are some places that it is inappropriate for a search engine to CHOOSE to challenge some one’s views.
And there are some places where it isn’t morals at all, but connivance. I *like* that netflix filters what it recommends to me. I watch Doctor Who and the Cathrine Tate show on streaming Netflix, prior, I watched IT Crowd and Dilbert. If it wants to show me more tech or BBC shows as things I might like, cool. I watched some of Death Note and would be happy for it to recommend other anime. Because frankly, I have the CHOICE to watch or not watch those things, and if I want to see something out of my comfort zone, I know where the search bar is.
Pariser talks about the obligations these companies have to filter more responsibly, and in cases where a site like Facebook chooses to disregard the choices and settings he picked for his account, I agree with him. However, there are some places where the responsibility falls on the user, and I think something like Netflix is one of those. Youtube could arguably be another. These are not news go-tos. These are not the places that are overly likely to shape my ideals and actions. If I am really uncomfortable with movies about WWII and the concentration camps, then when I log on to watch a video to relax, it should not be shoved in my face. Google wants to send me links to challenge me? In some cases, fine, in other cases, not fine. But if we can’t think of a person we’d all accept as able to choose for each and every one of us… how can we accept an algorithm either?
