Filtered Facts

E

li Pariser—now a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute—first earned Internet acclaim when, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, he created a web site aimed at fighting terrorism worldwide (in just a few weeks, over 500,000 people across the globe logged on). The groundbreaking online organizer then joined and eventually directed MoveOn.org, a progressive political action site (under his leadership, MoveOn emphasized online-to-offline organizing and helped power Barack Obama’s web-centered 2008 campaign). More recently, Pariser has focused on how Internet search engines invisibly edit the information individuals receive, and how this “personalized” search process might reinforce our opinions and thereby restrict our worldview. This entry looks first at Pariser’s TED talk “Beware online filter bubbles” (the talk covers issues raised in Pariser’s book The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You) and then at Clive Thompson’s alternative interpretation of this Internet “echo-chamber effect.” 

Pariser describes the algorithms behind the results of an Internet search as virtual “curators” or “editors” that individualize the information you get based on who “they” (i.e. the algorithms) “think” you are. Google’s algorithm, for example, first looks at fifty-seven variables—including what kind of computer and web browser you use—to construct your personal profile (e.g. your likes, dislikes, consumer habits, political bent and more). The algorithm then translates that personal profile into search results tailored for you. As Pariser puts it: “There is no standard Google anymore.” For Pariser, the danger of this customized search process is clear: Instead of exposing us to a variety of facts, figures, and ideas related to a given query, say climate change, modern search tools primarily provide information likely to bolster our existing opinions and ideology. “The Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see,” says Pariser, “but not necessarily what we need to see.” For Pariser, this kind of invisible indoctrination threatens Democracy, which, at least to some degree, requires people to consider conflicting viewpoints. As Pariser concludes: “We really need the Internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it’s not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a web of one.”

Clive Thompson presents a very different take on the Internet “echo-chamber effect.” In particular, he sets out to disclaim traditional ideas about homophily (or  “love of the same”). As we have seen, for Pariser, homophily—i.e. peoples’ tendency to seek out compatible peers—narrows our “information diet” and consequently threatens societal well being. According to Thompson, this view fails to consider the frequency of interpersonal interactions. Conventional wisdom holds that fresh information flows most readily from so-called “weak ties,” or “casual acquaintances,” as opposed to from “strong ties,” or those people within our inner circles. Thompson’s counterargument, based on new research published by a pair of information economists, proceeds as follows: “Sure, weak ties are better positioned to bring us new info. But they don’t do it frequently, because we don’t interact with them very often. Such a person might be, say, five times more likely than a close friend to tell you something surprising in conversation. But if you interact with your friend 10 times more often, the odds suddenly tip toward their being a more valuable source of news.” This claim is nice and simple and apparently convincing but neglects at least one crucial problem: What if your inner circle is comprised of only small-minded individuals? As I see it, no matter how often you talk to a group of biased buddies, you likely won’t encounter alternative or challenging opinions. Thompson seems to admit to this shortcoming, noting: “To be a truly well-informed citizen, perhaps the best approach is to cultivate close friends from eclectic backgrounds.”

After considering the debate over the dangers of Internet homophily, I initially sided strongly with Pariser. While I still favor his view, it might be a little meddlesome. In most cases, relevance should be the principal search filter—do I really need a query of Justin Bieber to give me links to Beethoven as well? Nonetheless, I find it difficult to disagree with the premise that we should all be exposed to diverse material—indeed, you don’t really know about something if you don’t approach it from various angles.