Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Pariser's Filter Bubble

            In The Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser explores how personalization on the Internet is surreptitiously altering what people read and how they think. He weaves together strands of technological data, media studies theory, political and journalistic history, psychological effects, and pop culture references into an intriguing argument. In their attempt to personalize everything, Internet entities (Google, Facebook, etc.) create a “filter bubble” that is actually stunting creativity and frustrating Democracy. In this book, Pariser attempts to push back against this trend of hyper-personalization and “burst” the filter bubble. Eli Pariser is an author, political and Internet activist, chief executive at Upworthy (a website devoted to “meaningful” web content), president of MoveOn.org (a progressive public policy activist group), and co-founder of Avaaz (a global civic organization).
            Pariser begins by diagnosing the problem he calls “the filter bubble”. In a competitive race for users’ clicks and advertisers’ dollars, Internet giants have begun catering every user’s activity around that user’s online preferences and habits. But because the filter bubble is solitary (it pulls us apart), invisible (we don’t know what algorithms are working where), and involuntary (automatic participation means you must opt out, not in), the whole filtering process is largely unnoticed and therefore particularly dangerous. The aggression and analytical ambition that fuel start-up companies do not magically disappear when those companies become Internet giants that “rule the world”. (181)
            The filter bubble commodifies user data and activity for sale to the highest bidder—typically advertisers who are keen on showing their products to interested parties. In its infancy, the Internet was celebrated for its disintermediating potential, but celebrants failed to predict how the absence of a middleman would affect content and attention. For example, in the realm of journalism, it is now much easier to go to an aggregated news site that collects stories from smaller sources, all of which are relevant to you, than to spend the effort clicking around those sources directly. However, “while personalization is changing our experience of news, it’s also changing the economics that determine what stories get produce.” (69) Thus, instead of reporting on important or worthy news, news agencies have a vested interest in publishing stories that are likely to garner lots of online attention.
            Internet giants are offering us more convenience, but “in exchange for convenience, you hand over some privacy and control to the machine.” (213) As technology continues to develop, even non-Internet corporations are figuring out new ways to pursue consumers. Whether creating their own media content or augmenting your “reality” to highlight their products, these companies are coming after us with more aggression and less transparency.
            Pariser describes the delicate cognitive balance that has historically been the driving force behind human creativity and ingenuity: our brains automatically “tread a tightrope between learning too much from the past and incorporating too much new information from the present.” (84) Thus, by measuring the novel and unknown against the established and known, we can integrate useful news ideas into the canon of human knowledge. Yet, the filter bubble removes the unknown from our horizon, which lessens the impetus (and possibility) to learn and innovate. “Left to their own devices, personalization filters serve up a kind of invisible autopropaganda, indoctrinating us with our own ideas, amplifying our desire for things that are familiar and leaving us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the unknown.” (15) Any cognitive dissonance or tension is flattened until a user’s Google self, Facebook self, Amazon self, etc. all become the same and any chance for serendipity or identity experimentation is nullified.
            The dangers of the filter bubble extend to the political sphere as well. As people are currently only being shown news on issues that are “relevant” to them, public issues that should be of at least marginal interest to everyone are ignored. Because the same symbol or event means different things to different people, a fragmented public is harder to lead. “Democracy requires citizens to see things from one another’s point of view, but instead we’re more and more enclosed in our own bubbles. Democracy requires a reliance on shared facts; instead, we’re being offered parallel but separate universes.” (5) Citizens must be willing and able to see beyond their own narrow self-interests, but the filter bubble makes this increasingly difficult.
            Pariser concludes with a few possible solutions to the filter bubble dilemma. Consumers can try to vary their online activity, breaking habitual website patronage, and choose transparent sites like Twitter over Facebook, which is notoriously murky about its privacy policies. Companies can do their part as well. By being more transparent, giving users the option to surf through relevant or novel material, they can break the over-personalization cycle. Furthermore, government can be more responsible about holding companies accountable (regarding their user’s control of privacy) instead of succumbing to their deluge of lobbyists.
            This book advances the understanding of Mass Communication in several ways. Primarily, Pariser is to be commended for bring to the public’s attention (this book is a NT Times bestseller) an issue that is universally important. This affects all of us[1], in almost every area of our lives, and whether or not you agree with Pariser’s diagnosis, the issue certainly warrants discussion. Furthermore, this book encourages people to be more conscious about what media they consume, from the mundane websites we check every day to why we vote the way we do. Few areas of electronic activity are unaffected by Pariser’s argument.
Overall, The Filter Bubble is largely successful in communicating its message, but there are some failings. Pariser neglects to acknowledge the fact that most of the entities he is criticizing (Google, Facebook, etc.) do offer users the option to turn off personalization and return pure results. It’s simply that the default settings of the programs are geared towards personalization. True, most users may never change (or even be aware of) the ability to turn these settings on or off, but the possibility bears mention.
Pariser’s argument also runs the possibility of turning on itself. Through personalization, Facebook and Google indirectly control our online experiences, so Pariser’s solution is that they should expose us to content we don’t want. This would, in fact, put then in direct control. But who decides what is important for everyone? Do we really want Google and Facebook determining what is important for us?
Furthermore, what incentives would companies have to sell their products online if they aren’t going to reach relevant customers? Pariser decries Cass Sunstein’s Republic.com for advocating a naïve “fairness doctrine” (where companies willingly sacrifice profits for a more Marxist Internet structure), but then advocates a similar set of solutions. Will companies ever spend resources on something that doesn’t contribute—and might even be detrimental—to their bottom line?
It is difficult to tell if Pariser resorts to hyperbole in order to scare the reader into agreeing with him. According to Pariser, RFID chips, ambient intelligence, DNA, and behavioral data make it possible to “run statistical regression analysis on an entire society.” (199) Whether this dystopian vision of a techno-society is a plegitimate threat or not remains to be seen, but at least Pariser’s experience in political and Internet activism make it credible enough to consider.
Pariser’s argument is strengthened with some brilliant ideas. The notion of a falsifiability algorithm for Amazon—one that tries to disprove its conception of you with random genre suggestions—is simple and (more importantly) practical, since it would actually give the company a more accurate and dynamic picture of who you are. Other suggestions, like “a slider bar running from ‘only stuff I like’ to ‘stuff other people like that I’ll probably hate’” (235), are less likely to occur but noble suggestions nonetheless. His general approach to thinking about personal information “as a form of property” (240), instead of merely sacrificing it for a little convenience, is a positive step in the right direction. Pariser’s Filter Bubble moves us toward balancing the current asymmetries of knowledge, data, and therefore power.


Pariser's TED talk on the subject can be found here: http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

[1] Well, all of us in the First World. But the way things are moving, the problems of the filter bubble are flowing into Third World societies as our technology does. Moreover, sites like Facebook and Google are global in scale.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

World War Z


A few years ago I heard someone say that America's current obsession with zombie mythology would eventually culminate (before its inevitable decline) with Pitt's World War Z. Turns out he was right.

Many interesting things about this movie. I like that it is a "serious" zombie movie that isn't afraid to throw around the word "zombie". I like that it wasted approximately 7 seconds before throwing Brad Pitt into the fray. I like that it was a political but not heavy handed. And I liked the ending—not bleak, but not Hollywood.

I appreciated the surprise action catalysts (in a zombie film, these are usually loud noises that draw the undead whilst the heroes are sneaking around) like Gerry's wife calling him on the phone I forgot he had, or citizens of Jerusalem rejoicing. However, there were typical predictable ones as well. How many times in a single mission can the same person "accidentally" kick a can, step on a glass bottle, and smack a filing cabinet with their crowbar? C'mon Welsh scientist.

Rating: 4 out of 6 zombies


Friday, September 20, 2013

Proposing a Return to Analog


I usually read a lot every day, so at night I need to read something completely unrelated to help me fall asleep. It needs to be theoretically interesting but packed with so much unnecessary detail so as to put me to sleep. Dyson's tale of the simultaneous rise of atomic weaponry and digital computation does just that. He spends a lot of time on the complete genealogical backstory of every person who had anything to do with computers, so if that is your thing, this book is incredible.

Friday, August 2, 2013

Actual Drinking Buddies


What feels normal at first, starts to feel slow halfway through as you wonder when the "action" is going to happen, then near the end you realize that it has been happening all along. Good writing, good acting, great directing, and it didn't end how I thought it would. Delightful!

Rating:
4 out of 5 pints


Friday, June 28, 2013

Present Shock

Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now by Douglas Rushkoff is sort of like Keen's Digital Vertigo, but a bit less disjointed. Rushkoff describes what he calls a "presentist" culture where everything is about the now. We have confused "flow" with "storage", kairos time with chronos time, and our current anemic state is the failure to reconcile two fundamentally different levels of identity: digital, where we are spending most of our (mental) time, and analog, where we still live and must return to inevitably. We are addicted to possibility and stimulation as the digital realm provides it for us. Also, Rushkoff's media ecologist tendencies sporadically flare up.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Man of FEEL

Saw Man Of Steel last night. Really enjoyed it. Gritty and re-boot-ish enough but still fun and campy in just the right places. With the exception of the random military woman saying Superman is "kind of hot" near the end of the movie, I was happy with my decision to suspend disbelief and enter its world. The Krypton technology, visual effects, awesome use of sound, etc. everything was great and sucked me right in. Even the story (specifically, the father/son relationships and self-control/fate issues) got me. I was on the verge of tears like 8 times. Despite our pre-movie debate where she claimed to prefer DC comics to Marvel, Vicky was not impressed with Man Of Steel.

I will make her watch the most recent Green Lantern and DareDevil movies until she repents.




Rating:
1/1 Seinfeld montages set to Superman music


Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Side Effects may include


Steven Soderbergh's latest film Side Effects had me hooked from the long, opening tracking shot that panned from a zoomed-out city shot, graaaaadually, over to a zoomed-in shot of a single apartment. So in the span of the first minute or so, you already have the feeling of a single, lonely individual somehow stuck in the cold, mechanical structure of society. 

That kind of thoughtfulness is rampant in this movie. Then, halfway though, the movie jumps genres. Everyone in our living room watching the movie let out a collective "Whaaaaaaattttttt?!??!?!" Great commentary on our proclivity to prescribe and the power of scorn/greed.
You should probably see it.

Rating: 4 1/2 out of 5  pills.

Storytelling Animals


Jonathan Gottschall's The Storytelling Animal has been my pleasure reading for the past week. If I wasn't in my final two weeks of Seminary I would probably write more, but I'll just say that this book was really engaging. I blitzed through it. Gottschall explores how and why human beings are addicted to fiction... so much so that we even create it in our sleep! The notion of story serves no apparent purpose, yet it has defined/motivated/explained human activity for millennia.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

His name is Mud

Saw Mud last night.. The poster (and even the trailer, to some extent) are misleading. It is not a tough-guy tale of Matthew McConaughey fighting for the love of his life, Reese Witherspoon. Well, it is, but only sort of. Really, it is a great coming-of-age-type story about a 14-year old boy, his best friend, and their adventures that teach them much about manhood, sex, love, hope, trust, and snakes. Those damn snakes. The two best "reviews" so far, that I have heard, came from my wife and friend right after we left the theater.

Luke: "I feel like it was a really good movie.... but I can't say exactly why...."

then 10 minutes later, walking home

Vicky: "I was constantly surprised! I never knew what was going to happen next!"

This is an impressive feat for a film that is over 2 hours and really takes its time divulging information. And yes, McConaughey's shirt does come off, but this is an "indie" film, so they make you wait 110 minutes for it.





Rating: 4 out of 5 snakes

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Cosmopolis



What a beautiful movie. The dialogue and cinematography make for a hypnotic combination. The characters speak as though they are members of two societies—one that you want to live in, and one that you are afraid you already do. This movie is not necessarily accessible, but is poses funny and fascinating questions about wealth, technology, politics, time, power, and more. Pattinson is great.

Also, I never thought I would watch the hunky vampire from Twilight get a rectal exam in a limousine while lecturing an employee on her financial and sexual acumen.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Grace and Law, Sing Along!


Everybody started freaking out about Les Miserables, and I didn't get it. When Hathaway and Jackman started winning awards for the their performance in it, I didn't get it. Then I saw the movie.
Now I get it.


I mean, good God, just look at this image...

...and try not to get emotional.

I was never big on musicals (though I'll never forget the first DVD I ever purchased), but damn, Victor Hugo knew what he was doing. The treatment of Grace is incredible: Javer was a formidable villain, a powerful picture of the attraction and ultimate futility of the Law, and Russell Crowe was not nearly as poor a singer as I was led to believe.

I think everyone on earth can relate, in some degree, to Jean Valjean's struggle for redemption that lasts a lifetime. Are we ever free from our sketchy past? How many good deeds are required to absolve ourselves? I mean, if I told you this guy could sing like an angel possessed, you would laugh, right?

Monday, January 14, 2013

Agony & Ecstasy


For Cinema, Arts, & Theology class we are exploring the life and work of various artists in reality and on film. In The Agony And The Ecstasy Charlton Heston plays a somewhat petulant Michelangelo, squaring off against Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison). Their relationship is actually quite touching. For some reason I found myself more empathetic towards the Pope. I know, I know, tortured artists must be anti-social, defiant, self-absorbed, etc. Interesting themes of calling vs. burden, ego vs. humility, and, well, love. Why do we subject ourselves to an emotion that exposes us to such lows and highs, such agony and ecstasy?

Friday, January 11, 2013

Looper


I was skeptical about seeing Looper. I thought a man literally battling his future self would be foolish. I was wrong.

It possesses many strengths and advantages inherent in the genre of Science Fiction (exploration of the obtuse, cool future gadgets, etc.) but none of its weaknesses (mercurial pacing, flat acting, etc.). The questions it raises about destiny, love, and what is worth living (or dying) for are rather profound. I want and love completely different things than I did even 5 years ago; I can't imagine 25 more.

Also, there were no less than three moments in the film that had me leaning forward, about to fall out of my chair, doing the Home Alone style face, complete with my palms on my cheeks. Very unpredictable and engaging!