Skip to main content

The truth behind filter bubbles



After listening to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism podcast: The truth behind filter bubbles by Richard Fletcher (2020), I have been enlightened on a topic I never would have thought held such immense significance in our lives. Filter bubbles. 

What is a filter bubble, you may ask? A filter bubble is a state of intellectual or ideological isolation that may arise from algorithms feeding us the information we agree with based on our past behaviour and search history. However, there are advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it's incredibly convenient to find specialised content targeted towards your own personal interests. For example, I could open up TikTok and instantly land on a video that piques my interest.
But on the other hand, filter bubbles can produce cognitive biases and create an informational barrier around people. Doing so prevents them from seeing opposing points of view, resulting in a very narrow-minded train of thought. Critics of the filter bubble include Bill Gates, who believes "filter bubbles are a serious problem in the news", and Wired Magazine boldly wrote they are "destroying democracy."

The podcast explains that online news mainly has a young to middle-aged audience. In such an era where technology is thriving and growing at a tremendous rate, it is no surprise that Facebook is the dominant social media for news use. Interestingly, it is also a media highly scrutinised for its filter bubbles. However, these filter bubbles are not limited to social media exclusively. A range of other services, from search engines to emails, also use algorithms to deliver news to people. 

Fletcher highlights the significance of personalisation and its relevance. A key distinction in terms of personalisation is between self-selected and pre-selected personalisation. Self-selected personalisation is when people choose what to consume and what to avoid. It is selective exposure. Pre-selected personalisation, however, happens to people without their knowledge. Because algorithms could be making choices on behalf of people, they may not be aware of it. 

Knowing this, you may decide that offline news content would perhaps be better. However, it, too, is not without consequences. As humans, we naturally select the content that aligns with our political or social views. Many audiences still engage in personalisation when selecting their news sources. For example, a right-wing political supporter would probably pick up a right-wing newspaper instead of a left-wing one. It's ingrained in our human nature. This is because we prefer comfort and the easier option. It's not easy to seek out the truth, particularly when we discover we were wrong.

It is explained in the podcast that social media combines both types of personalisations. The news people see on their feeds corresponds to the people they follow, be it friends or particular news organisations. However, algorithms could essentially hide news from audiences and incidentally expose people to news even when they aren't looking for it.

Search engines, on the contrary, function a little differently because when people load up them up, they are intentionally trying to find news through searching key phrases. They are then provided with an abundance of sites to choose from. Although, it is possible that search engines may use algorithmic selection when providing information. This could stem from choices we have made in the past to give us the sites it thinks would engage us the most.

Even though we may be seeing more diversity when we use social media and search engines for news, it's explained that the diversity consists of more partisan and polarising news sources. Online news environments generally seem to be more polarising. Rarely will our Twitter comfort zones expose us to opposing views, and consequently, we could become victims to our own prejudices.

Listening to the podcast did elucidate things, and now I know the truth about filter bubbles. As explained, there are advantages and disadvantages. However, I would prefer to choose whether I can see opposing and differential views on my newsfeed instead of being limited to what the algorithm thinks best for me. More awareness should be brought to people about filter bubbles and how limiting they can be. We can burst the bubbles by consuming news from a variety of sites and actively seeking out both sides to arguments. We should be expanding the mind, not limiting it. We should cultivate a learning exchange as opposed to solely promoting our own ideas. People should educate themselves on the topic to recognise the profound effects of polarisation so we can all break free of our filter bubbles and consume news content in a varied and thought-provoking manner.





Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Local radio cutbacks: ‘BBC bosses have taken their eyes off the ball’ says former Radio Leicester legend

BBC Leicester legend Martin Ballard describes local radio as “a jewel that should be preserved” as the station faces staffing cuts. Radio Leicester has a special significance and place in local radio, as it was one of the first local stations introduced by the BBC in the 1960s. Today (November 8) is the 55th anniversary of the station, and in an exclusive interview, the former presenter says he fears that the cuts will silence the “friendly voice in the corner of the room”. Mr Ballard, 61, has produced and presented a plethora of programmes covering countless elections, budgets and major sporting events, to name a few. Throughout his career spanning almost four decades, he worked predominantly for BBC Radio Leicester. He expressed his sadness towards the looming cuts and explained that once there is shared programming, “the keyword in local radio doesn’t work anymore because it’s no longer local.” Taking East Midlands Today as an example, he said: “People in Leicester who watch East Mi...
2 comments
Read more

Egg shortages in the UK: Which supermarkets are affected?

The UK has been hit by a wave of egg shortages due to struggles in the poultry industry, forcing supermarkets to ration supplies. The shortages, caused by Britain’s bird flu outbreak and rising costs for farmers, have left supermarket shelves empty while shoppers rush to stock up on supply. Several supermarkets have had to consider rationing the product, with Tesco the latest chain to join others in limiting supply.  Tesco, the UK’s biggest supermarket chain, has followed Asda and Lidl in limiting the purchase of eggs. Customers are now limited to just three boxes of eggs at checkout. Although the supermarket introduced restrictions, it claims to maintain a “good availability” of eggs and is simply taking precautions. Asda’s restrictions have reduced customer purchases to two boxes per shopper, while Lidl allows up to three boxes per shopper. Furthermore, a spokesperson for The British Free Range Egg Producers Association (BFREPA) estimated the shortages to last past Christmas. He ...
Post a Comment
Read more