In The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You, Eli Pariser argues the recent push for a more personalized Internet may not necessarily be in the best interest of Internet users, society or the Internet. Similar to Lori Andrews' book I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did, Pariser attempts to warn his reader about the hidden aspects of the Internet. The perspective of each author is very strong and convincing, however, they do differ in the focus and breadth of their argument.
Andrews' main goal is to develop a Social Networking Constitution. She relays story after story and lays out case after case about how social networks are getting away with stealing your information and not protecting your privacy. I feel her main approach is to scare her reader into taking action. She has a lot of examples about how a Social Network could be used for opportunistic reasons not only by the site itself but also by its users. Although she mainly argues about the ills of Social Networking, the topic does allow her to touch on what she see are the more broader issues with Internet security as a whole. Her arguments are sound and her examples are enlightening, however, I feel her approach is too “doomsday-esk”.
Pariser, on the other hand, focuses on the personalization of the Internet creating what he calls the “filter bubble”. His main focus is to point out web giants like Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft are in a race to gain as much information about you as possible in order for them to gain as much money as possible. (Intro) In the meantime, those same companies are creating an Internet that defeats its original purpose; to make available information and opportunities to the masses. The “filter bubble”, created by using algorithms to produce ads and information which are most similar to what we have looked in the past, “fundamentally alters the way we encounter ideas and information”, argues Pariser. (Intro) Pariser’s main point is that the Internet is being changed by companies who are in a personal data race and as consumers we are sacrificing what makes the Internet great; openness and freedom.
The perspective Pariser argues, I feel, is of a much greater concern than that of Andrews when it comes to the future students I will teach. From the standpoint of necessity, social networks are not as important as the sanctity of the Internet as a whole. With social networking, a user can always choose to post or not to post, to connect or not to connect. The user has power, all be it limited, to decide what he or she will or will not share with the rest of the world or to even have an account on a social site or not. However, with what Pariser calls the filter bubble, there is no choice at all at this point. He rightly points out with the filter bubble you are alone in it, it is invisible and you do not choose to enter the bubble. (Intro) To me, that is more scary than any of the examples and cases Andrews points out. For my students, I would rather them have the ability to be exposed to the entire Internet and not just the one that was personalized just for them, limiting the information and experiences they are exposed to.
I think you are correct in thinking Pariser's argument is of far greater concern then Andrew's when it comes to students. But while I can see how the sanctity of the internet is very important, I think this current generation needs to be very aware of how social networking will affect them. I think this "filter" bubble is the unforeseen bogeyman of the internet. While we can't see it, we know its there and we should be very scared of it. But you are very correct in saying we are sacrificing a lot to try and make the internet great. I wish I would of known I was sacrificing so much to make my purchasing habits more personalized. But maybe this is what Pariser is getting at. We didn't choose to opt into having our privacy invaded, okay, well maybe we did by joining the service website. But it should at least give us a choice to have our information used for our own personal betterment.
ReplyDeleteIn your discussion about Andrews’ book, you mentioned that “Her arguments are sound and her examples are enlightening, however, I feel her approach is too “doomsday-esk”.” I agree that her arguments are sound and she provides excellent examples of the negative consequences of sharing personal information. However, is she too “doomsday-esk?” I think she is purposely being provocative and trying to scare people in order to get people’s attention and to get them to take action. For most Americans, that is what it takes these days to get their attention and get them to take action. So, yes, painting a ‘doomsday’ scenario may be what it takes to foment change in this country.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that you believe that the perspective Pariser has, regarding Internet filtering, is a bigger concern than Andrews’ perspective, when it comes to impacting the students you teach. I do agree that Pariser, and the concerns he raises about information being filtered and not shown to us, is a big issue for us all to be aware of and concerned about. This is especially a major issue since we do not have control over how the filtering is done or if it is even done at all. It is indeed ideal if we all can have access to the entire Internet and not just what Google has filtered and presents to us from a search we do. I’ve wondered if there are any search engines that currently exist or may arise that do not do any filtering based on past searches or other filters. Do you know of any? It seems that if Pariser’s message about filtering becomes widespread that it could touch off a large furor that may cause new ‘search engine’ companies to arise that would provide unfiltered searches for us. Would people use those search engines if the search results are not so convenient or, what we would perceive as ‘relevant?’
However, I do believe that Andrews’ perspective regarding the risks on sharing personal information is an equally important perspective, not less important, for us as teachers and for our students. Andrews does talk primarily about the risks with sharing personal information on social networks, but she also refers to these same risks when applied to other web sites. Specifically, Andrews discusses the issue with “data scraping” where personal data is extracted from all sorts of web sites, not just social networks (Andrews, pp. 25-29). She also talks in detail regarding how search engine companies (e.g. Google, Yahoo) are continuously filtering, aggregating, storing, and selling our personal information (search histories). Andrews even gives some very specific examples of data extracted from at least three individual’s search histories and how this information can be very misleading and used against individuals (Andrews, pp. 26-29).
I also believe Andrews’ concerns are just as important as Pariser’s because our students are already heavy social network users. These social network sites are such an integral part of our student’s lives that I believe it is important that our students be educated on the risks involved. Students are not going to stop using these sites nor stop posting personal information. I mentioned in my own blog post this week about some of those risks to students of the personal information becoming public including risks of getting expelled from school, impacting future college opportunities, and impacting future job prospects. Thus, it’s incumbent on us as teachers and parents to help guide and coach our students and children on the risks of sharing personal information and mentioning to them some of the examples Andrews provides of the real-life negative consequences that can occur.
I have to say, you are the first person I disagree with about this subject matter. As hard as that was to say, let me explain why. You state that with Andrew’s problem, you have to log into a social network. Where most of her points have to do with social networks, primarily Facebook, she is using it more as a jumping off point. She discusses, not just social networks, but companies that collect data, sites that offer information about people without their consent (i.e. Spokeo or PeekYou in chapter 4), and even school districts taking pictures of children in their own homes (chapter 8).
ReplyDeleteI would also like to address where you wrote, “a user can always choose to post or not to post, to connect or not to connect.” I realize you were talking about social networks, but since it is an argument against why Andrew’s issue is less important to students than Pariser’s, I thought it was prevalent. It is true that someone can choose to post or connect, but Andrew’s didn’t just talk about social networks in this instance. For example, the student that got called into the assistant principal’s office in chapter 8 being accused of taking drugs. And how did he know? The school district was taking pictures of students and teachers alike in their homes. And the school district from a legal standpoint, got away with it. Although civilly they ended up paying the family, they got into no trouble in criminal court. And there is a good chance that, laws standing as they are now, other districts would get away with it still. These activities are what Andrews is fighting against, and I feel they are more important than getting put into a bubble filter. I would like to also say that I realize how terrible it can be to be put into a bubble filter. I don’t want to downplay the importance of that getting fixed, just that I think it is more important to focus on Andrew’s point of view first, or maybe just give it more attention.
I agree with you that Andrew’s approach is most likely to scare her readers into taking action. Although she does take a “doomsday-esk” approach I think that hearing story after story and knowing that you personally could become a victim is scary. Maybe I was easily swayed by her points, because I have personally seen and been the target on an online forum.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your summary about each author’s points and that Pariser’s points are probably the most pertinent to students. However I think there is more to it then just choosing to connect or not to connect. If I want to keep my phone number and address private I should be able to do that. I should not have companies like Spokeo giving that information out for free. I don’t think that its right that employers and creditors can go to sites such as this to determine my creditworthiness/reliability based on information that may or may not be accurate. Great post!