How social media sites are attempting to expose users to new ideas.

Well to start what are “Filter Bubbles”

In 2011, Eli Pariser gave a TED talk on the topic, arguing how content we see is being filtered by algorithms to “personalize” it. Pariser argues that the internet is showing us what we want to see, not necessary what we need to see. The worst part is we don’t get to see the content that is filtered out. This affects everything from Google search to our Netflix queues and especially our social media feeds.

Fast forward to 2017, and the problem presented by Pariser is still a problem that many are trying to tackle. How do companies code in the ethics of showing content that is both wanted and need?

Recently Facebook launched one way they are taking to do just that. When searching a topic on the site, it now shows what the “latest conversations” are on that topic. This is still in the early stages.  It’s still unclear what qualifies a topic for “Latest Conversations,” or if they’re manually selected or generated by an algorithm.

There are ways users can “pop” their own filter bubbles:  (From Mashable)

  • Don’t unfriend people based on beliefs.

39% of social media users have taken steps to block another user or minimize the content they see from them because of something related to politics – Pew Research 

  •  Don’t delete comments you don’t like
  • Engage with those you disagree with
  • Read the comments on your friends’ posts
  • Follow the media outlets you disagree with
  • Flag fake news

These are just a start!

With more and more people turning to social media and other online sources for news, it is important that multiple ideas and perspectives on those ideas are seen online.

Publications like the Washington Post have outlined how they think the media plays a role in sharing perspectives. Their simple answer: tell the news as straightforward as possible.

CNN has also written on the topic, saying that people need to have open conversations on topics, versus disregarding anything that does not confirm their pre-existing beliefs. They write that without those conversations, it can lead to “reckless sharing.”  Coming full circle to the spreading of fake news. As they say “do your own soul searching” or fact-checking before sharing.


Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Many publications lambast echo chambers, filter bubbles, and our tendency to engage with content that affirms and validates our beliefs, without addressing more fundamental concerns about why we engage in politics on social media at all, why we are offended by political views we disagree with, what really motivates us to express political opinions to the public. The common solution offered is to encourage people to seek out new sources of information and have challenging conversations. In fact, people with opposing views often do encounter each other on the internet, and, for the most part, the results are not promising. I propose that a lot of people just are not as interested in arriving at more accurate pictures of reality as they are validating their socially constructed identities. But for the number of people who are driven to constantly refine and updates their beliefs, they likely already are engaging with various conflicting perspectives, they just don’t have a space for exchanging their ideas in an honest setting. I think what people really would like, is to be able to butt heads with each other rigorously in a forum that doesn’t threaten their social persona. For this, I encourage people to check out, an anonymous live chat solution.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: