Eli Pariser: "The Filter Bubble"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-17/eli-pariser-filter-bubble
Eli Pariser
Jen Campbell
A quiet revolution is taking place on the Internet. The top 50 websites collect an average of 64 bits of information each time we visit. The personal data they track -- from our politics to the shoes we just browsed on Zappos – help advertisers tailor offers just for us. But one online pioneer believes we pay a big price for that customized experience – living in our own information universe. In our so-called “filter bubble,” we receive mainly familiar news that confirms our beliefs. And we don’t know what’s being hidden from us. Diane and her guest, Eli Pariser, talk about understanding the costs of online personalization.
Guests
Eli Pariser
Board President and former executive director of MoveOn.org
Related Items
Author Extra: Eli Pariser Answers Your Questions
Eli Pariser stayed after the show to answer a few more questions.
Q: Can you speak to the long-term retention of social media data, such as Tweets and Facebook status updates? The value of tweets to the individuals who make them diminish over time. Do you advocate for deleting tweets as they become stale?
- From Neil via Email
A: I think it’s a little different for Twitter than for Facebook, because Twitter is an inherently public medium – everything you do is public. And in general, I’m for retaining public data – the good, the bad, and the in-between.
Facebook should give users a choice in the matter when the data in question is private – if you want to take down your Facebook account and the data associated with it, there should probably be a process for that. Right now, Facebook seems to be willing to make private data (like when you said you were a fan of something in 2009) public without your consent. So it’d be good if there was a way to take that data out of their systems entirely.
Q: Google and Facebook are free and nobody is compelled to use them. Why shouldn’t they construct their algorithms to best suit their business needs?
- From Mark via Email
A: Mark Zuckerberg often mentions that he wants to make Facebook an indispensable utility, like a phone company. If that’s what he wants to do, more power to him – but utilities have a responsibility to the public to serve them well. This is like a phone company saying, “we’re going to tap your calls and use them however we want, and if you don’t like it you can use another communication platform.”
Q: I tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to personal information
I put out on the web, and I also use firewall software such as Peer
Block which is supposed to block most IP addresses and HTTP that try
to connect to my computer... is this doing anything is the way of
protecting my information or is it just making me feel better?
- Steve via Email
A: I did compile a list of the 10 quickest fixes here on my website, www.thefilterbubble.com. But the truth is that there’s no permanent way to protect yourself or opt out – the technology that does the data mining and personalization is way ahead of the tech that protects most users.
Q: Knowing this happens, how is writing a book that will be recommended to people on Amazon who already agree, going to change things?
- Michael via Email
A: Well, that’s where the existing broadcast media come in – hopefully, I’ll get out of the bubble of people interested in personalization. Thank goodness for Diane Rehm.
Read an Excerpt
From The Filter Bubble. Copyright 2011 by Eli Pariser. Excerpted by kind permission of Penguin Press:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Being "slimed" by tailored information and selective order of access is so much kinder than abrupt exclusion and censorship, don'tcha think? It's getting to the point that only 2% of American citizens every achieve adulthood, and half of these are fictive corporate entities with computer network brains: Ultra rational when profit is to be maximized. Corporeal life is "so yesteryear."
Interesting comment pancake. I would not go that next step and say the thoughts of the majority are not worthy. Most of the information "news" is available to anyone who wants to see it and many are capable of processing it in a competent way. If anything MoveOn.org should consider itself part of the problem and not the solution. I would not include Al Jazeera in this informational mix because basically we are banned from seeing it by our government and this is a crime as far as I see it. The American people are not permitted to view our actions from the other side of the equation by our government not the media. The United States government is the main suppressor of honest complete information reaching it's citizens.
Let's watch what the Diane Rehm Show, CSpans Washington Journal and the rest of the MSM filter this week. So far nothing announced on the Rehm show, Washington Journal elsewhere about the Palestinian protest that our news has been basically ignoring for decades. Move over Aipac conference this coming weekend,
In the 'old days' a good ad made me think that I could benefit from or use something even if I didn't relize it and was not looking for it. As ads get more targeted it seems as if the advertisers are of the opinion that Devo expressed in the '80s, "Freedom of choice is what you got, freedom FROM choice is what you want."
Qcicle:
No, Devo got it backwards (as will the guest), although half correct.
Laurie Anderson was correct in 2001 when she proclaimed, "Freedom is a sca-a-ary thing!"
Advertising methods have crept into public discourse and crippled representative politics. Pubs and Dems boast all the variety between Fab and Tide. A con game is when something not real is sold, and that is happening every millisecond now. I just passed through the MSN.com on my way here where they told me about, a healthy snack for every craving, finding my perfect hairstyle, and that Arnold claims he fathered a secret baby. Somehow I don't think these messages were tailored to me. But when it matters they are, and a tiny minority owns all the media one way or another. That's why it remains a wasteland: Not relevant to real needs.
Today people can exist without being exposed to anything they choose not to be exposed to.
While Eli and MoveOn is you're guest and lead subject lack of exposure is increasingly extending to all levels of peoples existence, far beyond News and Politics.
Today one can leave Caribou Main and drive to San Diego and eat the same food, listen to the same 'radio', stay in the same lodgings watching the same TV, even see the same architecture. People can take their bubble with them wherever they go.
I'm certain exposure to what is outside ones bubble will make no difference. Bill Moyers made several observations on Tavis Smileys show. One observation was how presentation of fact does not change peoples opinion because peoples opinions are based on their beliefs, not the facts. How presenting fact someone does not want to know gets the messenger branded the enemy. In Bills case, a Liberal. And how "fact based Journalism is the endangered species of our time".
Our media experience and personalization of content allows us to be exposed to nothing we wish not be exposed to, but would exposure to all data make any difference?
Haven't there been studies showing when a lie is repeated in the lies debunking the repeating of the lie reinforces the lie? And after one falls into the hole of their beliefs and what they want to be true trying to break the bubble is futile.
Anyone who believes that their click stream is not a data gold mine is naive. I think it's a given that when you are searching for information, regardless the back end "click stream" data is there for potential use for good or evil. Any medium has the potential to influence the reader, listener. So what should we do, Eli, turn off TV, radio, stop using the internet or continue to self inform with caution?
When Netflix or Amazon 'suggests' something based on my previous purchases I cringe. I don't need an algorithm to tell me what I like. Perhaps these and other sites like them could include a checkbox that states: "I'm too dumb to figure things out on my own, so please think for me".
I have a question about search engines such as dogpile.com, the so called meta searches that reportedly use other search engine algorythms, and then return the top results. does this type of tool minimize the effects of filter bubbles?
Who is scheduling the guests and topics for the show now? First we had a ridiculous discussion on the Gold Standard in which the two guests who were not conservative economists couldn't mount a sensible defense against the historical inaccuracies and economic fantasies being peddled by the Ron Paul crowd, and now we have a guy who doesn't understand basic search issues and who is peddling more conspiracy theories. He just admitted that the way to defend yourself against this "profiling" is to intentionally seek out good, reliable sources of information. Isn't that common sense? Are there no guests available to discuss good, reasonable, fact-based topics?
Why is Eli Pariser surprised that the search engines have collected data and know what we do? It is part of their job to do searches, and they have to maintain a huge database and create indexes to perform their job.
The real issue is whether we want more general or more specific results when we search. We have always had a choice to search with better combination of keywords, choose to log in or not, compare two search engines side by side, give out information when we answer surveys via social networks.
Google is no more "malicious" than other search engines, social networks, or any for-profit business that wants to collect data and make more profit based on their knowledge of their target consumers.
This strikes me too much as a backdoor into censorship. Who decides what is a fair algorithim? Move on.org? Our govt.? Leave it private the various faction even themselves out.
There is nothing wrong with companies making a profit, that is why people have jobs in the first place. So if Google/yahoo... are making themselves more attractive to advertisers then good for them. You can choose not to use their services. Hate to be the voice of reason but society runs on money, if you want a search engine that is not beholden to advertisers, start one and charge a monthly fee.
There is a good video on Youtube that explains the Facebook Newsfeed algorithm (also known as the Edgerank algorithm).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI4YIYInou0
Why can't we have it both ways? I often appreciate getting search results pre-filtered to my tastes, but just as often I also want search results to be unbiased. Can't we insist that search engines, like Google, and other companies provide a button or link on their web pages that let me choose which results I want (filtered or unfiltered)? If consumer pressure won't get such buttons provided, perhaps gov. rules (shudder, I know) could?
What, if anything, is Congress doing about this? Should there be some sort of oversight by an independent authority to keep these giant companies in check?
Jeff
Bethesda MD
What, if anything, is Congress doing about this? Should there be some sort of oversight by an independent authority to keep these giant companies in check?
Jeff
Bethesda MD
My God! I want to know everything there is to know or "need to know about to be a good citizen" as Mr. Pariser puts it.
Since I have an old Dell desktop, live in a working-class city outside of Boston and don't buy a lot of things, I would be profiled as not deserving or wanting to see a thorough search - and even Mr. Pariser said that it would be known what a PC versus a Mac user would want to know! I would love to have a Mac or an I-phone, but don't have a lot of money even though I'm very well educated, am involved in many public interest projects and vote in every election. It does seem to come down to economic discrimination.
Much of the conversation revolves around the use of these technologies by intelligent and educated adults. My worry is about the subtle and not-so-subtle manipulation of children and teen perceptions about what is important.
From all the callers who have directly refuted this poor, underinformed, wannabe author, the greatest takeaway from this segment, unfortunately, is that The Diane Rehm Show is not a reliable source of information on the internet and computer security. OTOH, some of his information could be true for your great-grandmother who has no idea what the internet is or how her computer works but loves to click, click, click to while away the hours. An lazy, poorly researched alarmist topic certain to garner a minimum level of sales among those easily spooked.
I don't want to dismiss Eli's concerns, but there are some basic strategies that I find work well (granted they assume more awareness than the average computer user has):
1. Don't use Facebook or Twitter. They are essentially junk and a distraction -- the discourse is on a par with the cell phone conversations you overhear in a public place (Yeah, I'm going past WalMart now. Yeah, the weather's nice. Hey, that's funny. I'll be home later.")
2. Use a cell phone just for making emergency calls. If you must use it otherwise, look up how to disable as much tracking information as possible and store as little personal information on it as possible.
2. Use Firefox as a browser, not some version of Internet Explorer, and install some of the privacy add-ons, such as AdBlock and BetterPrivacy.
3. Be selective and ignore the distractions -- e.g., on Amazon blow by their recommendations and just look at reviews for books you are interested in.
4. For news sites, stores, etc. that require a sign up to get access to features of their sites, create some throw-away personas with fake information.
If a government agency, say Homeland Security, were doing this type of collecting or filtering the public would be screaming bloody murder. Since it's done in the name of marketing people seem to be content to just let it be.
I think that Eli Pariser is spot on. What a lot of people need to understand is that what he is trying to promote is not an attempt to forcefully change any user's internet experience. Instead, what he is trying to do put more choices into the user's hands rather than the hands of Google, Facebook, advertisers, etc. It is all about user choice including the choice to keep one's internet experience exactly the same as it is today.
I liked his final thought about integrating configuration settings into the internet browser which allows the user to scale how much the displayed content will be filtered based on what you are most likely to click on. I would like to expand that idea. In addition to a single scaling bar, how about also adding "advanced" options which include scaling bars for various content subjects such as politics, music, movies, art, science, financial, etc. Some people might want the current status quo applied to some subjects while simultaneously desiring a completely filterless experience with other subjects.
Again, it is all about promoting user choice. Mr. Pariser is not trying to take anything away from anyone's internet experience.
Finally, to all who believe that users have the choice to not use Google, Facebook, etc it should be noted that scripts are running in the background of webpages all of the time which are doing the exact same thing and you do not even know about it unless you use a special internet browser addon which lets you micromanage scripts. One can literally never touch a Google product and Google can still have a massive influence on one's web browsing experience. There is no choice like this one. Only the illusion of choice. There is something very wrong with that in my opinion. We should have more transparent choices.
Something struck me as disingenuous about the whole conversation. I certainly don't wait for google and its compatriots to give me news - I go to NPR, BBC or whatever directly. I get email alerts and updates on subjects I want from NYT or WPost. Maybe there are people who are lazy enough to let google's fingers do the walking, but I don't know any of them. It is fascinating that two people can get completely different search results from the same terms, but again are they lazy enough not to keep searching on a variety of engines to get what they ultimately want?
Please Diane - get a "fact checker" to weed out the mis-information and out-right lies told on your show today, and provide corrections and rebuttal to loyal listen's who may have been lead astray.
Start pointing out that on September 12 the Acxiom database , that ".... knew more about the 9/11 attackers
than available the Federal Gov't." was a database NOT built from the internet, but from direct mail and other old school methods
see the site: ivebeenmugged.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/05/acxiom.html - where by the way, the author seems to have gotten much of his info!
Then correct the impression that Facebook is controlling your content. Although the Facebooks "news feed" IS filtered by Facebook .. the user has complete control to affect the outcome. The "most recent" news is TOTALLY under the control of the user ... not Facebook ... as the author said today.
As to the premise that Google, or anyone else, is hiding info from the internet user .. that is ridicules ... if the user doesn't see what they want in the top 5 or 10 results, they merely look further down the list, or refine the search with more terms!
(NOTE however that if Net Equality is not maintained, some sites may become lost! - But that's a subject for another show!)
If the author wants people to be more educated and make smarter decisions, maybe he should do if via Education of the public .. not with scare tactics, conspiracy theory's, increased regulations, or expecting profit making businesses to have a social conscience above profit!
Thank you, "Florida-David" you said it. The assumption seems to be that people are not smart enough to look past the top results or recommended sites, and that people are getting all their news and information from Google or Yahoo!. That is a faulty assumption from the outset and makes all of Pariser's, and unfortunately the show's, statements more hyperbole and scare tactics than a real issue for concern.
There is a danger with all developing technologies in their uninformed use by the masses. The mining and storing of large amounts of data about every person actively using the internet is something that all internet users should be aware of. It is also something which is absolutely necessary to the evolution of the internet.
There has simply been little to no technical education of the average user. This means that the average user is at the tender mercies of the latest technologies to be brought to bear. All users should understand the basic technologies used for customization, and how to negate them.
Metropolis Daily (Reporter Yuan Ji Liang Li correspondent only ) Caidian ashes of a man convicted of stealing the purposes of extortion and sentenced to probation. Less than a year , he had another place ,mbt donna,Man convicted of killing three thousand yuan friends postmortem rental debt disp, According to the investigation ,donne mbt scarpe, 40-year- Ryu is a man in his early set of Street Caidian District , and last year 26 January , Liu Zengyin ashes theft extortion by Caidian District Court sentenced two years probation for 2 years . Last October , sneaked into parties Jiangxia Ryu no money , want to return to prostitution. the afternoon of October 24 last year , Liu Wang,mbt uomo, from the funeral home to inquire about beating around the bush will be buried in his mother 's casket Chrysostom Street cemetery , two hours later arrived at the cemetery to bury the urn just Stolen , and leave Wang,Wenzhou man Lianzhuang 13 drink-driving cars witho, send money side of the police side ,mbt scarpe, but Ryu to the bank accounts of others , and disguise the first to take money out before going to ATM machines . December the same year ,mbt sandali,Middle School students proved to be independent wi, Liu was arrested at home .
本报汉中讯（记者 何杰）昨日凌晨，西乡县村民余永春挥刀砍杀妻子和岳父岳母时，涓滴不躲避身边12岁的女儿。等女儿冲出家门求助舅母报警，但为时已晚，妈妈和外公外婆被杀死。 清晨1时许，西乡县杨河镇中坝村的大多数村民已入睡，该村村民余永春家却是一阵吵闹声。“大略在凌晨1点40分，余永春家的那个女孩冲出家门，跑到她舅外氏。”该村一村民说，12岁的小雨(化名)到舅舅家，说她爸爸拿刀子要杀她的妈妈跟外公外婆，小雨的舅妈随即报警。 县公安局接到报案即时赶到现场勘探，逝世者杨某等3人分辨是余永春的岳父、岳母和妻子，而小雨的父亲、35岁的余永春已不翼而飞。警方经访问、侦察断定，余永春有重大作案嫌疑 ,斗破苍穹。 目前，警方已会同有关部分在公共场合、交通要道设卡排查，全力抓捕犯罪嫌疑人。同时赏格征集犯法嫌疑人余永春的有关线索，假如有大众能提供有关余永春的逃跑、匿藏等线索，警方将给予线索供给者2000至10000元的嘉奖。