- Eli Pariser
- Brooklyn, NY
- United States
Author/Organizer, Author -- The Filter Bubble, Penguin Press, May 2011
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
LIVE TED Conversation: Join TED Speaker Eli Pariser
LIVE conversation with Eli Pariser, TED Speaker and author of The Filter Bubble, a fascinating look at the effects of online personalization.
The conversation will open at 12 Noon (Eastern Standard Time), May 14, 2011 with the question:
What should companies like Facebook and Google prioritize besides "relevance"?
ADMIN EDIT: Eli has requested that we keep the conversation and discussion open past the 1 hour mark. He will be checking in periodically and answering questions, and is looking forward to continuing a great TED Conversation!
abdulkarim al-wuhayb
and to let the users the freedom to turn it off when thy want.
because i really want to cancel this effect.
thank you
Ellen Pfeiffer
I would be personally very interested in a follow up activity. As a start: A Google co-founder is a member of the TED Brain Trust - shouldn't it be possible to convey an "idea worth thinking about" from this TED conversation directly? Google's credibility was build on making transparent the difference between search results and sponsored ads. So in a way the automated filtering leads Google away from its own core principle - why wouldn't a company understand the risk of that? Two obvious points:
1) If you filter, make it transparent ("this search has been filtered and personalized be be more relevant for you")
2) Give the user the option to shut off ALL filters
Beyond that, an automated algorithm requires strong assumptions about what increasing the relevance of information. But only some users will end up in a happy pink bubble - for others the cage is both visible and annoying. So why not offer users the chance to influence the filters (and not with useless advanced search options for language and region)?
For this suggestion, a very relevant concept to consider is the diverse roles we play in life - which change even within one day. No computer-based algorithm will ever detect on its own that five minutes ago I was looking up "Egypt" to book a business trip, but that I am now on my lunch break and want an update on the political situation.
Filters that might be helpful if they are both visible and user controlled might include "I need..."
- Background information
- Shopping options
- local answers
- ....
Advocating a "morally correctly biased" filter is just another form of censorship. But transparent, user-driven filtering might even make us a bit more aware of our choices and the hidden algorithms of our brain.
Don Campbell
It’s not perfect, but at least with the internet, if I force the search parameters, I can access any information on any subject out there. By continuously forcing the search parameters I will ultimately shift my filter profile to provide me with information that is more relevant to my needs, regardless of what my demographic profile might indicate.
I did become concerned when he brought up newspapers as a model to shaping internet filters in the future. Newspapers currently reflect the bias of the individual reporters, their editors and, ultimately, the owners of the paper who recruit, hire and fire these individuals. Whether they are writing an opinion piece on global warming or reporting a liquor store holdup, the writer inevitably inserts their bias into to the story.
The internet is the last place where people can go and dig up facts on issues in order to become fully informed. If you search for enough sources on any topic on the internet, you can eventually get to the real issues in order to make a decision.
Eli ‘s opinion is that the current algorithmic filters in place on the internet have some folks getting only information ‘junk food’.
In his opinion.
Eli thinks that the filters should be modified so that folks get a balanced diet of socially relevant information. Who determines what’s socially relevant? Eli Pariser? Barack Obama? George W. Bush?
I always get concerned whenever I hear someone pontificating on what’s best of anything for anyone. I know what’s best for me and I defer to Eli to determine what’s best for him. While his motives are admirable, if we let individuals begin to determine what information the rest of can access, the law of unintended consequences will reign supreme and, ultimately, the internet will end up like every other form
Pradip Romay
I enjoyed your talk very much. It made me think that keeping this channel as objective as possible, is partly our responsibility. This starts with the user being aware of the aspects of personalization (a useful tool) that compromise the objectivity of the information fed into our searches. When we are conscious of these issues, you have a greater control on how we conduct our searches and respond to the information we receive.
I would like to see Google (and other search engines) give us the option to enter this criteria at the moment we conduct the search. This way we can make sure that we will receive the type of information we are looking for in that determined moment.
Yours truly
PR
Cody Wanner
Gary Riccio
I think you presented some very important observations. I do not, however, completely agree with your conclusions. I believe another exigency for personal development and social responsibility is that the current universe of information filtering makes it more important than ever that one seek a diversity of perspectives, embrace the tension that such diversity often brings, strive for balance of critically-resilient perspectives, and crystallize these different perspectives into a more complete understand of our local engagements with the world in which we live. In other words, as long as we compare our own learning (e.g., filtered by various web-based sources of information) with that of other people who we know to be different, we will be just fine. In fact, we will thrive.
Consider, for example, what you did when you asked your friends to do the same Google search? It certainly helped you discover and demonstrate how local (person specific) the filtering is and how different the results can be. I wonder if it also is the case that the two sets of search results together provide some insight that is greater than the sum of the two parts. Does it, for example, reveal to a person in one locality (particular collection of interests, not just local geography) how a person in another locality might view an event of common interest? Even if this is just a hypothesis (and if only constructed by a computer), isn't this interesting in its own right? If so, perhaps we should emphasize the importance of connecting diverse localities and coming to understand the differences in perspective as much as coming to understand how computers or advertisers think about our demographic.
I think the world is much more interesting if viewed multi-locally (i.e., as diverse) instead of globally (i.e., as potentially flat or homogeneous). What do you think?
Leti Stiles
Joan Connelly
Sebastian Kaul
YES / NO / MAYBE
As a product designer, I am currently working on a discovery solution myself and my point of view is that most content portals unfortunately do not offer any filters to personalise the service which results quite often in an information overload and the knowledge you are looking for and relevant to you as an individual lost in the noise of streaming and dynamically changing content.
Plato Hagel
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5794/125/
Kent Karlsson
Thanks for a very informative talk on TED and also for your participation in the political game here in USA that so greatly effects so many people around the globe and here at home. Regarding Facebook and Google responsibility to the public it can only be held in place by us the users of their systems. Of course it would be great if they kept us all informed of what they do and when, being Swedish and growing up with a strong consumer protection on everything given away or sold in the country helps everyone in the end. I think all of us living here in the US most get more active in citizenship and participation of "The American Dream" before it's all gone. So great to see a young guys like yourself taken a lead in the game of life. Best of luck and I will follow you here and on Facebook
Kent
Cere Davis
Harald Haddingjar
They should embrace the spirit of open source :-) and open service.
Hamza Kubba 20+
My answer is... it depends. It depends on what the subject matter being searched for is. For many topics, the answer most relevant to the user *should* be on top. For example, if I do a lot of searches regarding programming languages, searching for "lisp" should probably show me results regarding Lisp, the computer language, whereas if I were a speech pathologist, I would expect my results to relate to speech.
That said, there are questions/queries that don't have clear-cut answers, or more importantly, they have conflicting answers. Primarily, I believe the two main topics in this regard are politics and religions (and related topics such as morality, ethical conduct, evolution vs creationism, etc.).
For such searches, the order of the results should still be relevant to the user, however, in addition to the regular results, there should be a results area which directly lists opposing/conflicting/alternative beliefs and viewpoints on the same topic. Impartial/multi-source information (like Wikipedia), should also be prioritized regardless of the user's viewpoint, so that such a source is always on the first page of results (preferably in the top 3) when available. In theory, even if a Wikipedia article is inaccurate/biased, it would evolve and be corrected over time, unlike the vast majority of articles and blog posts on the internet.
Maisam Najafizada
First, the development of the internet is following the pattern of the western development. Second, even theoretically, one individual cannot be virtually present in many communities. For instance, if I got newsfeed of Afghanistan/Pakistan, Egypt, Japan Nuclear Crisis, NASA discoveries, Euro football championship, NBA matches, Cricket matches of Australia and West Indies, Russian spy involvment in Georgia, Chinese growth, etc., what could I make out of them?
I don't want to be locked in a room, but I don't want to be thrown in the space too.
Keyan Shokraie
To return to that sense of exploration, I believe the most important factor would be, as you stated plainly, to have transparency in the filtration process. Filters, in and of themselves, aren't bad - but merely tools to get product messages across to potential customers.
In the real world, when I go shopping for something, I filter using an active process in my mind based on mood, temperament, budget, etc. I think the web would benefit from having filters that you click and un-click, similar to how you can manage what netflix is showing you. That way, if you were in the mood to explore outside your bubble, you could easily do so & if you just need to buy your car, you'd be able to do so immediately.
In terms of other factors to filter for - significance (as defined by physical, biological, social, ecological impact of a large scale), innovation (cancer cures, scientific breakthroughs, & business), international relevance (to help generate a global citizenship) & domestic relevance (to help build a sense of community). These are only my thoughts and suggestions - and I don't know that I wouldn't reorder the importance at some different moment in my life.
James McBennett 500+
I just wrote a paper on interactive communal digital displays and mentioned "Fliter Bubbles."
Jay Vidyarthi 100+
To what extent do you feel that this 'filter bubble' is a symptom of a larger problem in societal organization? I find that, even in the physical world, people tend to find information which aligns with their existing beliefs (psychologists call it 'confirmation bias').
People hang out with similar friends, read sympathizing newspapers/websites, etc. Isn't this pattern in social media simply a result of product designers giving people what they already want? I feel like solving this problem may lie in changing our values more than redesigning technology. While a new algorithm will certainly help, it may just dissuade users from using facebook (as they don't WANT competing outlooks).
Thoughts?
Phil Warnell
So for instance, on one hand it can have people more quickly informed about certain events, like say what happened in Egypt, where the media served as a rallying point for those who thought it was time to force change. On the other hand, because of the sheer volume of information things like our perceived levels of anxiety and fear gets raised over what they were in the past. This is because we are presented with more things to fear, yet unfortunately are still using personal filters which finds the input as local and immediate. So it’s not so much about our values needing to change, yet how we think about those things which have them to change.
“All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values”
- Marshall McLuhan
“Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America--not on the battlefields of Vietnam.”
- Marshall McLuhan
“Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn't know the first thing about either.”
- Marshall McLuhan
“A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding.”
- Marshall McLuhan
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/all_media_exist_to_invest_our_lives_with/152850.html
Plato Hagel
Phil, the point is to be aware of who can become the designers of the Hidden Filters. That is a global perspective of management of the internet.
Yes Eli is talking about Google, Facebook, but I am making one aware if the potential is great, management of the internet and those who manage it, then you have to be aware that they too, are the Gate Keepers?
That is my question, about what is hidden from perspective.
Selectively this does not sit with the bubbles some are involvement in, yet remain unaware of the bubble they can become by being wrapped in the larger bubble of understanding called the internet.
Again, I would point back to what I said about emergence and the algorithm, you being, and what is attached to all that you can and will become given the parameters of the internet and what it will allow?
Phil:"However, it is also to ask, did you truly think that such a powerful media as this, was going to escape the same scrutiny, control and yes even manipulation that the others have faced throughout the ages;"
You also missed the point about who owns the medium owns the message.:)The danger then are thus magnified by who owns the internet? Who owns it Phil?
I am not unaware of the potentials realized that politically can be mastered by using the internet to advance social media to help people become aware? Imagine if one were to say that this is not right and so the political message I have is not appropriate according to the "Masters of the Internet?"
Owning Broadcasting stations one can have a political bend too that allow the work of manipulation on it's readers. You have to be aware of that too.:)
Plato Hagel
Richard Stallman had mention at a municipal level of possibly challenging creating the hardware. A choice other then, the big telecoms to me it seems the right thing to do for accessing knowledge without charge and discrimination.
The Universal Library. They of Google might called Google books, but that has always been my point about access to information. Access to the Library.
Best,
Anders Björk 30+
In essence since all these databases contain personal information and there should exist a way to search to those data yet in a filtered (eg. google, since the page rank is already that) but in understandable, transparent, consistent and repetitive filtered way. Whom ever the user is, or browser, or location ...the user uses.
Facebook should make it possible to reset the filter for news or make some user adaptable parameters and also make the users aware of how it actually works.
Russel Pollanen
1. Choice (Variety of choices and opinion selected by the user.
2.Categorizing of the elements (also giving the user the option to categorize the different elements, such as "personal relevance" in different orders and choices at any time.)
3. Personalization
4. Social
5. Political
6. Randomization
Don't blend in advertising media sources. placing personal ads directed toward me when I choose a personal relevance is fine. However, don't intermix and confuse me with what is advertising and what is opinion or fact. Maybe going off too far here from the base.
Eli Pariser 50+
Oh, and if you're interested, I've got a book on the topic out this week: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594203008?ie=UTF8&ref_=sr_1_1&qid=1305382795&sr=8-1&linkCode=shr&camp=213733&creative=393181&tag=thefilbub-20
Look forward to continuing the conversation.
Stuart Gower
Are we missing the point castells made about individuals aligning themselves to networks? the algorithm or filter bubble is not even on a persons mind when they look for networks, they are spurred on by what they know to be true in there own everyday. Most people know their data is being collected and used against them, but what most people don't know is WHY?.. should we then demand that all our info is made secret, or made public.. if we hide it- its going to be stolen, and if we allow everyone to see it then we will feel at risk. its a vicious circle imo. And then there is Power, but that's a whole other debate. Tim Woo has said some interesting things on this (though i dont agree with most he says)
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Also an interesting result of these filter bubbles is being able to identify the new 'borderless countries' that are forming.
Kathryn Hoban
Eli Pariser 50+
Angela Dunn
Eli Pariser 50+
Angela Dunn
A Balaji
Ganesan Ravishanker
Eli Pariser 50+
I do think it's a problem for people to hear only their own political views -- and I say that as a former political organizer. Democracy requires discourse, and discourse requires at least a basic shared narrative or set of facts.
This is exacerbated when the filtering is invisible. It's one thing to know you're turning on FOX and understand that you're not likely to see much good news about Obama. It's another to Google "Obama" and have "no birth certificate" come up, and not have any sense that that's a personally tailored result.
Ahmet Yükseltürk 500+
A Balaji
Eli Pariser 50+
jonathan pariser
Eli Pariser 50+