Response to ‘The Filter Bubble.’

 

http://csmt11.posterous.com/the-filter-bubble-20078

 

I was particularly interested in Sophie’s book during the week we shared our individual experiences.  While the majority of the class had read positive books on the benefits of social media and marketing, it was out of place to see an critical book.  Rather than a ‘How To,’ Sophie’s Book ‘The Filter Bubble’ explored the synonymous concept of internet filtration.  Much like Netflix suggesting movies based on your preferences, the author foresees a very near future in which the “internet filter looks at the things you seem to like- the actual things you’ve done, or the things people like you like- and tries to extrapolate.”  He criticizes the narrowness ones personal exposure to the world will be, as well as the concept of technological determinism.  I however, would have to disagree with the author in many of his arguments.

 

Like a science fiction film, which capitalizes on the fears of present day concerns, Praiser has taken internet filtering and extrapolated it to a ridiculous degree.  I certainly agree limited exposure can lead to narrow-minded thinking and uninformed decision-making.  As Sophie explains, current events probably should take higher level priority than Justin Bieber-related information.  But even if the author’s hypothetical scenario were to occur, I highly doubt individuals would be victims of the ‘Filtration Bubble.’  People will still be exposed to outside even and other human beings in Praiser’s model, and will still have other unfiltered media outlets.  While it is understandable that authors would want to explore the possible downside to long-tail marketing, one needs to keep in mind that short tail marketing will not disappear.  Budgets for the short-tail are enormous - information or products that nearly everyone will want.  Long-tail niche information or products have smaller budgets.  So while customized information, products etc. are convenient, people will no doubt continue to be exposed to shared mainstream information.

 

Praiser’s concept of ‘technological determinism,’ is also not that different from the sense of 19th century Positivism.  I agree that one should not put blind faith in technology, and that people should be critical thinkers about accepting any new technology - either choosing to participate or not, and having self-control over usage.  I am critical of his notion of ‘Post-materialism,’ however.  He describes the present Post-materialist generation as valuing “self-expression and ‘being yourself’.”  To a degree I find this laughable, as a great deal of social media Identity uses material ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes.’  Since social media is a platform which generates questions about identity, it is understandable but brash to characterize an entire generation based on the new venue of self-expression.  Previous generations likely had similar interests in self-expression and ‘being oneself,’ regardless of more or less materialism.  Again Praiser has taken present day concerns and run away with them, pushing them a bit ridiculously to the nth degree.

 

Justin Tuma