While reading this article I began to think a lot about how it connects to the Filter Bubble. Polonetsky mentions that the most important issue to consider when it comes to customer privacy is “transparency.” If the data being aggregated by companies are used to benefit the users by some sort of improvement with the service offered, then users are completely ok with that. This is fascinating because while so much of society are trapped in a filter bubble, and may want to deviate away from its adverse effects, they willingly trapped themselves in there in the first place. Also when asked what the most overlooked issue is when it comes to businesses and customer privacy Polonetsky states that it is choosing passwords. I find his notion that users choosing poor passwords (ex: 1234, ABCDEF) are extremely vulnerable to hackers. And that using the same password for every site basically invites hackers into stealing your data. As Polonetsky mentions, strong consumer relationships are the determinants of success and I highly agree with him. If our relationships with companies are transparent, and companies are using our data responsibly with full disclosure, then this enables us the consumers to feel safe, but if otherwise, how can we truly trust the services we are using? Simply telling us that collecting our data to benefit us is not good enough of a reason to make users feel secure.

Article:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226519

We have had wiretapping laws for telephones for decades, and now a new proposal has been in place for the FBI to be able to wiretap the “Digital World.” If legislation for the FBI being able to screen and monitor the activities on certain sites such as Google and Facebook, then this could mean serious business. A wide majority of users are daily users of these two sites, and while the FBI claims that it is imperative to be able to wiretap into certain high traffic sites in order to “aid them” in solving crimes, I have to disagree with them. We have to ask ourselves, what is the point of monitoring a couple of sites and services and not all of them? If FBI wanted to catch criminals, would criminals really be using Gchat or Skype of Facebook to plan their mischief? They could be using the most rudimentary online chat programs like AIM, or Yahoo Messenger, as oppose to the major services like Gchat. I also believe if this proposal was to go through, then the meaning of the world privacy would go out the window, as all of our activity will be transparent. And while transparency of companies is a good thing, perhaps this is a bit overboard, especially since this proposal wont aim to help us solve the problem of the filter bubble or privacy, and instead will create turmoil amongst the users of the internet. What are your thoughts on this proposal?

Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-companies-for-noncompliance-with-wiretap-orders/2013/04/28/29e7d9d8-a83c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story_1.html

I think that most of Eli Pariser’s solutions to get around the “Filter Bubble” aren’t practical or effective. I found the least practical solution in the section for what individuals can do. Pariser’s suggestion that each of us become more literate in algorithms does not seem like it would work for those that do not care for technology or perhaps aren’t even aware of the filter bubble to begin with. As he states “learning the basics of programming is even more rewarding than learning a foreign language”(228). While learning both has its rewards both take time and a lot of people either don’t have the time or the will to learn a new language either computer or foreign even if it’s just the basics.

I found the best solution to getting around the problem of personalization in the section on what companies can do. I think that filters “making their filtering systems more transparent to the public”(229) is a very good start to solving the problem. “Knowing what information the personalizers have on us” and explaining how the filters use the data they have on us is a good way to keep us involved in how the system works and how we can have it work for us rather than against us(232). I also think that the government should be involved in some kind of regulation of the filter bubble. The “do not track list” seems pretty ridiculous when it comes to the internet but there will come a point when the government will need to step in and give the people control over how the internet uses our information. Nobody should own our information and data but us.

In “the Filter Bubble,” Eli Pariser addresses how serious personalization of the internet has become by tackling many levels of the issue, in which he reveals how people implicitly and explicitly provide and receive information. People have learned to enjoy the benefits and convenience of the services that large internet giants have provided them; even Pariser himself admits that he enjoys using Pandora, Netflix, and Facebook daily (218). However, these internet companies have strategically implemented several methods that have placed a constraint on the type of information that an individual can acquire and confiscating the opportunity for that individual to diversify his or her knowledge of the world.   Sadly, the same people who are receiving these services are the ones suffering the consequences.  Fortunately, in chapter 8, Pariser introduces several solutions to the issue regarding personalization, which has crippled information society for many years. He suggests ideas of what individuals, companies, governments and citizens can do in efforts to work cohesively and repair the damage that has been done.

Although many of his solutions are sure to be effective, none of them seem realistic to me. No matter what, people will always want to access the sites that they wish to access (because that’s just human behavior), companies want to generate as much revenue as possible and increase their market share by any means, and governments want companies to make large sums of money in order to contribute to the growth of their economies. However, out of the many solutions that he mentions, I found his solution of what companies should do to be his strongest argument. Pariser suggests that “the new filterers can start by making their filter systems more transparent to the public, so that its possible to have a discussion about how their exercising their responsibilities in the first places” (229). Companies need to be more transparent about the data that they acquire from their users and what they do with that data so that people understand how the system works. On page 230 Pariser compares the number of searches conducted via Google and Bing. He says that, although Bings algorithms are highly competitive with Google’s, people still tend to use Google more because the extraordinary number of people that trust Google’s services. Because of this, Google has an obligation to it’s users, in that it should inform them of its filtering systems.

I believe Pariser’s weakest suggestion is the one that he suggests of what the individuals should do. He mentions that people should “stop being a mouse” (223), meaning that they should explore different avenues of the World Wide Web instead of constantly following the same path. This is much easier said than done. There are TOO many people out there are ill-informed of the filter bubble. Also, no matter how cautious a person is, the algorithms will always be there, in which case, it is up to the new generation of creators to change the way the internet influences information society.

I came across the article, “Underground Cellphone Service Expands, but Some Call for Quiet.” And I thought, well that’s strange, who wouldn’t be happy about this? I mean personally, I think this is great. If people are able to communicate underground it could increase security and lessen crime. People would be able to call 911 and potential theives/muggers/perverts would realize this as well. Secondly, if you need to get in contact with someone you can. In the past, I experienced forgetting to send a text or place a call, but it’s already too late once I’m already beyond the turnstiles. Also, if the train is delayed, people could let others know they will be running late. The list goes on and on.

Potential objectors to this new expansion might argue that the train rides will become even less pleasant with people able to talk on the phone now. But I think this is an easy fix, wear headphones. I mean, if you look for the solice of a quiet ride home on a busy train, that’s your mistake. Why should everyone else have to suffer? Expanding cellphone service benefits certainly outweigh the downsides. And quite frankly, I think it’s about time they do this. They keep increasing the fare so it’s nice to see some improvements. The United States has the money and capabaility to make these changes to the MTA. And we spend money on wars and on everything everywhere else so I think this improvement is long overdue.

Check out the link and let me know what you think. Does the good outweigh the bad, or not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/nyregion/30-more-new-york-subway-stations-get-cellphone-service.html?ref=technology&_r=0

In Chapter 8 of the Filter Bubble, Pariser makes a strong idea when he says, “Meanwhile, in the city of ghettos, some people get trapped in the small world of a single subculture that really doesn’t represent who they are.” The idea of comparing a person’s online identity given by the internet based on history or what they may look at online, traps someone in that one specific subculture that makes it difficult to get out of, like a ghetto. He used references from Christopher Alexander’s book. Alexander’s book is about a new way of thinking and Pariser shown throughout his entire book that he is also a believer of new thinking. An idea Pariser and Alexander both share is the “Mosaic of Subculture.” This idea referenced a happy medium.  The medium represents a person fully happy when he receives support and values those around him as well as seeing the various choices of lifestyles before being satisfied in his own. Alexander uses this idea to compare the ghettos from upper class and middle class. However, Pariser relates this to the way people see themselves in their online world.  People are comfortable when they are in their small, protected spaces that make us feel at hone and some of the websites we use, take this knowledge and use to against us.

A weak idea used by Pariser is when he began to talk about Facebook ‘s power and privacy settings shifting and not being ideal for the average person. I don’t think he should’ve talked so poorly about a company then directly after mention, “Facebook’s PR department didn’t return my emails requesting and interview (perhaps because MoveOn’s critical view of Facebook’s privacy practices is well known).” This shows that all of his comments are based off his prejudice of them not talking to him and that the company that Pariser brought up in his first chapter. His ideas of giving people control and programming our devices cant be linked well to Facebook since he already mentioned that Facebook didn’t support him.

Chapter 8 of Eli Pariser’s The Filter Bubble focuses in on what can be done to eliminate, or at least reduce, the personalization of the internet. Suggestions of action are targeted towards three major groups; individuals, companies, and, governments & citizens. Some suggestions provided seem to be likely feasible and based on individual efforts, while some suggestions are near impossible due to conflicting interests, lack of incentive or absence of regulation.

The strongest idea that Pariser has for popping the filter bubble is “Stop being a mouse.” (P223) This suggestion is directed towards all individuals and can be successfully attained by the sole efforts of an individual. The mouse traps currently existent on the internet are very efficient, given the average user of the internet is interested in merely a handful of websites, sources, and, topics therefore putting themselves right in the “bubble” or mouse trap. This does not necessarily mean individuals are narrow-minded with few interests, that small loop of websites might be used for a purpose such as business processes, and in business time is money so there is no time to take the long route. Even on a personal interest level, “habits are hard to break” (P223) but extending interests into new territory, increases the playing field of your personalization algorithms and discourages being closed in a small filter-bubble.

The weakest idea that Pariser has for popping the filter bubble is the proposed idea of the FTC to create a Do Not Track list (P238). At some point on the internet we have all attempted “private browsing” or reject access to cookies, to realize that many websites and applications do not work as they should, or may deny access altogether. Ebay, Amazon, Facebook, Google Dashboard are not the same without personalization characteristics and are therefore a MUST to provide. The Do Not Track list would “offer a binary choice-either your in or you’re out” (P238). So now if we are members of the DNT list, seems like websites (that use personalization) will not work properly or not even at all. If Google no longer collects our personal info in exchange for free tools and email, will we have a monthly email subscription and pay-per-google-search? The Do Not Track idea works for phone numbers because there is no exchange going on, its eliminating the spam while maintaining functionality, but on the internet one cannot always expect something-for-nothing. In exchange for data, individuals do receive a lot of tools and convenience to make the internet what it is today.

In the Filter Bubble Pariser focuses on many of the problems that derive from personalization. The complexity of the internet makes it very difficult to even understand that information is being personalized and even more difficult to be able to control.

As Pariser mentions about defaults “If people will let defaults determine the fate of our friends who need lungs and hearts, we’ll certainly let them determine how we share information a lot of the time”(p.224). We are psychologically lazy and that gives internet companies the ability to take advantage of us. We will not go out of our way to attempt to be untraceable until it becomes an immediate problem in our lives. Pariser’s solution of online tracking is to delete or erase your cookies or only use websites that and transparent. That is not the default on our browsers and I still would not know how to go about deleting them. So to believe that the average person is going to research and learn how to accomplish this is not that logical.

The best solution that Pariser mentions in the Filter Bubble is the governments intervention in companies online presence. It took the government many years to develop regulations for news corporations. The Internet has not been around for that long but it is definitly time for governmental regulations. Pariser mentions that “the U.S. Federal Trade Commision is proposing a Do Not Track list, modeled after the highly successful Do Not Call list”. I remember the do not call list and I can confirm that it was successful. As I said before people are psychologically lazy. It was not difficult to add yourself to the list and it became automatic. If the same can be done for the Internet that will be a viable solution to some of the issues we face with our online presence.

Chapter 8 of the Filter Bubble talks about solutions to all of the problems that were explained throughout the book. In these solutions we see both positives and negatives, some with which I agree and one with which I do not.

The idea of “stop being a mouse” in opinion isnt the best and i definitely do not agree with it because it makes people seem that they should change their opinions and wants. With the wide variety of likes that people have asking them to change them is just not feasible.

The idea of more transparent filtering sytsems are are better but still in my opinion not the best there could be. Currently there are many companies that are already very transparent but still this doesnt help. Making the idea of the filter bubble transparent isnt that much different. People knowing its there doesnt eliminate the problem.

The best solution is the government requiring the companies to give us the people control over our personal information. This is because this give us as people more control about what is out there and this is better because it makes sense that we know more about ourselves than anyone or any other company would know about us.

Identify what you think is the strongest idea and the weakest idea that he has for combating the filter bubble and the excesses of personalization.

In the last chapter of The Filter Bubble, ‘Escape from the City of Ghettos’, Eli Pariser provides solutions to help ‘combat the filter bubble and the excesses of personalization. Pariser provides an array of recommendations on, what ‘we’ as individuals should do, what companies should do and lastly what the government should do, so as to help blow off the steam from the growing bubble.

Pariser provided a great number of good ideas, but I felt that none of the recommendations, despite being great for good reasons, would work efficiently on its own. It is impossible to bring and see change if we picked and implemented one of his solutions only. I believe that if we worked cohesively with one another, then we will be able to achieve some sort of a result.

What Individuals Can Do? : The most critical thing a person can do is to just be cautious and alert. We are becoming lazier and impatient by the day, and almost always agree to anything without even looking or reading to the agreement. This is only making it easier for companies to trap us right into their paws. An example being that while using Twitter, unless ‘you go out of your way to lock your account, everything you do is public to everyone’ (225). Therefore, the best advice Pariser gives us individuals, is to ‘change our own habits’ (222) first, by being more careful and taking more time and effort in looking into the rules and regulations online.

What Companies Can Do? : The biggest responsibility, undoubtedly, falls on the companies that are entrusted with millions of people’s personal information. Companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, to name a few, need to take a huge step forward to understand and ‘realize their responsibilities’ (229). As Larry Lessig puts it, ‘a political response is possible only when regulation is transparent’ (229), therefore, companies need to be more public friendly and not keeps their codes under tight wrap. This is because doing so only shields ‘companies from accountability for the decisions they are making, because the decisions are difficult to see from the outside’ (230). So Pariser encourages companies to opt for open systems and take responsibility for their actions.

What Governments and Citizens Can Do? : Almost all companies are working and moving ahead with the main objective of earning profits than genuinely serving and doing good for the people. Therefore it is risky to sometimes, leave problems that are of huge magnitude, ‘in the hands of private actors with profit seeking motives’ (237). This is where the government makes use of its status and bring into play rules and regulations that limit such companies from trampling over their customers. An unsettling example I came across was while ‘it is illegal to use Brad Pitt’s image to sell a watch without his permission, Facebook is free to use your name to sell one to your friends’ (239).

The weakest idea that Pariser recommends for us would be a solution he provides for the individuals. Pariser advises us to ‘stop being a mouse’ (223), and that with us routinely checking certain sites only, allows the network to track us more easily. So Pariser advises us to do otherwise. Despite Pariser making perfect sense, this would be difficult to work to. Firstly, I check my emails every morning. Does that mean I should stop checking my emails or should I have to open five email accounts just to throw off the network from trapping me? Then comes the dilemma of when should I check my emails. If checking them every morning, when I am free, is not a good idea, then when is a good time? Also, after checking my emails, I check the weather report. The reason I check a certain website is because that website actually gives accurate information. It would be risky for me to check a different weather report every day. Even though I agree with Pariser, on how companies are able to identify users because of the way they routinely check certain websites, his advice does not work that well.

This morning was a complete and utter disaster. Every morning that I have classes I take the Long Island Railroad to get to class on time. Today, when I arrived at the station I found out that they’re system was down and was not able to tender credit or debit transactions. Although, I usually have cash on me, today I didn’t because I was running late and didn’t have time to stop at the bank. So I was pretty much stranded at the LIRR station with no where to go. How ironic?

This got me thinking about how much we really do rely on technology. To place important phone calls, to operate the trains and cars we use, to make simple transactions, everything is powered by technology. If one little thing goes wrong, it can reconfigure our entire day or quite possibly our life. This might seem like a bit of a stretch, but just think about it. How much do you rely on transportation? Probably more than you think.

In fact, people today rely on technology for things that we could do for ourselves. For example, before the development of the GPS people got around just fine. They would drive from the east coast to the west coast with just a map. Now I am a sensible person; I acknowledge that technology has helped people in numerous ways, but perhaps we have become too dependent on it. What do you think? Does the good outweigh the bad?

Throughout the years, the internet as we know has been and still is rapidly changing in ways unforeseeable by various users. The reason that it is not being realized by many is because of the consistent rate of innovation that these programs have. This means that internet users are so used to seeing different types of changes on websites and webpages that they do not really mind looking for the consequences that might be at hand. Writer and political activist Eli Pariser brought this to his audiences’ attention in his book The Filter Bubble. Pariser states that what makes up the Filter Bubble is the internet’s personalization, which basically makes its own perception of various users by using cookies and algorithms. In the chapters of this book, he weeds out all of the undesirable effects of the Filter Bubble, but in the last chapter he suggests different solutions to this problem of personalization on the web. One of these solutions has dominance over the others, while another seems to be impossible to achieve.
As humans, we tend to be more redundant with day-to-day activities without even knowing it. We wake up every day using the same procedures that sometimes are arranged in different orders, but still the same objectives and routine. This same tendency shadows how we use the online atmosphere. For example, one person might go online to check their Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, then check out the NY time’s website for top stories and that will be their main online sequence of events for a large amount of time. This is a problem that Eli Pariser calls “Mousetrap” and addresses it by the solution of “Stop being a mouse.” (223) He says, “Most of us are pretty mouselike in our information habits” meaning that we tend to circle around the same information, mousetrap, because of our natural habit of redundancy. (223) This happens because it is convenient for us to stay in that circle called the Filter Bubble and we do not like being forced out of this scheduled routine of grabbing information. Like in the example I stated above, that person would be unwilling to use another news website because he/she is overwhelmed by the original source of information with-in the Filter Bubble. If we stop being a mouse we would be able to broaden our horizon by using different domains and databases to retrieve information. The more sources we use would benefit us extremely because of the different perceptions that we are retracting information from.
We have seen what I thought to be a strong solution to the Filter Bubble, but now here is what I think is the weakest solution that Eli Pariser mentions. I do not think that using algorithmic solutions would stop this fire of personalization on the web. He used the example that, “Why not rely on everyone’s idea of what’s important.” (235) What he means by this is in regards to the Facebook “Like” button why don’t they add another component to that with the “Important” button. This would clarify the difference between what individuals would like and what they think is important. My reaction to this is that instead of dosing the fire (personalization) with water, this idea would actually be the reciprocal of that. It would be like adding more gasoline or igniting fluid to it because it is adding on more personalization by showing what we really think is important. This would still push us deep into the Filter Bubble probably deeper than before. Although some algorithms that Pariser talks about may open up people’s eyes to differentiation, they might also strengthen the beliefs that people already have in the Filter Bubble.
In conclusion, there are some solutions to how we can solve this problem of the Filter Bubble that Eli Pariser has brought to our attention. However, it all depends on the person’s awareness of their personalized internet interface on how they want to address the issue of being eased by the Filter Bubble and the information with-in it. Because it is so convenient in today’s day and age of personalization and post-materialistic views, people do not mind getting the exact information that want as quick and also as specific to their preference as possible.

    Web personalization or customizing provides users many benefits and it has become an irreversible trend in information society. However, this trend constrains the scope of personal thinking, and limits users’ exposure to a diversity of information. In chapter 8 of The Filter Bubble, the author, Eli Pariser proposes several solutions for users of the filtering system to escape from the filter bubble. He argues that individuals should try not to confine themselves in personalization algorithms by using the internet autonomously; companies should enhance a transparency in filtering policy and application of personal information; and finally the government should enforce more exhaustive regulation and legislation concerning companies’ use of personal information.

    The weaker counteractions against filter bubble are the companies’ actions including the disclosure of filtering algorithm and of how gathered information is used. Through these solutions, users would have more control and power regarding their personal information and personalization. To be honest, disclosing the filtering algorithm would be the strongest method if there were more realistic possibilities but it is unlikely that companies would change their policies which might risk both social and economic benefits. Pariser states that “Whether or not it makes the filterer’s products more secure of efficient, keeping the code under tight wraps does do one thing: It shields the companies from accountability for the decision they’re making”(230). To make these solutions working, companies should first admit that they are personalizing each user of the filter bubble using personal information without adequate consents from users. However, Pariser says that“There are strong reasons in some cases for businesses not to do so. But they’re mostly commercial reasons, not ethical ones (232)”. He also suggests that company engineers can “solve for serendipity, by designing filtering systems to expose people to topics outside their normal experience”. But, the decision on how new topics are selected is still in the hands of companies. Furthermore, to what extent would personal information be used to decide what is “new” or not? This system would be still lack of transparency on how filtering system works and would not solve privacy issues.

Most importantly, companies’ new policies on filtering system will never happen without users’ or consumers’ demands to make changes. Pariser states that “Corn syrup vendors aren’t likely to change their practices until consumers demonstrate that they’re looking for something else” (222). Therefore, the strongest resistance to the filter bubble could start with individuals’ simple actions. The most effective and strongest method is to educate ourselves by learning basics of programming and how filtering system works. If you know your enemy and yourself, you can win every battle. “Stop being a mouse” (223) by broadening our interests is not enough.  Once we have a better and clear understanding of filtering algorithms, we are more likely to address weaknesses and problems of the system. Also since we have more depth knowledge, we are less vulnerable to “tyranny of defaults” (226). Additionally, as Pariser prefers Twitter over Facebook, we can also choose internet system where provides more apparent and open filtering system. Pariser said that what individuals can do is “limited use unless the companies that are propelling personalization forward change as well” (229). And this is why it is so important that we educate ourselves to raise our voices to let companies acknowledge that their consumers are concerned about the filtering system and demand more transparency. Most importantly, if we want to be out of the bubble, first we should know how the bubble is built up.

McLuhan once said that “We shape our tools then our tools shape us”. However, We don’t want to lose control to what we’ve created for our benefits.  As we live in technology based society, filter bubble is just another huddle we have to overcome. As individuals, we should have stronger and profounder consideration regarding personalization and filtering system, so that we can convince large companies to reveal filtering algorithms, hopefully resulting in legislation regarding companies’ use of personal information of users – and finally, so that we use our technology freely without a fear of the filter bubble.