I attended a presentation a few weeks ago hosted by a Sales and Trading Analyst from Barclays Capital, and this gentlemen put things in a very interesting, yet scary prospective.

He gave a Powerpoint presentation, which started with the first slide being the ad for the recent Movie Terminator Salvation.  Everyone in the in the audience was very confused, but then the Analyst made a very strong and relevant connection to this movie. He mentioned how today, machines are responsible for 70% of trades executed, daily, and that traders these days need to be able to compete with these computers in order to be successful in financial markets. In other words, they need to fight the machines, just like in Terminator Salvation.

But how can a human being compete with a machine that can execute trades in less than a second and profit from it? Then, I thought of The Filter Bubble, in which Pariser mentions a man by the name of Peter Thiel. Thiel is known for founding PayPal advising, and for his unorthodox believes. But there is one thing that Thiel believes that I am starting to believe as well, and that is the idea of man and machine eventually melding. I know this sounds crazy, but the Sales and Trade analyst lead me to believe so.

In chapter 8 of the Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser provides solutions to resolve the horrible information diet of today’s society. He provides solutions as to what the government should do, in which he says that the governments should be obligated to protect the state that they govern be regulating information society. Well, it might be safe to say that we are taking a step towards this direction.

I recently read an article stating that the Bipartisan Privacy Caucus has sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page adressing the potential privacy issues arising from the incredibly innovative Google Glass product. This also relates to our class, as we have discussed Google glass and how it can be extremely intrusive with repsect to privacy, and this article addresses many of our same concerns.

http://my.firedoglake.com/consumerwatchdog/2013/05/17/bipartisan-privacy-caucus-asks-important-privacy-questions-about-google-glass/

My family owns a small corner store located in the Washington Heights area of Manhattan. Our store has been servicing our community for the past 40 years, and my family has experienced many different trends within those years. There was a time when we covered an entire wall with an inventory of magazines, ranging from gossip, to cars, to video games, etc.

We were also known in our community for selling a wide variety of newspapers. Our top sellers were the Daily News, New York times, and, New York Post. On a regular week, my store would sell 1000 copies of each of these papers (100 copies for Monday through Friday, and 400 copies on Sundays). I was in my early teens when my store sold these papers at these quantities, however, we noticing a very interesting trend since then. As the years went by, we noticed that there was a gradual decline in the demand for our magazines and newspapers from our customers. And in recent years, we noticed a significant decline. One day, out of curiosity, I asked one of my customers why he stopped buying newspapers from my store. He responded by saying “I get it on my iPad now.” Then, it all made sense. Why would someone want to purchase a hard copy of a newspaper or magazine when they can easily get a subscription on their tablet/computer/laptop?

This trend inspired me to create a Facebook page for my family’s store, which has been featured in a couple of newspaper articles. I have attached the link below.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20111223/washington-heights-inwood/inwood-bodega-steps-into-future-on-facebook

One of the things that I learned in this class is how to use the school’s database systems to conduct research. Prior to taking this class, I always though the most efficient way to acquire information was to “Google” any given topic and this would yield a number of searches that I can choose from. Now I know that, by using certain databases provided by the school, and by using key words in my searches, I can find the most appropriate sources that best satisfy my searches. This brings me to my next big take-away from this class, which is how to properly conduct research.

I never realized that there was a “right way” to conducting research before taking this class. I can recall many situations in which I would just type a full question in the Google/Bing/yahoo search box, and just base my searches off from that. Now that I know the proper way to conduct research, it is embarrassing to think that this was my research method for a while. This class has taught me how to use key words in my search in order to yield the best results possible. I am confident that my newly acquired knowledge of how to conduct research will not only serve me well throughout the remainder of my time as an undergraduate student, but it will also serve me well in my respective profession.

My last, big take-away from this course was the whole concept of the “filter bubble” suggested by Eli Pariser in his book. My recent comprehension of the information diet has led me to question my perspective of the world as I currently see it. I now know that I must be very cautious with what I chose to search via the internet. I also learned that it is very important to have an open mind and search things that that I wouldn’t normally search, because that would result in me popping my own personal filter bubble.

One thing that I wish we could have alluded to further within the duration of this course was how to secure our privacy better and reduce the exposure of all pertinent information to the web. I feel that it would have been very useful to learn how to many protect ourselves from the algorithms that internet companies implement in efforts to acquire our information. This especially would be useful for individuals whom aren’t internet savvy, such as myself.

The professor briefly spoke about Bitcoins in class one day, and it bothered me that I didn’t really know much about this incredibly innovative and brilliant idea. So I took it upon myself to do some research on the new virtual currency, and I found some really interesting information.

For those of you who don’t know what a Bitcoin is, it’s basically digital currency that can be used to make payments through the web without transaction fees, which makes using this type of currency much more appealing to consumers. Another interesting fact about this currency is that it isn’t backed by a central bank.  Apparently, Bitcoin companies have raised millions dollars since the Bitcoin system was first introduced in 2009. The popularity of Bitcoins have increased drastically since then, to the point that they are now trading in exchanges! With this being a form of intangible currency, it makes you think: was money ever real to begin with? And keep in mind…..this is VIRTUAL currency, which means that this is susceptible to internet hackers.

What do you all think if this new Bitcoin wave? How do you think it will effect other currencies, especially the dollar?

Being that I studied architecture for 2 years prior to transferring to Baruch, I have developed an appreciation for creative, architectural design. With that, I can honestly say that the Vertical Campus is one of the most amazing buildings that ever seen in regards to its design, and the plaza needs to complement that. It’s because of this that I added in the “desired amenities” section of the Wiki, an addition of a fountain that students can sit by during warm, sunny days.

Furthermore, I think that the plaza needs to be more of a defined space, which is why I would suggest building a bridge that would connect the VC building and the Library Building, and hovers over the plaza. This would not only make the commute to class for both students and professors more convenient, it would also define the space that the plaza occupies. The bridge would make it seem like there actually is a plaza that exists there belonging to Baruch, instead of just open space.   I have also added this in the “desired amenities” section.

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 started reading chapter 4 of “The Filter Bubble,” and literally 2 pages into the chapter, I read something that I found very interesting, something that I can relate to. Mark Zuckerberg, Founder and CEO of Facebook interviewed with the author of the book “The Facebook Effect” David Kirkpatrick, in which they spoke about how Facebook, which is currently the largest social media network and holds the dominant share of that market in terms of users, has significanlty influenced the very nature of identity. Zuckerberg believes that people will no longer maintain numerous images of themselves through various social media outlets. In the book, he says that having more than one identity demonstrates a lack of integrity, and that people are starting to move away from it.

Later on in the chapter, Pariser mentions something that the COO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, says when speaking at an event during New York Ads Week. Sandberg says that “People dont want something targeted to the whole world — they want something that reflects what they see and know.” Pariser believes that Facebook’s ultimate goal is to have users reflect their true identities through their profiles, to the extent where other websites are able to incorporate users’ data through facebook alone.

I can relate to this. Being that I am currently on a hunt for a competitive internship, I try my best to make my facebook page look as “professional” and “polished” as I can possibly make it. But it doesn’t necessarly capture my true identity, it only demonstrates the professional side. So does this mean that I lack integrity? And what does this mean when others tailor their pages based on similar motives? If there are people out there creating different identities for themselves, how does this affect the way people acquire information through personalization?