In Eli Pariser’s book, The Filter Bubble, we learned about today’s internet uses along with technology and how they both work together to devour our personal information. He warns us about the Filter Bubble because it turns us as human beings into shallow people who do not go out of their informational zone. This means that people tend to collect the same data from the same exact sources each and every day of their lives. This approach basically ‘zombifies’ us because of the lack of outsourcing to different thoughts and ideas. It is not entirely our fault for being caught up in the Filter Bubble; it is the current innovations and technology outburst that draws us in because of the convenience that they provide.

After reading this interesting book, I have decided to at least try not to live inside of a Filter Bubble by maximizing my research base. This meaning that If I was looking into a specific headline or news story that I find interesting, I would take some time to find different perceptions of this story whether it be online news forums, blogs, articles, and/or word of mouth. I would use the same sources that I would usually go to along with other forms of information to get a greater overall idea about what was going on. Another resolution that I am trying to use pertains to one of the resolutions that Eli Pariser gave in his book. According to Pariser, we all need to stop getting pulled into the “Mouse Trap.” (Pariser, The Filter Bubble p.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.(p.223) I am trying to get out of the mouse trap by simply using my technology last when I need information. It is almost impossible to do anything without technology in today’s world but I decided to actually use newspapers and talk to people before picking up my phone and Googling the topic.

I tend to read the fine print more often now because of what we learned in class. There are companies that are out there that use are information as their products for sale in Business to Business (B2B) transactions, but they have to tell people that their information will be used for this purpose. Sometimes we do not even notice this because it would be shown in the agreement section of the subscription or in the page. These pages are usually long and filled with a lot of words and topics that an irrelevant to read thoroughly, so people tend to just check off the I agree button because of that. Now I am trying to find the parts in the agreement section about “Privacy” that state whether or not my information would be used for selling or distribution to other companies.

On our wiki first, I added a link on Info from Neighbors About the Plans page from our current wiki. The page that I linked it to was the Stakeholders page because these two pages deal with the people and companies that are affected by the 25^th street plaza. I was also skeptical about how I placed the link to the Baruch updates page, but decided to leave it how it was. Next, I saw that the Current Map page was empty, so I put my own little touch on it. I went to Google maps in which I brought up a close up of the area that the plaza is located. On the map, it shows 25^th street as a non-traffic street meaning that it cannot be travelled on by cars and trucks unless necessary situations are applied. With this close-up I used snipping tool to cut and paste and save it as a jpeg file on my flash drive. Then I uploaded the image to our wiki and put it on the Current Map page along with a little description. I also linked this page to two different pages, Stakeholders and Current Amenities, so that viewers can see photos of how the plaza actually looks and what’s around the area from a street view. Third but not least, I added and made some corrections to multiple pages on the wiki. On the introduction page, I felt that it could be flared up with a picture that kind of shows what the purpose of this wiki is for. So I placed an image that says THE PLAZA on this page just for some eye candy. On the Government Info About the Plans page, I found one spelling error and corrected it. Finally, On the Planned Amenities page I added a few items such as: Umbrellas, Trees and etc, Speaker System, and Student Life Events.

I am pretty sure that we have all used the social networking site Yelp to get reviews of a certain place, or object, or just something you needed to see feedback on before you use it. Although it seems very helpful at times, there is also a downside to using these reviews. Downsides such as: false reviews, different perceptions and tastes vary by the people giving the reviews, and/or people’s ignorance to what what the specific “Yelped” item is really suppose to do. Journalist Lee Siegel of the NY times wrote an article about the social networking site Yelp. He criticizes how the information on this site can lead you down dangerous roads when it comes to trusting the reviews. In his article he illustrates a few bad experiences with this site including this one taken from the article, “Not long ago, a friend of mine, a dear man with exquisite taste, took me to dinner at Momofuku Má Pêche in Midtown Manhattan.If I had the same experience with a gastroenterologist I had chosen based on glowing Yelp evaluations as I did at Momofuku, I would be checking myself into the emergency room. My monkfish — a special favorite of the Yelp hordes — tasted like a pencil eraser. It was also so cold that it could not be described as cooked. It was deceased.” In this sense, we see that the reviews and feedback about this so called great dinner happened to be a handful of nonsense. I have some friends that use this site for almost everything, but i do not feel that i have to use it since i like to try things myself then ask questions later.

The article is very interesting and i find it funny as well. Here is the link> Go the Same Way, or Go the Wrong Way

1. How do you feel about Yelp in general?
2. Does this site help feed the “Filter Bubble?” or not?

As we all know, handheld cameras are being replaced by smartphones and tablets that are convenient. They are convenient since we are already have them on us we can easily use them to get a quick picture. What makes it even worse for camera developers is that these smartphones and tablets are getting higher and higher in quality as time goes on. In a recent article in the NY times, A Camera Takes On the Phones, journalist David Pogue shows us how camera developer Canon has made innovative pushes to make pocket camera relevant once again by coming out with the PowerShot N that is valued at $300. According to Pogue, there are three major differences that makes the Canon N standout from smartphones. First, it emphasizes the features that a smartphone can’t match, like a zoom lens. Second, it imitates the workings and design features of a smartphone. Third, it can transmit new photos to your phone for immediate sending or posting online.

Do you think people would try this new style camera or will they just ignore it and keep using their smartphones and tablets? Would you buy this camera?

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.