I organized all the articles and pictures into separate folders for easier navigation and editing. I then edited the introduction page by centering everything and moving the facebook like image to the bottom of the page. I also differentiated the titles and sections on the stakeholders page by making the titles bold and increasing the font size and separating the sections with horizontal lines for aesthetic purposes.

After taking this class I have become much more mindful of the information I consume and make available. I’ve begun to question the relevance of the things I see; such as who wrote the piece, when it was made, and even the publisher. I have also broadened the types of websites I visit on a day to day basis as to not pigeonhole my interests.

I’ve always thought of myself as very cautious when it came to internet use and information sharing, but this course has made me realize that I may have as much information out there as anyone else. I’ve become weary of filling out surveys that I once thought were for demographic research studies and not just information mining for marketing purposes. I’ve also stopped signing up for random websites that may use that information in a distasteful way. I’m thinking about decentralizing all my information and internet use away from Google’s vast network of resources but that may be harder than it seems.

In chapter 8 of The Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser outlines a few ideas that may help mitigate the effects of personalization. He explains the actions individual users can take as well as what companies, the government, and individuals as citizens can do to combat the rise of a filter bubble. While many of the ideas presented by Pariser to lessen the propagation of a filter bubble are respectable, some are better and more realistic than others.

“Stop being a mouse.”(223) is probably the best, simplest, and hardest idea offered by Pariser to put into action.  This runs off the assumption that we are creatures of habit.  That “we all kinda do the same thing over and over again most of the time. And jumping out of that recursion loop is not easy to do.”(223)  Pariser admits that even he is “pretty mouselike”(223) in his information habits. It’s hard to break habits and routines since we like the comfort and ease that comes from familiarity. By actively diversifying how and what you spend time doing on the internet, you make it harder for the algorithms to “pigeonhole” your profile. This may be the best method for offsetting the effects of personalization but it’s not very realistic. Generally people use the internet sparingly to catch up on things that are most important to them. Most people will not spend their time reading or searching for a topic that they’re sort of but not really interested in even if they find it important. This is only possible if you make a conscious choice to be critical, inquisitive, and to not be afraid of feeling uncomfortable about what you read or see. This is not only good for deflecting the negative consequences of personalization but it’s also a good way of becoming a better-rounded person.

One of the weaker ideas I felt presented by Pariser were the “fully algorithmic solutions.” This takes everyone’s opinion of what they believe is important and should be seen into account. Even though I like the idea of bringing personalization to the public eye and putting it in the user’s hands, I can’t help but think you’re just creating your own filter bubble. This doesn’t leave much room for you to be exposed to different things. I feel that most people don’t know what they want but rather what they should want. I also feel that based on the way our media works and how we consume it, the general populous is not equipped with the right set of skills to discern important news from those that aren’t. I can only see problems with an “important” button as Pariser mentions on page 235. It reminds me of the Kony 2012 campaign which was essentially a viral video that over sensationalized the severity and importance of a relatively old war criminal.

The most realistic idea presented by Pariser was the one where “the engineers of the filter bubble…can solve for serendipity, by designing filtering systems to expose people to topics outside their normal experience.”(235) I was very fond of this idea because it integrates exposure into your everyday life with very little effort from the user. There’s a service called StumbleUpon, which in its early stages did exactly this. You would click a button and a random web page would appear. Though recently they have adopted the algorithmic method to determine which websites you are exposed to that is probably based on clicks, your own predefined interests, how long each user stays on a certain page, as well as user ratings of websites; which is to be expected since it is a business.

If you want things to change you should look towards yourself first and ask whether or not you’re living that change. As Mahatma Gandhi put it “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Ultimately the extent of your filter bubble is decided by you, online or off.

I came across this article on Consumer Affairs while browsing Reddit. You can read the opinion of others in the comments section of each site to get a better understanding of the situation taking into account that the opinions expressed there are made by those who are well informed as well as those who have no idea of what they’re talking about.

Mozilla has announced that in future iterations of the Mozilla Firefox Browser it will have third party cookies blocked by default. In this article it talks about how that may hurt small internet businesses that rely on traffic and advertisements to gain revenue. I don’t know how it all works so I don’t have an opinion on whether it’s good or bad yet. It’s an interesting read and a different perspective on the role of cookies as opposed to what we have discussed in class.

Thoughts?

While visiting Youtube today I saw this recommendation at the top of my feed. Through the readings and our discussions in class I’ve become much more aware of how personalized my internet experience has become. I’m not sure if Youtube recommended me this video only because I watched “Nas-the message” or if they may also have an algorithm based on the types of videos in my history and subscriptions I have. Either way I felt extremely elated when I saw this in my feed. It was a perfect combination of my interests in science and hip hop. Being able to see a celebrity of science interview one of my favorite rappers made my night.

In our class and readings we mostly focus on the negative aspect of personalization; but my discovery today is a perfect example of how it can be used to enhance our experience.

How do you feel about personalization with what you know so far?

I thought the interview was a little bland but here’s the link to the video if you want to watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHfdd-PQVwo

This is a video on trust in our society after all that has happened in the last few years in the form of a forum among a few of today’s leading thinkers. The video is an hour and thirty minutes long but I think the whole video is worth watching if nothing more than as background noise.

I marked two spots in the video that I thought was relatable to our class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sLCfkdrLsVA#t=432s

^ Richard Edelman gives a good overview of the trust issue at the above marker. He talks about how the general populous has lost trust in the government and business among other industries, but overall we have the highest trust in the technological industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sLCfkdrLsVA#t=1263s

^Here Edelman urges business to move away from a license to operate to a license to lead position because past practices have lead to a rise of skepticism towards major businesses;  they have forced us to find information from 2-3 different sources to assure its validity.

I thought this related to our reading since chapter two talked about the effects the internet has had on our trust in the media.

Have you lost trust in government and business industries after all that has transpired in the last couple of years? If so, do you think the internet played a role in facilitating your distrust?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lZzpNzoT6c

It’s a 30 minute video that’s pretty bland but it gives an idea of what Google has planned for the future. He touches on Google Glass, driver-less cars, Google Fiber, and the next generation of search among other things which I’m sure all of you have heard of. He also mentions that the FDA just approved a swallow-able chip in a pill (that can be read about through a simple search, this being the newest chip http://www.wired.com/design/2013/02/freescales-tiny-arm-chip/) which Google isn’t working on but I thought it was notable.

What I’d like to talk about is the rate and scope at which Google’s power and influence on our society is growing. At the 13:50 mark in the interview he mentions the next generation of search in which they may be able to “suggest what you should be searching for” which gets a small  chuckle from the interviewer and audience.

The things Google is/will be capable of doing are something straight out of science fiction. I’m not saying that any of what Google is doing is inherently bad, I believe quite the opposite, but it’s almost like opening Pandora’s box. I fear Google’s good intentions of progress and innovation is paving a road that is making for the possibility of an Orwellian society more of a reality.

So I’m asking

1. Do you think Google is becoming too large of an entity?
2. Do you think it’s a cause for concern that they, or anyone for that matter, have/will have these abilities?
3. Do you trust Google with this kind of power?
4. If not, would you trust anyone with this kind of power? If so, who?

not to tint your view on the matter but I found it fitting

[ted id=187]

In this TedTalk, Lawrence Lessig speaks on the effects internet copyright laws have on creativity. I agree with Lessig as far as opposing rules and regulations that restrict the innocent use of media by the general public. But I also see the internet, as it is today, as a machine that curbs the creativity and thought process of the youth today.

I’ve spent most of my adolescent years on the internet. From dial-up AOL chatrooms to message boards and forums, I’ve seen the internet change from a free flowing creative community that was fueled purely by the love of individuals turn into a gateway for corporations to control and monetize the public. Youtube is one of the best examples I can think of that show this change.

When Youtube was starting out the majority of their content was user generated. Their most popular content were original comedy shorts or vlogs created by individuals that were just using the internet as an outlet to express themselves. A small community formed around these videos and the individuals. When Google bought Youtube, they started the partnership program and monetized the videos, the sense of community died soon after and it became a business. The most popular channels and videos on Youtube now are scripted big productions following a formula made to try and catch the essence of amateur videos of yesteryear.  This changed the way and reason why the average person makes a video or even a comment today.

I also think the internet today is so over saturated by media and things to do that it leaves no room for the youth today to be bored. Being bored plays an important role in our lives because I believe boredom breeds creativity, innovation, and most importantly introspection.

I’d like to share some videos that still hold some nostalgic value that are appropriate enough to post

This has mild vulgar language and slightly inappropriate content but I think he encapsulates the essence of what the internet was pre-youtube, pure unadulterated creativity.