Filter Bubble

"A marketplace has emerged where public humiliation is a commodity and shame is the industry. How is the money made? Clicks. The more shame, the more clicks. The more clicks, the more advertising dollars." - Monica Lewinsky

I'm about 70 pages into the filter bubble when I checked my Facebook feed to find an article from the New York Times about Monica Lewinsky finally coming back onto the radar and how she is doing it.  This led me to watching a Ted Talk that she gave earlier this year.  Thus far mostly the Filter Bubble has been talking about how the age of personalization came about.  It all had to do with the effectiveness of advertising, because that's how websites make money is by selling ad space.  If the ads can become customized to every user and double or triple effective, because Facebook/Google/Acxiom knows who you are and what you like that is good for business.  The connection that Monica asserted and this principle was striking to me.  Monica not only talked about how this had come about, but the effect on society, and both were extremely saddening.  She asserted that her scandal was one of the first scandals that the internet played a huge role in, because of the pure amount of hatred that came at her just over the internet alone.  She was slut shamed and harassed on every frontier, including this new one, considering it was the late 90's.  Today there are terms to describe what happened to her, cyber-bullying and harassment are the the most well known.  Gossip and public humiliation of that nature generates millions of clicks, which is good for advertisers.  In this sense public humiliation and anything that can spark it has become a commodity, because guaranteed public humiliation like what happened to Monica Lewinsky, the nude leads from the actresses, or what happens to most celebrities is good for advertising revenue.  It has become part of a business model.  This has evolved a society that is very callous and in certain ways cruel, because nobody cares enough to stop it.  This idea of the number of clicks is now driving not only what we see and read and consume, but how we act in regard to our fellow humans.  That is too much power for something like a machine to hold.  It's a crazy amount.  It now isn't only influencing what we see and learn about, but it's influences our values one click at a time.  

Pt.2 

"There is no certainty.  There is only adventure"

Serendipity is part of the creative process as a designer I rely heavily on this act and sometimes I chase it with all my might.  Eli Pariser argues that the filter bubble eliminates serendipity and therefore eliminates creativity or significantly limits it.  I disagree with this statement.  Yes, the filter bubble, anything meant to filter anything else is going to disrupt the natural flow and exchange of idea and it could have a narrowing effect.  However, I have always been aware of the fact that this bubble is in place, because when I go to do visual research on a style or period I get the same 20-40 images on Google.  I can scroll all the way down and they are still the same, so I can only pull so much research from it, but that being said it's more helpful than getting non-relevant research.  When I get research that isn't helpful I generally go back to what I typed into the search engine and change it.  Sometimes it doesn't make a difference what I need research on is just too obscure or there just isn't enough of it on Google to be of help and those times are the times where I want to bang my head against the wall, instead of the times where it filters all my results nicely and presents me with somewhere between 15-20 usable images.  Most creative people are aware that you can't only use Google to do research and we do research (in the hope of finding something that inspires us) in many different ways.  Most of us use the services of Pintrest to get a whole new bank of images, one of my person favorites is Stumbleupon because you can get anything from a video to a helpful, detailed article on your subject, I own several textbooks detailing the different architecture periods so I have books to reference to.  Creative people have evolved just like the internet has.  Some of us even go to the place that we are designing to acquire primary research.  Some of us talk about things with other creative people, so that the exchange of ideas happen.  These methods help serendipity happen as well as promote different types of thinking and help us break out of our bubble.  Breaking out of a bubble is what creative people are good at naturally, so you should give them some credit.  Even today creative people are likely to be the people that study abroad, leave their homes for a while to move around, or participate in cultural festivals where they have no idea what they are doing.  They are willing to take chances and look extremely ridiculous (and stupid) in the hope that they will learn something new.  There have been plenty of times where I have felt both of these things, but I have walked away learning much about a group of people.  When I seek out people for friendships I tend to look for people that will be okay with this side of me.  They don't have to join me, they just have to let me be me, and then listen to me talk about it later.  Most of the people I find though are very open people, who are capable of examining a problem from the many different sides, probably because I consider myself to be that way.  That being said that doesn't mean that we don't hold different opinions and that I don't have to encounter them.  Serendipity isn't just tied to the internet, it can also happen everyday and Eli Pariser is underestimating that just like he is underestimating the power of creativity and the people who consider themselves creatives.

Pt. 3

"There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways you yourself have altered."
                                         - Nelson Mandela

Alright, this book makes excellent points about the possible effects of technology like hindering creativity, the increasing lack of interaction of people, the decreasing of people meeting organically, and the fact that the world has become technology focused.  However Eli Pariser, only ever examines these subject from one or 2 different views.  His lack of creativity in examining these issues, ultimately bores me, because of the repetitive nature the information is presented in.  He presents a real world example of the assertion he is about to make, he makes it, then he rambles on and on about the possible negative effects often in a very long-winded, roundabout fashion.  His lack of creativity in viewing these problems ironically, illustrates the very principle he entitled his book about.  He never acknowledges that being human is singular, and that while, yes, we can be influenced and possibly controlled that people ultimately make their own decisions, and no amount of manipulating will change that.  Yes, some people will be very susceptible to it.  However, there will be a part of the population (probably what is left of the creative types who he alleges are becoming a dying breed) that isn't susceptible to it, and will forever make decisions independent of manipulation. He continually underestimates the human race as a whole.  At that point there of course will be a counter movement that rebels against technology.  This is history: art history, world history, almost all history that has to do with humans follows these rules.  There is an order or a way of doing something; it goes to far and in comes the rebellion against it.  In particular, I can say theatre history is structured this way and wouldn't shock me if most history is.  The rebellion eventually becomes culturally accepted and experimented with, and eventually becomes part of society.  There will be a rebellion against technology we just aren't there yet.  For him to believe that technology defies the rules that history has proven true is arrogant.  Further more, the issues he presents are mostly examined in the sense that they are problems with very few acknowledgment of the benefits or the fact that humanity is evolving just like technology.  He takes those facts into account very little.  Actually his lack of creativity in handling and presenting these problems makes this book extremely hard to read of me.  I much prefer Hacked to The Filter Bubble.  As a person who seeks to solve problems from multiple angles his lack of even acknowledgment of them frequently grinds on my nerves and makes him come across as preachy, undercuts his authority, and makes me feel like I'm being forced to go to church while reading this book.  All this being said he does make some very relevant points, he just really present them better and have more views represented except his own.