A filter bubble is a result of a personalized search in which a website algorithm selectively
>guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the user (such as location, past click behavior and search history) and,
>as a result, users become separated from information that
>disagrees with their viewpoints,
>effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles.
Prime examples are Google Personalized Search results and Facebook's personalized news stream. The term was coined by internet activist Eli Pariser in his book by the same name; according to Pariser, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints and are isolated intellectually in their own informational bubble. Pariser related an example in which one user searched Google for "BP" and got investment news about British Petroleum while another searcher got information about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and that the two search results pages were "strikingly different". The bubble effect may have negative implications for civic discourse, according to Pariser, but there are contrasting views suggesting the effect is minimal and addressable.
>A filter bubble has been described as exacerbating a phenomenon that has been called splinternet or cyberbalkanization, which happens when the Internet becomes divided up into sub-groups of like-minded people who become insulated within their own online community and fail to get exposure to different views; the term cyberbalkanization was coined in 1996.
the sjw's are in their own echo chambers, which is why they think it's acceptable to go around and assert moronic standards and beliefs that are problematic and harmful to society at large
>which happens when the Internet becomes divided up into sub-groups of like-minded people who become insulated within their own online community
this is funny because the internet was advertised like a place that naturally tends to be like this, several small centers rather than a big one, supposedly justifying the way the cities in the neoliberal age grow.
Now it seems this was all provoked artificially. Good. People now come to their senses. This is the result of inbound marketing.
Selective exposure is a theory within the practice of psychology, often used in media and communication research, that historically refers to individuals’ tendency to favor information which reinforces their pre-existing views while avoiding contradictory information. Selective exposure to information refers to the phenomenon in which individuals tend to prefer information that supports a certain view or decision and in which they tend to neglect conflicting information. Selective exposure has also been known and defined as "Congeniality Bias" or "Confirmation Bias" in various texts throughout the years.
Selective exposure can affect the decisions people make as individuals or as groups because they may be unwilling to change their views and beliefs either collectively or on their own. A historical example of the disastrous effects of selective exposure and its effects on group dynamics is the series of events leading up to the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. President John F. Kennedy was given the go ahead by his advisers to authorize the invasion of Cuba by poorly trained expatriates despite overwhelming evidence that it was a foolish and ill-conceived tactical maneuver. The advisers were so eager to please the President that they confirmed their cognitive bias for the invasion rather than challenging the faulty plan. Changing beliefs about one's self, other people, and the world are three variables as to why people fear new information.
I hate the bubble, damnit google show me results for what I searched for, not what you think I meant to search for based on past searches and browsing patterns. I'm a well rounded individual with eclectic tastes, you can't predict me
>actually using the botnet directly instead of a metasearch engine
but it's not just google. any search engine that builds a personal profile on you (is a botnet) and is keeping your mind in a filter bubble.
even watching the same news is a filter bubble. people who only watch fox news. people who only watch MSNBC. people who only watch american news. people who rely on media rather than venturing out and seeing for themselves.
even a journalist puts his own spin on the things he writes. don't even trust what i'm writing
>even watching the same news is a filter bubble
Not really. Filter bubble implies you are expecting to get a full spectrum of results, and watching just news from one source is anything but that.
I'm not worried about this myself. I actively seek opinions on important issues that are contrary to my own in order to get an objective view on things instead of living in an echo chamber. That's part of the reason I browse /pol/ from time to time. I've actually surprisingly found myself agreeing with /pol/ on some things.
Anyway, if you're not doing the same thing (actively seeking opinions and stances outside your bubble) then you're already a failure. Google is just putting the nails in the coffin at that point.
then you agree that by only watching fox news you are exposed to a filter bubble, except instead of the search company censoring the results, the news producers are censoring the results
>how can you not agree with such an incremental logical step as if a google search filters what you want to hear, and if you watch fox news because you want to hear the latest right wing propaganda, that the underlying concept is related
Thing is, you can discuss anything on 4chan. And even your SJW rhetoric won't get you silenced. Almost every time someone is spewing his SJW bullshit, there are users responding with proper counterarguments.
In echo chambers, when you go against common opinion, no one responds to you with valid counter-arguments - if they could, they won't be in an echo chamber. Sites where you are administratively blocked for contributing when you disagree are echo chambers. 4chan is not.
>Thing is, you can discuss anything on 4chan. And even your SJW rhetoric won't get you silenced. Almost every time someone is spewing his SJW bullshit, there are users responding with proper counterarguments.
>implying 4chan is not one of the biggest echochambers on the internet, rivaled only by reddit and facebook
you sound delusional. even twitter has more exposure to different views than 4chan.
>reee reee normalfags get out
>the jews/sjws did this
>any and all memes
>not an echochamber
4chan is the furthest thing from an echo chamber I've come across in the internet. /g/ for example, can barely even agree on anything. Half of us are all for free software, and the other half are against. Some of us are apple shills and some Android, etc. Some boards can be more echo chamberish than others though.
But you see, he only posts a picture and does not address any of my arguments. That's exactly how it would happen in an echo chamber. He may be trying to make 4chan into more of an echo chamber, but it's a simple fact that 4chan is not.
are you implying this is a bad thing?
I want to find a disassembler, not a spanish boy band when I search for IDA Pro.
If I want to find information about a controversial topic then no fucking way I'd type "did the jews do this" to Google.
Problem is not Google but YOU
this is just getting sadder and sadder. you know what, anon? i'm starting to feel bad about this. picking on the handicapped kid just isn't very satisfying. instead, i'm going to brighten up your life a little. i'm going to be that one shining ray of light in your bleak existence.
i will let you have the last word.
so come on, let me have it. make it count. i'll gladly take it if it means you'll experience the sweet taste of victory for once in your life, and you can go to bed knowing you achieved something.
>Problem is not Google but YOU
Well that's the thing; google, facebook, and these other personalised sites are becoming the only sources of information for lots and lots of people.
The tl;dr is basically read Pariser's book. It even has an audiobook which you can completely legitimately download from officially licensed sites and listen to while commuting or playing euro truck sim.
The great thing is 4chan is anonymous, so you can post whatever you want. If you shitpost too hard it might get you banned, but you can still shitpost using a different IP, so you will get full exposure to all sorts of opinions if you lurk long enough.
>Pariser related an example in which one user searched Google for "BP" and got investment news about British Petroleum while another searcher got information about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and that the two search results pages were "strikingly different".
That's a really shitty example sempai.
>In media, an echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed or otherwise underrepresented.
And it's a pretty good definition except for last word. Not everything has to be equally represented. Some ideas just don't stand any criticism. They can only exist if you close your ears and keep repeating them. And such ideas will be underrepresented in any fair system, which 4chan is. Contrary ideas are not censored or disallowed here and if you want to have a fair discussion, you will get it.
>people complain about the way google sorts the results
>dont even bother to go past page 1 of 10s to 100s of pages of results
>expect google to magically know what they want when they dont refine their search terms
Clearly you should stop complaining about the Google botnet and give them more data so they know how to sort your fucking results.
I dislike you. I voiced my dislike for you in a civilized manner. It doesn't mean you are not allowed to discuss in a similarly civilized manner; the fact that you are disliked by majority does not make this place an echo chamber as long as you are allowed to voice your views - which you are.
I believe that if you got banned, you deserved it. You didn't just make a reddit thread, you made a bait thread, like all reddit threads are. The phrase "civilized manner" was a very important part of my previous post. I won't say that everything mods do is flawless, but I am inclined to believe that when someone is punished, it most often happens for a reason.
>certain views aren't underrepresented here
You sound like a fucking SJW. We don't need equal representation here.
The point is whether you stay in your little safety bubble or you get regular exposure to things that you disagree with and I can guarantee that 4chan falls into the latter category.
Not everything has to be equally represented. Some ideas just don't stand any criticism. They can only exist if you close your ears and keep repeating them. And such ideas will be underrepresented in any fair system, which 4chan is.
You definitely need to do it if you want to show that your point stands. I'm not trying to convince you - I'm only trying to show that your viewpoint is invalid to whoever is reading. And until you post a counterargument, I am successful in doing that.
>Well that's the thing; google, facebook, and these other personalised sites are becoming the only sources of information for lots and lots of people.
agreed. this is a problem. this is why trump actually has people tricked into thinking he would be a good president
A world constructed from the familiar is a
world in which there’s nothing to learn ... (since
there is) invisible autopropaganda, indoctrinating
us with our own ideas.
—Eli Pariser in The Economist, 2011
Communal reinforcement is a social phenomenon in which a concept or idea is repeatedly asserted in a community, regardless of whether sufficient empirical evidence has been presented to support it. Over time, the concept or idea is reinforced to become a strong belief in many people's minds, and may be regarded by the members of the community as fact. Often, the concept or idea may be further reinforced by publications in the mass media, books, or other means of communication. The phrase "millions of people can't all be wrong" is indicative of the common tendency to accept a communally reinforced idea without question, which often aids in the widespread acceptance of factoids.
The term factoid can in common usage mean either a false or spurious statement presented as a fact, as well as (according to Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary) a true, if brief or trivial item of news or information. The term was coined originally in 1973 as a neologism by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it’s not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print."...On occasion, a writer will coin a fine neologism that spreads quickly but then changes meaning.