# Internet shows us what it thinks we want to see **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 17, 2011, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-shows-us-what-it-thinks-we-want-to-see/575006 "2011-03-17T08:46:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-shows-us-what-it-thinks-we-want-to-see/575006/1 "2011-03-17T08:46:10Z")
A [recent article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/eli-pariser-facebook-google-ted_n_832198.html) describes how Facebook and Google “help” us by showing us what we “want” to see. > [@](#): > > Pariser, who describes his political leanings as “progressive,” said at the annual TED conference that he has always made an effort to befriend both liberals and conservatives on Facebook so he could keep track of the issues each group was discussing. Over time, however, something strange happened, Pariser said: his conservative Facebook friends disappeared from his news feed. He realized that Facebook’s algorithm had “edited them out” because Pariser was clicking more on links from liberal friends than conservative ones. > > Google is also guilty of tweaking what it shows users based on past online behavior. Pariser highlighted how two users can receive drastically different Google search results after querying the same term because the search engine monitors 57 signals to tweak and personalize results. “There is no standard Google anymore,” Pariser noted. > > “This moves us very quickly toward a world in which the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see,” Pariser said of editing via algorithms. > > Because of algorithms that determine what we see online based on our browsing, reading, and clicking history, we risk being exposed to fewer viewpoints and a more limited array of opinions, content sources, and viewpoints, Pariser argued. Obviously this exacerbates the bipolarization problem in American politics. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-shows-us-what-it-thinks-we-want-to-see/575006/2 "2011-03-17T14:02:44Z")
I think that this is the exact problem with the internet. It has quickly become, instead of a Whole General Mish-Mash of information and mis-information, an inescapably marketed and targeted collection of information and mis-information. Just one more example of how ease-of-use (or, more correctly named, speed-of-use) is basically synonymous with ‘unquestionably better,’ and blinds us to the fact that monied interests make millions by removing options and choice from our daily lives. And get off my damned lawn, you whipper-snappers! ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-shows-us-what-it-thinks-we-want-to-see/575006/3 "2011-03-18T04:09:19Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Obviously this exacerbates the bipolarization problem in American politics. You mean just “polarization”. In any case, I disagree completely. Anybody can read any websites they want. NY Times users can go to the National Review site and vice versa. You can’t really blame a search engine if you don’t. My exposure to the other side has increased dramatically. What the Internet has done is expose us more to the other side in its raw state, not as filtered by the MSM (not to mention the fact we now know how much the MSM **does** filter the news). In other words, the Internet doesn’t create the polarization: it exposes it. That’s a good thing in the long run. That is, unless you liked the MSM’s filtering. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-shows-us-what-it-thinks-we-want-to-see/575006/4 "2011-03-18T05:42:39Z")
> [@rowrrbazzle](#): > > In any case, I disagree completely. Anybody can read any websites they want. NY Times users can go to the National Review site and vice versa. You can’t really blame a search engine if you don’t. My exposure to the other side has increased dramatically. Well, take this to its logical conclusion and you have a Web that basically knows what you and your friends like and limits your exposure to only that. How would you even find out about other sources? How would I even know that the sources I’m accustomed to are biased and that I need to even look for other sources if me and everyone I know are going to the same small cabal of sources? Simple _availability_ isn’t enough; content must be available _and popular_ to have mainstream impact – this is why websites live and die by their Google PageRank. And this isn’t happening 20 years from now. It’s already here. My Facebook is limited to updates from the few friends I’ve had lengthy interactions with and feel-good updates from organizations whose posts I’ve offhandedly “Liked” in the past. My Google searches are getting more and more relevant but also becoming more and more limited and localized since they implemented a feature that returns results favored by others in my geographic area. And National Review? I’ve honestly never heard of it before your post. Google News usually leans towards the same few repeat offenders. It’s not really “blaming search engines”, it’s recognizing a part of human nature that tends to trust what it’s familiar with and what it already knows it likes, even at the expense of the truth. I don’t have cites handy, but there has been psychological research that’s pointed out those effects. Personalized content delivery only amplifies that flaw and makes us even less likely to see the bigger picture, even when it’s necessary. * * * On the other hand, I’m not sure that objectifying algorithms is going to help much. Even if you present people with contrary information, without some sort of way in or a good amount of relevance, they’re just going to ignore it/skim it and forget it/think it’s a conspiracy/dismiss it altogether. This only tackles one part of the problem (making sure contrary opinions are available), but the second part – the harder part – is getting those contrary opinions past people’s cognitive firewalls. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2011, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-shows-us-what-it-thinks-we-want-to-see/575006/5 "2011-03-18T07:21:42Z")
The internet is exacerbating this but this is a trend that reaches back into the late 60’s/early 70’s. Bill Bishop has written an excellent book examining this issue titled [The Big Sort](http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php). Long story short, the increased economic mobility of Americans allowed them to cluster into like minded communities. One interesting tid bit is that because liberals are more likely to move than conservatives, liberals are actually demographically more homogenous in their information diets.