Eli Pariser is a political activist who has a special interest in public policy with a track record of working for not-for-profit liberal organisations.

I consider myself a liberal and for the purposes of full disclosure, a fan of Google. I use Google+, Google Calendar, Google Books, Google Reader, and Twitter. I’m not a fan of Facebook, although I do use it. A while ago, I noticed ads in my Google Reader matched my recent searches and purchases. I found this curious but nothing more. After reading The Filter Bubble I now understand what this is and how it works. It is, according to Pariser, part of a strategy called behavioural retargeting. Essentially, if you don’t spend money on the trainers you like, the ad will follow you around the internet (such as favourite blogs, news sites, etc) hoping you will change your mind. I have a mind of my own, and this kind of advertising doesn’t work on me. If I want something, I buy it. If I don’t…
In Pariser’s book, the filter bubble is when searches on the internet (and by this he mostly refers to Google and Facebook) selectively suggests only the information it thinks you would like to see based on your previous searches and other data about you (friends, etc) and then introduces a feedback loop of sorts where that information only agrees with the user’s past searches and views. What this means is that user’s are exposed less and less to alternative view points and information beyond their scope of interests. He suggests that this can have dire social consequences. He says that the “filter bubble is isn’t tuned for a diversity of ideas…and not designed to introduce us to new cultures”.

The book has a couple of main thrusts. Firstly, and the one I personally disagree with, is that the filter bubble is essentially a bad thing and will bring about the decay of western civilisation (something we’ve all heard a million times before). I would counter-argue that Pariser is scare-mongering. He argues that his filter bubble could affect literacy levels for example, if everyone used Google Docs and even threaten democracy as people might not be able to think beyond their own narrow self-interests. However, I think he gives too much credit to people, as a social construct. Sure, the filter bubble, or personalised searches, or however one might describe current internet technology, might affect how people think. People have always been readily told what to think, be it by newspaper editors, politicians, local community leaders, religious leaders or parents. People are sheep, which is a sad truth. Information provided in the book proves this, as he shows in his section on schemata (reduction of information so we don’t continually see the world anew). Later, he points out partisans and ideologues are more likely to follow news, as they are more educated. However, he suggests that they would then be more likely to be mis-educated. I have a post-graduate degree, so I would probably fall into his category here. However, my circle of influence doesn’t begin and end with Twitter and Google+. I subscribe to various blogs based on authors I read. My interests are as varied as they were 20 years ago. I change my opinion based on evidence. My news comes from a wide range of online and offline sources. I suspect most people would have a similar story. I actually like the idea of personalisation of searches. As the author iterates, there is so much out there, so it would be very time consuming to apply your own personal filter. I enjoy Amazon’s recommendations (although I also read half-a-dozen book review sites/newspapers/magazines) although it does get a little annoying after I buy my niece a gift.

The second strand of Pariser’s argument, and the one I’d like to hear more about, is how the big corporations treat our data. This is a more pressing issue and I agree with most of his concerns and conclusions on this point. Facebook and Google should be more open with how they use our data. They should tell you how they are filtering your bubble. He says that there is always a price to pay for the convenience of these services, and that price is loss of privacy. However, there must be a cost for these free services. Is this a cost we should pay? Pariser believes not. I find myself somewhere in the middle ground. I accept the cost of the free. At times, when I’m doing research, I value it. I don’t always think about the consequences, although I am aware they exist. I suspect that those Pariser is trying to reach aren’t even aware, despite occasional news stories about Google or friends moaning about Facebook changing privacy settings again. I would have liked more comment on privacy laws and less hyperbole about face recognition software. It would have led to a more balanced debate.

The author appears to subscribe to the belief that everyone lives in this bubble, where the only source of information, news and products is the same internet he uses. I work in a library. This is not the case. The majority of people do not use the internet as their only source of information.

I found this book frustrating. On the one hand, it was very well written and researched and there were many salient points. On the other hand, it did, at times come across as an anti-Facebook/Google (hence an anti-corporation) rant. However, I was pleasantly surprised; the author did present a variety of thoughtful solutions to the problems he poses. I think that if they were scattered throughout the book, rather than as a final conclusion, it might have read as less of a diatribe. The main problem is that the book is highly unlikely to be read by the people he’s trying to reach. Only geeks and conspiracy nuts are likely to be interested. Most Facebook users only want to see what their friends did last Friday night.

Bookmark to