

Web Inventor Tim Berners-Lee weighs in: There’s Danger in the Filter Bubble - wslh
http://www.thefilterbubble.com/web-inventor-tim-berners-lee-weighs-in-theres-danger-in-the-filter-bubble

======
FilterJoe
I'm not getting this "filter bubble" meme that's floating about of late. My
site is dedicated to helping people filter information (www.filterjoe.com),
though not in the narrow sense discussed by the "filter bubble" proponents.
Many regular people I know are totally overloaded and overwhelmed by the web,
and most especially the social web (email, facebook, twitter, etc.).

Which is the best browser to use? How do I manage 200 passwords? What's the
best kind of AA battery to buy? How do I read web pages without getting
distracted?

It can be pretty hard for a normal person to get good answers to questions
like these. Googling won't necessarily get you good answers and many people
won't even know to ask (many people don't know that their password practices
are extremely risky, or that the little "e" they click on to access the
internet is a browser).

What's needed are better filters. This backlash against filtering takes one
very small subset of possible reasons to filter - avoiding contradictory
information to controversial topics - and makes a grand leap to the conclusion
that all filtering is bad.

By this argument, if I do a keyword search on "passwords," it would be best if
I were served the random top 10 results that happen to have the word
"password" somewhere in the title or one of the subheadings. That way I won't
be subjected to harmful biases . . .

EDIT: typo

~~~
magicseth
I think the argument is much more nuanced. The danger isn't inherently in the
filters themselves, it is in the way they shape people's beliefs unknowingly.
Understanding that these filters exist give you the ability to start to think
about how your beliefs may be being modified. The next step is empowering
users to change these filters, modify them, so that if they /want/ to, they
can use these filters, or they could switch them, to experience the opposite
side of the story.

Again though, the first step is to acknowledge and raise awareness.

~~~
FilterJoe
I get the idea about biases creeping in that you don't even know about. But
it's pretty easy to do a search for the opposite of something. For example:

google Palestinian view

google Israeli view

I would be surprised if personalized search results got so extreme as to make
that not work.

The problem of filtering out low quality or irrelevance is much harder. I
believe I'm substantially better than the average person at finding things on
the web yet I waste many hours per week trying to sift out high quality
information on various subjects I'm researching. So I, for one, would welcome
filtering that is far better and far more personalized than what exists today.
And I don't want to have to spend hours per week fiddling with Yahoo Pipes or
something along those lines in order to get there.

Whether any of the new attempts at automated personalized filtering will
greatly improve quality/relevance is a separate question. The answer to that
probably won't be known for years.

EDIT: inserted line break

~~~
TeMPOraL
Well, in the TED talk there was example of two queries about Egypt made at the
same time from different locations, and the first results page from one was
completely missing information about unrests that were going on at that time.
It's a little bit scary to me.

------
ckinni
I think that the premise here, that by giving relevant results search engines
will filter the diverse range of opinions which exist in the world, is
intriguing. In the short term, I think it's unlikely that online
personalization will be accurate enough to create the type of bubble Tim
Berners-Lee is suggesting. In the long term, however, I do see this as
significant and dangerous. Unlike the way current tribes work, in which a
person needs to actively seek and follow their 'tribe', this is a passive
action - over time web services get to know you and seemingly shield you from
diversity. The passive vs active nature required to keep up with one's tribe
is the part of his prediction which worries me.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_In the short term, I think it's unlikely that online personalization will be
accurate enough to create the type of bubble Tim Berners-Lee is suggesting._

The type of bubble TBL is suggesting is actually just the reddit hivemind. It
already exists. People like it.

~~~
ckinni
It seems to me that he's talking about computers personalizing based on their
interactions with you passively.

However, I completely agree that reddit and almost all website that brings
together like minded people will have this "bubble" effect. That, however, is
nothing new. It's the same as similar groups of people going to the same
church, or joining book clubs, or gathering in groups for any reason. The
scary thing here is sites that everyone uses will begin to passively function
in the same way, making it even less likely than ever for someone who isn't
seeking out a diverse range of opinions to find them.

Also worth noting is that there is a moral assumption here that being exposed
to a diverse range of opinions is a good thing. If you don't believe that,
then this is a moot point.

------
hugh3
I don't know about you, but a filter-bubble is for me a very difficult-to-
visualise mixed metaphor.

~~~
silentbicycle
Think about a world where anybody who could say anything that would possibly
upset you (whether they're trolling or just calling you on your bullshit) are
_invisible_.

Sometimes, the truth hurts. A filter bubble is a carefully engineered blinder,
a space free of novel data.

If you're trying to understand your opponents' position in any kind of debate,
yet your search engine carefully chauffeurs you away from _any info that might
upset you_ , you're trapped in a filter bubble.

("Bubble" has irrelevant economic connotations; "hall of mirrors"/"echo
chamber" fits better, IMHO.)

~~~
hugh3
Oh, I'm just trying to visualise a bubble whose skin is made of filters.

It doesn't make sense, all the air would leak out.

~~~
stdbrouw
Not if it's optical filters, innit?

------
sanxiyn
If I've ever seen an efficient filter that "as a result you end up being
dedicated to your tribe", Hacker News is one.

~~~
greim
We certainly do create our own filters by what we subscribe to, how we
moderate posts, or how we otherwise personalize our accounts.

There's an argument that people should self-police their own filtering to
allow diversity to flourish, but these self-created filters aren't the issue,
in my view.

The worry is when self-policing isn't an option, either because people aren't
aware filtering is going on in the first place, or that they don't have any
control over the filters.

------
ender7
Eli Pariser has a good TED talk along similar lines:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...](http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html)

~~~
bdhe
He has also written a book: [http://www.amazon.com/Filter-Bubble-What-
Internet-Hiding/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Filter-Bubble-What-Internet-
Hiding/dp/1594203008/)

------
gbog
There are two ways ahead here I think, but first we have to admit filters are
everywhere. When googling something, I'm happy that Google filters out link
farms and other content-free websites. When choosing to follow some people on
Twitter, I filter out all other people I could follow. The other assumption is
that automatic filtering is sometime successful and anyway increasingly
necessary. Last assumption is that everyone needs both familiarity and a pinch
of unfamiliar.

One way ahead is the way fashion works: present always the same thing and make
believe that it is new. It requires a good amount of brainwashing, but it
works very well. I hate it. This would enclose each part of the web in a set
of provinces and people will eat information from their provinces only, with,
sometime, a sticker "exotic" or "unseen" added, but it will be like Chinese
food in the West: cheap Western dishes with a foreign name.

The other way is to have informal communities doing the filtering, like on HN.
There must be a common denominator, but it can and should be traversal. I
mean, here, I see posts about physics, drugs, laws, internet. The common
denominator is something related to geekiness, but it is ok. It is still a
place where I can discover things about the world.

That why I fight (and get downvotes) against some provincialisms I find on HN,
like when someone unknowingly writes something that do not apply to non-
Americans or non-Western people, or non-English natives.

------
jamesgagan
indeed, we already filter our information by choosing newspapers/tv aligned
with our ideologies.

------
mkr-hn
I think filters are only making formal what most people do anyway. The
Internet enables people like myself (and probably many here at HN) to find
other viewpoints with little effort.

What counts is _who_ is using viewpoint filters and how often they go outside
for a look at the world. That's policy makers (who tend to stick to one of
three cable networks), CEOs (CNBC is probably a main news source), and
advocacy groups (think tanks and political niche sites).

------
tga
I did notice something like the filter bubble effect in music recommendation
engines. I fed my Last.fm profile with music I liked and upvotes, then started
listening to my "favourites station" (sadly something I gave up a while back
because they wouldn't play a thing anymore without asking for cash first). The
noticeable result was that I was listening to the same set of songs while
reinforcing the filter by never skipping and indicating I loved every single
one.

------
stretchwithme
Wouldn't people notice a difference between their actual understanding of the
world and what gets past a particular filter?

For example, people will still drive down the street and see fast food
restaurants. Why would they not believe they exist just because they never
show up when they search for a restaurant online?

Just because you only see alternatives you like doesn't mean you forget there
are alternatives you don't.

------
radu_floricica
I wonder if technology could be made to offer the opposite effect. Once Google
leans my habits well enough, it could show me the most popular hits for a
certain query, that I'd never be usually shown. I could find out for example
that Java is an island and a kind of coffee.

------
treelovinhippie
Predicted this a lil while back:
<http://hive45.com/shows/episode-28-recommendation-engines>

I don't think people have hit on all the points or implications quite yet.

------
Confusion
I think people are overlooking the fact that everyone has always lived in a
filter bubble. There's an undeniable influence of your surroundings on your
beliefs and knowledge about the world. To follow up on the example Berners-Lee
gives: rich people are already unaware of the existence of cheap alternatives.
On a fundamental level, they know they exist (if not because of direct
contact, then because of fundamental knowledge of the way society works), but
on a practical level, these alternatives aren't considered and they aren't
advertised by their friends or by the media the rich consume.

People are only more broadly aware if they are open for, and looking for,
alternative information. This has always been the case.

------
shareme
unfortunately his premise is false..

The reason why search does not do this is that you can put anything in the
search query box..

~~~
Joeboy
One of us is confused, and I'm not sure which. You realise Google shows
different people different results, even if they put the same thing in the
search query box?

~~~
dwrowe
I think they mean in the context of your search. This is what has annoyed me
most about the "filter bubble" idea. If google doesn't return _relevant_
results, you'll go somewhere else. If I search for a steak restaurant and get
results for KFC because, hey, Chicken deserves a chance, that result isn't
relevant. If google shows different results for the _same_ query, but both are
just a relevant to the searcher, than google is doing its job.

