Eli Pariser has written a book and done a TED talk on the subject of filter bubbles, which he describes as a tendency of websites like Facebook and Google to skew the information presented to individual users in favor of their previous behaviors, insulating them from ideas that run contrary to their established thinking. As a contrarian, I’m quite sympathetic to Pariser’s criticism of filter bubbles–I want people to see more contrary viewpoints–but, also as a contrarian, I disagree with Pariser on the party responsible for filter bubbles: he blames algorithms, whereas I would blame people.
Pariser first became aware of filter bubbles when he realized he was no longer seeing his conservative friends’ posts and links in his Facebook feed. He determined that this happened because he wasn’t engaging with conservative posts and links (by commenting on the posts or clicking on the links), leading Facebook’s algorithms to remove them on the basis that he wasn’t interested in them. The problem, as Pariser sees it, is that Facebook’s algorithm removed content that he wanted to see. The problem, as I see it, is that Pariser wasn’t actually engaging with the content he claims he wanted to see. Facebook removed his conservative friends’ posts because it deemed, correctly, that he was ignoring them.
The internet represents a specific instance of the problem of filter bubbles, but it’s only a small slice of the pie. In free societies, individuals define their media consumption. We choose which books, periodicals and web-sites to read, which television shows and films we watch, who our friends are, where we live, what our hobbies are. These freedoms present us with opportunities either to create filter bubbles by surrounding ourselves with like-minded individuals and agreeable ideas, or to actively seek out differing views, in order to challenge ourselves. The first option is easier on us. The second, I believe, is more rewarding, but also requires a certain amount of effort.
Here are some of the options that are available to Pariser upon realizing that his media consumption was tilted further to the left than he would like:
The first will get you a TED talk (and sell books). The other four are technology-driven means of achieving the end that Pariser is aiming for–more balanced media consumption.
The internet can be a facilitator of the challenging task of seeking out differing viewpoints and confronting them. It can also facilitate encapsulating ourselves in thought bubbles. Ultimately, the control lies in our own decisions of which media to consume, not in the algorithms designed to help us.
I’m puzzled by this chart from the Brookings Institution‘s Hamilton Project, which attempts to predict how long it will take the United States to return to pre-recession level employment. The chart plots three scenarios: a pessimistic option, in which employment grows at 208,000 jobs per month, as it did in 2005; an optimistic option, in which employment grows at 472,000 jobs per month, as it did in the best month in the 200s; and a middle option, in which employment grows at 321,000 jobs, as it did in 1994. The takeaway from the graph, presumably, is that it will take a very long time to return to full employment. The problem with the graph, is that its assumptions are entirely arbitrary, to the point that its predictions are largely meaningless.
The function of science, or social science is to use observed data to create theories that make predictions. In this case, Hamilton is observing the period 1990-2008, a period of time that neither included nor followed a large recession, then theorizing that 2012-2025, a period of time that does follow a large recession, will behave like 1990-2008. Hamilton is essentially saying that because job growth never exceeded 472,000 jobs per month when unemployment was low, it cannot possibly exceed 472,000 jobs per month when unemployment is high. It’s just bad science, and it’s exactly the same bad science that failed to predict the recession in the first place. Any scenario planning based on historical data leading up to 2008 would have deemed it impossible that employment would fall by 12 million from 2008 to 2010. Why then, does Hamilton continue to use a forecasting method when that method’s limitations have been so clearly exposed?
Reading Noah Millman’s somewhat hair-brained scheme to try to oust President Obama, I found myself asking an unexpected question: Why would a conservative want to oust Obama?
I’ve felt for some time that Obama’s re-election is basically a lock, which makes the above question largely moot, but I realized that for all my time spent reading conservative commentators, I really haven’t seen a coherent conservative critique of Obama’s policy, or an explanation of why electing a Republican in 2012 would better serve conservative principles. Conor Friedersdorf has criticized Obama’s security state apparatus along libertarian lines, quite validly in my opinion, but he hasn’t made much of a case that any Republican candidate would be better on civil liberties besides Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
I understand the basic logic here, that the Republican party tends to support more conservative policies that the democratic party and that thus, voting for a Republican–any Republican–would advance conservative causes. But my sense is that:
Given these factors, I actually expected thinking conservatives like Millman to simply write off 2012 presidential elections. Unless there’s a coherent conservative critique of the Obama Administration that I’m not aware of, why fight for the Romney-Perry-Gingrich smorgasbord when the guy in office is doing a pretty solid job?
Update: I may have misread Millman’s post as supporting his hair-brained scheme, as opposed to merely proposing it. He says he’s likely to back Obama.
I think that this story is much more important than this story.
I say these statistics are much more important than these statistics.
2009 U.S. Deaths by Cause:
By my math, I’ve already spent far too much time discussing the death penalty. Feel free to call me a psychopath.
Next topic…
America is productive enough that it could probably shelter, feed, educate, and even provide health care for its entire population with just a fraction of us actually working.
-Phil at Transparency Revolution
It is possible to have an enjoyable life without earning and spending a whole lot of money. If health care and education are the areas where costs are growing, and if their marginal benefits are in doubt, then if you just get your basic needs met and focus on the enjoyment you get from the stuff that is not so expensive, you can do pretty well without a ton of money.
I think a lot of us would rather not work for somebody else. It’s not necessarily that we’re burgeoning entrepreneurs eager to start small businesses. It just sucks to have a boss.
A job seeker is looking for something for a well-defined job. But the trend seems to be that if a job can be defined, it can be automated or outsourced.
-Arnold Kling again
What many, maybe most, people actually want, it turns out, is the creativity and autonomy of entrepreneurship combined with the stability of a 1950s corporate drone.
These ideas are rattling around in my head. Commentary to follow…
This is a place-holder for a much more detailed series of posts, but reading Will Wilkinson and then Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writing about Steve Jobs, I find myself hanging onto this thought:
It’s entirely consistent with capitalism to think poorly of Steve Jobs on the basis of a) the vast majority of Apple products being overpriced status symbols that provide little real value and b) his lack of charitable donation. That is, one can fully support an economic system that allows Steve Jobs to have the career he had, while simultaneously having a system of values that assigns very low esteem to Steve Jobs as a person. Which is to say, capitalism is very different than consumerism.
Previous iterations: Trump, Cain, Pawlenty
Current: Rick Perry
