In her piece "The New Digital Divide," Marcia Stapanek analyzes the way our personalization of information on the web has segregated us from one another, creating a divide in the online space where we cannot actively engage with other people. She advocates for a more active online community by stating, "we must stop assuming that civic engagement will occur online on its own." With her article, she analyzes the notion that "data-filtering" isn't a new phenomenon, but it is becoming easier and more destructive with the advancement of technology. Ultimately, Stapanek argues, the once dreamed about internet that promoted democracy and open communication has turned up thus far to be a fantasy, and unless we actively engage the digital space in a new way we will never see an online space that inspires and encourages open communication between members of different belief systems, attitudes, and traditions.
She ends her piece with a question saying, "Does the surge of online social networks and corporate use of Net filters to segment consumers of their products make it harder for people to engage with one another -- in or out of the workplace?"
I would answer her question with a resounding yes. The segmentation of humanity into a society that lets us pick and choose the information that we feel is convenient and entertaining to us creates an environment that makes us less likely to be put in environments where we have to encounter information that we don't agree with or don't like.
Our culture lets us personalize our news with things like Google News and blogs subscribing to a particular political leaning. Because of this, "we must work harder to break out of all of these self-imposed (or machine-imposed) comfort zones if we're to affect social change," Stapanek states. I couldn't agree with her more. If we are to build a democratic environment in the online space, we must enter into communities that allow us to engage opposing viewpoints and we must engage them on a respectful, civic, and ethical level.
Let's engage each other in a civic way. We can even start now! If you disagree with me (or agree with me, for that matter), express your opinions freely.
With all of these negative sides being discussed in this post, what do you see as the positive attributes of data-personalization on the web?
I agree with the sentiments in your post, it's just hard for me to come up with any "positive attributes of data-personalization." Don't get me wrong, I generally get much of my information from sources that lean towards my political ideology, but I do so because it seems nearly impossible to find a neutral source. I guess it's best to hear a story from as many sources as possible to see where they all agree, but I don't have the time or willingness to do so.
ReplyDeleteI think the trend towards personalization of data is an effect, not cause, of skewed representation of data. As the media has become more openly partisan in the past few decades, it's more difficult to find unbiased sources. Therefore, Google for example will just filter out sites it knows you're probably not going to like.
I agree that this is a bad thing, but it seems the solution lies in changing the habits of individuals, which seems nearly impossible to do.
Something positive might be how convenient and time efficient these personalizations are. Also, it's easier to explore content that is related to your interests that you would have never looked at before.
ReplyDeleteOne somewhat disturbing/funny effect of this personalization trend is when one of your friends uses your computer to look up something or logs into their account and the ads combine both your friends and your interests to produce something interesting to say the least. I know I have gotten ads any from "find Mormon women" to "New Bratz movie out today" after I let certain people use my computer. I just find it funny sometimes how impersonal and easily skewed these filters can become.
This is why media literacy is so important, technology is becoming our reality. We should be helping one another adapt to this cyberworld. If we all learn how to use computer applications we'd be helping eliminate the digital divide.
ReplyDeleteOk, here's an idea. Let's find another class (doesn't have to be a UT rhetoric class) that does blogs and start commenting on them. I wonder how students in that other class might respond to us "barging" in. Likewise, how do you think we'd respond if some random person started commenting on our class blogs? Sorry just a random idea inspired by your excellent post.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post; there's clearly a segment of the population that responds very, very well to this data personalization – there are people and companies whose lives and existence are dedicated to the market research that goes into understanding users' habits and creating services for these people that greatly reduce the data overload that we can be susceptible to online. That said, I feel digitally competent enough to actually wade through the information myself and pick out what is useful to me. As a result, it's admittedly frustrating when I get limited to a specific set of parameters when I search for things – I'm the guy that selects every single source when I search through EBSCO, even if that's irrational.
ReplyDeleteBut I completely understand the automated narrowing of information: it allows us to find relevant information far quicker, given our own habits.
And with regards to Chinchin's idea... someone post a link and I'm in.
I just can't see this admission that we're still separated when we're online as a bad thing. Sure, I don't think we should only see news that tells us what we want to hear, but I think that us being so connected in the "real world" to our online personalities means that this is going to necessarily happen. If a potential employer can analyze what I do online, those actions are at least as important as my offline behavior.
ReplyDeleteStepanak asks if SNSs "make it harder for people to engage with one another", and I'd say no. In my experience, especially on sites like Twitter, I'm more likely to "speak" to someone online who thinks differently than I do but is interested in similar topics. In the "real world", I just avoid joining groups with different political beliefs than I have, for example.
One positive aspect of data-personalization might be that it makes better use of our time. Time is a huge aspect of western culture, and having information catered to us definitely saves us time. With these filters, we don't necessarily have to dig through what we want to read. In the same way, if we are fed information that does not contradict our existing beliefs, we won't have to spend time getting angered by that information. Staying in our own bubble, per say, with data-personalization is a way to save time. The issue this has with ignorance and being informed, though, is a different question.
ReplyDeleteOne of the positive aspects of filters is how they allow us to better use our time. For instance, if I'm working on a project and I've been researching for awhile the search engine has an idea of what I'm looking for and will pull it up easily. This allows me to cut my research time in half, which, as a busy student, I feel is great.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how the internet was expected to relieve psychological tendencies. I agree that a conscious effort should be made to encounter new and diverse information, but do not necessarily think the internet is an appropriate forum for this dialogue (without rules of decency or a human face to associate with an argument, debates can really get out of hand/get unproductive).
ReplyDelete