4 ms·

> A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it wou

> A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it would fail to clue me in to the fact that, say, my country had been infested by a rising tide of neo-Nazis. Except it would. I know no-one that talks about opera (or anything) all of the time, and it's hard to think that a rising tide of neo-Nazis would escape the notice of a group of reasonably educated, establishment liberals. Much of filter bubble theory as it applies to social media seems to treat humans as unthinking demographic blobs defined entirely by their status and political beliefs, and the bubble as something impenetrable, through which new information about the world cannot pass. Sure, within groups there is groupthink, and I get the appeal of techno-dystopianism, but I can't accept the idea that this is in any way a new phenomenon, or that we are not more connected to new ideas now than we have ever been.

mercer 9y ago
While it's perhaps also true that it's easier now than ever to just remain in a bubble of like-minded people, I sometimes wonder if that maybe misses the point. Perhaps the problem is not so much lack of access or exposure to new information, but rather that it's information, or 'self marketing' social interaction instead of real, sustained, connection/relation. Kind of a 'medium is the message' type deal: technology enables/encourages us to relate in ways that involve promotion, lack of day-to-day interaction, increased compartmentalization of our social lives, etc. For example, one argument against the 'bubble' theory is that a hugely popular site like reddit makes it easier than ever to be exposed to wildly different viewpoints. Not just through the 'all' section, but also by subscribing to various subreddits with a simple click. But the fact that none of these pieces of text represent people that I know, that I grew up with, that are part of my daily life, that I talk to about my person non-partisan troubles, that I experienced things with, or touched/saw/heard, they're rather abstract. In fact, they're so abstract that it's even difficult to 'link' their particular messages to each other and form a picture of a person who is more than the contents of that one message + the subreddit we're in. I definitely feel that both online, and in 'real life', it's not so much the lack of information that is a problem, but rather the lack of real, ongoing relationships with others. I've seen so many examples of people changing their minds on things simply because of their partner, or close friends, etc. I've seen far right individuals change their views after they sort of accidentally became friends with an immigrant. I've seen extremely conservative Christians change their views on, say, homosexuality because they had a wonderful colleague who was gay. And so on. I've seen much fewer examples of people who 'engaged' with information (books, articles, study, whatever) and made similar changes in their views. Furthermore, I think we actively hide the effect of relationships on our views, because we want to think that our convictions are reasonable, and well-considered. So if our beliefs change through relationship (and of course information too), we are likely to de-emphasize that. Because it's not exactly 'rational'. The documentary "Accidental Courtesy" highlights this well, I think. Some of Louis Theroux's stuff also shows this dynamic.
jlebar 9y ago
>> A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it would fail to clue me in to the fact that, say, my country had been infested by a rising tide of neo-Nazis. > Except it would. I dunno. There are a lot of people on this site who think we shouldn't talk about politics, at all, ever. I guess the fact that we do talk about it is a point in your favor. But it isn't at all inconceivable that there might exist a HN-like site where only strictly "on-topic" conversations are allowed.
barrkel 9y ago
> it's hard to think that a rising tide of neo-Nazis would escape the notice of a group of reasonably educated, establishment liberals It's more likely that a bubble of "reasonably educated, establishment liberals" would not understand the grievances of another group of people, and perceive them through the lens of "a rising tide of neo-Nazis", othering them and directly creating conflict, rather than understanding them. This is how the filter bubble actually works. It's not that the information doesn't come through; it's that it comes through a glass darkly, at high risk of alienation from people holding out-group views. If, for example, you think that people who don't like change in the social composition of their community are morally wrong for feeling uncomfortable, you're going to push for cultural movements that demonize them. And that makes the problem worse; it amplifies conflict and widens the cracks in society. There are multiple self-coherent but mutually incoherent views on how society should be structured. As I get older, I find myself feeling less strongly about one view versus another. I am most suspicious of those who believe they have found the one true view; their zeal for change isn't tempered by doubt. No matter which coherent perspective you have, you won't succeed in moving people with other perspectives if you don't acknowledge that their perspectives are also coherent. Your best bet for achieving change is reframing that change within the perspective of those you're trying to convince. Saying that the people you're trying to convince are evil because their view is wrong won't end well.

mercer 9y ago

While it's perhaps also true that it's easier now than ever to just remain in a bubble of like-minded people, I sometimes wonder if that maybe misses the point. Perhaps the problem is not so much lack of access or exposure to new information, but rather that it's information, or 'self marketing' social interaction instead of real, sustained, connection/relation. Kind of a 'medium is the message' type deal: technology enables/encourages us to relate in ways that involve promotion, lack of day-to-day interaction, increased compartmentalization of our social lives, etc. For example, one argument against the 'bubble' theory is that a hugely popular site like reddit makes it easier than ever to be exposed to wildly different viewpoints. Not just through the 'all' section, but also by subscribing to various subreddits with a simple click. But the fact that none of these pieces of text represent people that I know, that I grew up with, that are part of my daily life, that I talk to about my person non-partisan troubles, that I experienced things with, or touched/saw/heard, they're rather abstract. In fact, they're so abstract that it's even difficult to 'link' their particular messages to each other and form a picture of a person who is more than the contents of that one message + the subreddit we're in. I definitely feel that both online, and in 'real life', it's not so much the lack of information that is a problem, but rather the lack of real, ongoing relationships with others. I've seen so many examples of people changing their minds on things simply because of their partner, or close friends, etc. I've seen far right individuals change their views after they sort of accidentally became friends with an immigrant. I've seen extremely conservative Christians change their views on, say, homosexuality because they had a wonderful colleague who was gay. And so on. I've seen much fewer examples of people who 'engaged' with information (books, articles, study, whatever) and made similar changes in their views. Furthermore, I think we actively hide the effect of relationships on our views, because we want to think that our convictions are reasonable, and well-considered. So if our beliefs change through relationship (and of course information too), we are likely to de-emphasize that. Because it's not exactly 'rational'. The documentary "Accidental Courtesy" highlights this well, I think. Some of Louis Theroux's stuff also shows this dynamic.

jlebar 9y ago

>> A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it would fail to clue me in to the fact that, say, my country had been infested by a rising tide of neo-Nazis. > Except it would. I dunno. There are a lot of people on this site who think we shouldn't talk about politics, at all, ever. I guess the fact that we do talk about it is a point in your favor. But it isn't at all inconceivable that there might exist a HN-like site where only strictly "on-topic" conversations are allowed.

barrkel 9y ago

> it's hard to think that a rising tide of neo-Nazis would escape the notice of a group of reasonably educated, establishment liberals It's more likely that a bubble of "reasonably educated, establishment liberals" would not understand the grievances of another group of people, and perceive them through the lens of "a rising tide of neo-Nazis", othering them and directly creating conflict, rather than understanding them. This is how the filter bubble actually works. It's not that the information doesn't come through; it's that it comes through a glass darkly, at high risk of alienation from people holding out-group views. If, for example, you think that people who don't like change in the social composition of their community are morally wrong for feeling uncomfortable, you're going to push for cultural movements that demonize them. And that makes the problem worse; it amplifies conflict and widens the cracks in society. There are multiple self-coherent but mutually incoherent views on how society should be structured. As I get older, I find myself feeling less strongly about one view versus another. I am most suspicious of those who believe they have found the one true view; their zeal for change isn't tempered by doubt. No matter which coherent perspective you have, you won't succeed in moving people with other perspectives if you don't acknowledge that their perspectives are also coherent. Your best bet for achieving change is reframing that change within the perspective of those you're trying to convince. Saying that the people you're trying to convince are evil because their view is wrong won't end well.