Bolg 3: Filter Bubbles

I never realized how much our search engines impact what we are looking at. I knew that they were starting to become more personalized, but after watching the TEDtalk where Eli Pariser's discusses how filter bubbles are shaping online interactions and space, it got me thinking. It really became clear to me how much the filter bubble does differientate between different users based on what the search engine thinks the user would want to see. I find this unfair and very tacticle. I believe in the beginning search engines such as google and yahoo probably meant for the intention to be a helpful tactic, but like most ways dealt in the United States they took the idea to a whole other level. The filter bubble may be trying to show the user what it thinks it would want to see, but there is a huge chance the user doesn't get provided for what they are looking for. In a self selected filter bubble, such as wearing headphones in a crowd, the indiviudal is making the choice to seperate themselves with what is going on around them. The online filter bubble doesn't let the user make the choice of what they want to see, instead they are editing things out. Advertisements and marketing have been using the "personalized tactics" for a while now. Notice that when you are on your social media, or any site for that matter, the advertisements on the pages correlate exactly with what you have been looking at previously or things that relate to you in some way. I think that is why Pariser is telling us to "beware". Every host is starting to sweeping the web with personalizations. We are moving into the world where the internet is showing us "what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see." There is important information and knowledge that were are failing to recieve because of our filter bubble. We are getting our own unique information from online, but we don't decide what gets in and we dont see what is getting edited out. People are being manipulated for their freedom to roam the internet about anything they want, not just what the filter bubble wants to show you. The filter bubble algorithm does not have "embedded ethics" as Eli shares.. They are not keyed to relevance and do not challenge our ideas. People need a good flow of information and control on the internet. The internet should be introducing us to new perspectives and ideas, but if we are isolated we don't get the opportunity to connect with our world and the people in it.

 As a single individual there is not a lot I can do to ameliorate filter bubbles. I think that if everyone were more knowledgeable about filter bubbles then it would be more impactful. As individuals people could start looking up things more broader relative, and more unlike themselves to maybe get more range of choices. On a group scale, if people complained enough about filter bubbles to where search engines would realize how they could be troubling, then they might stop making them so personalized and be how they use to be.

The internet is our virtual campfire in which we hear the stories and information that help us shape our own personal views and beliefs and connect with others. Today, instead of gathering around a campfire, we gather around televisions, cellphones, and laptops. Our time together is now spent with technology instead of a campfire, and living in a world through technology. We are receiving information mainly through technology instead of the old days, where we read books and heard things orally. It is out new communication system, and we should not be given tailored information to enable our minds of new ideas and knowledge.

The filter bubble definitely fits into the digital divide we discussed in class. The algorithm could edit out certain people on your social networking, forcing you to only interact with certain groups or people the online host wants you to. If only people are interacting with those similar to them, then that can pose a huge diverse issue. We need to be open to new people, perspectives, and ideas but based off the filter bubble we are limited to being diverse, and the more diverse and willingness to take in all sides and people, the better!

Blog 2: Digital Nation Unflattening our Discourses on Technology

          Clifford Nass argues that "people who chronically multitask show an enormous range of deficits" (Nass, 2013). People are easily distracted and think they can multitask when it actually is harder for people to focus when switching back and forth between tasks. He created a study where he split up subjects in two groups; those who consistently do a lot of multitasking and those who do not. The research suggested that, "individuals who frequently use multiple media approach fundamental can multitask information-processing activities differently than do those who consume multiple media streams much less frequently...... those who infrequently multitask are more effective at volitionally allocating their attention in the face of distractions" (Ophir, Nass, Wagner, 2009). I do agree with Nass and believe that people think they are good at multitasking, yet all of this data and evidence proves otherwise. I think that our brains are very good at letting us think we can go back and forth between tasks so quickly, but our brains our amazing and quick, yet that does not mean they are necessarily all efficient at times. In psychology I learned that only part of your brain is actually paying attention to one thing at a time, that our brains just switch quickly back and forth between what we are doing. Take listening to music while doing homework as an example. You have headphones in your ears to hear the music, and you have a book in front of you with a paper and pen to write your thoughts on your assignment. You write a few sentences down, then mouth along to the words to the song your listening to then go back to writing. Your not listening to the music while you are writing down and reading, you are just quickly switching back and forth with your motors to pay attention to what is most important at that time.           

          I think in the era we are in now, we definitely our "distracting ourselves to death" with the obsession that everyone has with their technology. The media and the constant urge to always want to be "connected" with the world has absorbed into the lifestyles of most people. I feel that a lot of what people find important are materialistic problems or half the time deal with someone else's life that one may be involved in. If you just look around be are absorbed in their phones everywhere you go. Now a days, it is hard to even go to restaurant without seeing everyone on their phones while eating. The amount of distractions are increasing everyday. Digital media has made people far more distracted today, then previous forms of media. It use to be that people would grab the newspaper in the morning to read and catch up with that is going on in the world. Now, people are checking their multiple social media accounts, emails, news sites, apps, etc. on the regular throughout their day.    

          The concept of "Always On" is the continual obsession with connection to technology. There are always distractions of technology wherever you go. People sleep with their phones, take them wherever they go, and are ALWAYS on them. When I use to play on a sports team every time we would get a quick water break, girls would use that time to check their phone and respond to people. Was it really that important that they had to be distracted from getting water and stray away from focusing on what was going on at practice? The concept "Always On" is taken for granted because it is so much easier and faster now to find information and communicate, so we make sure we are ALWAYS connected.           

          In Nass' statement, "we cannot possibly multitask, the sociological literature proves this," he misses important dimensions about people lives in regard to gender, race, sex, or class. We are able to make identities and personal profiles that may not actually identify with our 'reality' identity. We can choose to be whatever persona we want to be on the internet and say whatever we want (for the most part). And being able to choose the identity you want to be is more appealing and easier than real life, so people may want to only 'live' through that way. People are loosing how to socialize because they are losing the face-to-face connections with people due to the importance of using technology. Of course we have many distractions and I am sure that social skills have assisted into creating multitasking.I think multitasking is associated with technology because of how many things there are now. Technology is hurting people's social skills, which can hurt them in the future when people want jobs. Our culture has become a cyber culture and everything, especially in the US, is dependent on digital technology. 

This video I put with my blog shows you an exaggerated version of multitasking only without so much using technology. I think it is pretty funny, yet somewhat true. 
http://youtu.be/Aey2kG6Ad8k

Blog 1: Why Study 'the Internet'?

Foot contends that it is important to archive and preserve the bits of content and the experimental dimension of site interactions online to understand cyber culture through web sphere analysis. Web sphere analysis is an analysis of the relations between the producers and users of the web materials mediated between the structure of website's links and hyperlinks. She explains that the methodology in creating web sphere analysis involves identifying the objects or themes related to the web sites, to apprehend the hyperlink context, and archive the metadata with some periodicity of present and past analysis. I think it would be very difficult to extend this methodology for web sphere analysis to social media sites. First off, although social media is composed of many hyperlinks and links between personal profiles, it would be challenging to conduct interviews with all the producers and users in the social media web sphere and in turn hard to retrieve data to analyze. Also, a website page dominantly focuses on a topic, whereas social media sites are combined views, interests, opinions, etc. of multiple topics which one may express through words, videos, audio, or pictures. The hash tag, as found on twitter, or the @ sign, used in most social media to directly interact with another user, create easy ways to connect and interact with another and find similarities with common hash tags and links posted. But this poses a problem in web sphere analysis. Users can make up hash tags that are irrelevant. Then that information is no longer useful and the data is derived into another form of interaction investigation through the web. The link, which Foot explains to be the "essence of the web", becomes very complicated through the social networking service. The whole dynamic and structure of social media sites are through hyperlinks and connecting with other users on the sites. It is not a page based up political, economical, beliefs, etc. like used as the archives of information for the 9/11 example Foot used. The whole dynamic of web sphere analysis is changed through SNS when it becomes a system of links and personal interests. Also, personal profiles make it difficult to analyze interactions due to permanency. With SNS I do not think there would be certainty in viewing content later if needed to find it, creating complications for web sphere analysis.

Comparing the study between Foot's web sphere analysis of post-9/11 production and the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing I predict would be very similar in that many people would be a high percentage of a personal producer. Both reactions were both very startling and unsettling and would bring a lot of people to want to voice their feelings and expressions. I think that the Boston Marathon bombing would probably have a higher percentage overall in the producer being a personal user because it is more prevalent to have your own page or site of some sort than it would have in 2001. I would think that more people interacted on the web to deal and cope with the tragedy of the bombing and SNS played a major role in venting peoples emotions. In the past year, it has become a norm to interact and communicate solely through the web. When something is blown up on social media, everyone has something to say about it, and they can, through SNS. I think their would be more people on their own social media sites then there would be on government and news sites when enabling expression.

Introduction

Hi, my name is Brooke Larsen and this is my first blog! I created this blog for my class AMST 475, digital diversity. I took this class for my tier lll credit and thought it would be really interesting and relevant to what is going on in the world. I am a junior at Washington State University going for a major in General Studies focusing on communication, business, and sociology. My hometown is on the west side of Washington where most of my loving family is. I am an outgoing and open minded person who is anxious to learn new things. I love living a healthy lifestyle and enjoy sports and being active. Go Hawks!!