Slashdot Mirror
Is Facebook Keeping You In a Political Bubble?
sciencehabit writes: Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along? Political scientists have long wondered whether the social network's news feed selectively serves up ideologically charged news while filtering out content from different camps. Now, a study by Facebook's in-house social scientists finds that this does happen, though the effect seems to be very small. "There's a growing concern that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter allow us to more precisely engineer our informational environments than ever before, so we only get info that's consistent with our prior beliefs," says David Lazer, a political and computer scientist who authored a commentary on the paper.
Yeah I know, the great unwashed.
Sad world.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
No, because I dropped Facebook a couple of years ago. Too narrow a view on the world, too much of a social/political/financial echo chamber, too prying re personal detail, too much advertising, and too much extremely-creepy influence on ads I see externally. I miss a *little* of the content, but most of it was OCD junk from distant relatives and bloviating nonsense from industry "thought leaders". Good riddance.
I think not...(*poof*)
DuckDuckGo and the like made a big deal about the big players doing search engine bubbling. Depending on who you are, you get different results.
I don't use Facebook enough to comment on that, but I'd imagine the echo chamber would be deafening.
Cheers, ~ Ruben
If you de-friend someone (or large groups of someones), their stories are basically not going to be on your feed in the first place, and liberals have been shown to be more likely to de-friend conservatives over political differences than conservatives de-friend liberals http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/21/liberals-are-more-likely-to-unfriend-you-over-politics-online-and-off/
Unless you're a complete recluse or are making a conscious effort to sequester yourself from any popular culture, it's virtually impossible to be in your teens or 20's and not be exposed to various legitimate liberal political stances -- most often during college years. OTOH, it's quite easy to never interact with any "real life" legitimate conservative arguments, other than straw men that the liberal political arguments are using.
Thus you end up with 25 year olds who have no basic understanding of conservative economic principles, or presume that there's no other possible motiviation for some random socially conservative policy than abject hatred and/or slavish religious belief.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Keeping You In a Political Bubble?
YES - SLASHDOT!
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Don't have fb, never will.
The way youtube suggests videos very much generates an echo chamber (in my personal experience based entirely on anecdotal evidence). Perhaps facebook story selection has a similar effect but, to me, it's far less visible than it is on youtube.
I don't use Facebook, so it isn't doing anything to my political viewpoints.
Slashdot, on the other hand, is. Every day we're subjected to one or more dumb social justice stories here. If it isn't yet another article about how there aren't enough women in tech (and which also totally ignore how there are some fields that are female-dominated), then it's an article about how the police are "bad" for having to use deadly force in self defence against some black youths who physically attacked them. Then there's the total nonsense about Aaron Swartz that comes up so often, and the articles are always defending him (although he acted maliciously) and blame others for his death (although it was due to his completely voluntary suicide). And just yesterday, I believe it was, there was yet another article scare-mongering about climate change.
Slashdot wasn't always like this, mind you. But since it has oriented itself toward social justice causes, I've found myself becoming less and less supportive of what is becoming a very extremist, intolerant political mindset. Social justice is no longer social in nature; it's about creating division among people. Nor is it about justice; it's about promoting severe inequality under the cloak of equality.
Facebook's no different to any other web site people spend a lot of their time with. Heck, spend enough time on Slashdot and you'll grow to believe that Linux is superior to Windows in every way and Microsoft is only a stone's throw away from collapsing, despite reality showing quite a different story.
If people are spouting annoying political bullshit on Facebook, I just unfollow them. Pretty simple to use the tools provided by the site.
Proves that I am right.
I deliberately subscribe to groups of different views in order to avoid such a problem.
Facebook is an informational environment?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
People want to remain in a political bubble. It helps convince them they're right.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
In the future our algorithmic overlords will decide for what's good in everything we do, from our gadgets to our leaders to our lovers. It would be a technological utopia for the sheeple, a dystopia for the freethinkers. Rather than war, it's our Facebook likes, Google searches, Amazon (Alibaba?) buys, aggregated and analysed by machines, that will bring about the Matrix.
Yes, Facebook is keeping me in a political bubble, but not nearly to the extent that National Review did in the early 90s. I repent of my Ollie North bumper sticker!
Actually I find that Facebook presents a fair and reasonable range of views on all issues, now that everyone finally agrees that global warming was a myth.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
When it comes to politics, the best position is not to subscribe to one political group, but to make a decision for every issue that concerns you.
Echo chambers tend to get more polarized each iteration, kind of how Newton's method gets more accurate each iteration.
Its obvious that feelings are a big player here. You feel good if you see people agree with you.
And that is exactly what targeted content does, it echoes your opinions back.
And the solution would be for people to use their brain instead of their feelings, research on all sides of the argument.
Liberals pare particularly bad at this.
But I don't expect, say Youtube, to start suggesting you to watch a video with contrary opinions to yours anytime soon...
Google likes money too much...
Now, a study by Facebook's in-house social scientists finds that this does happen, though the effect seems to be very small.
My. Asshole. Back before I stopped using facebook I noted several design issues with Facebook which magnified this effect. When posting pages to facebook, meaningless drivel would often post correctly even when pages were very large and complex, but political content would often fail to post even when the content was very simple and loaded very quickly even on my rinky-dink connection. Going back through my feed, I found that links had disappeared (or one might say "had been removed") from political content, but the links were still attached to the meaningless drivel. Some of it was stuff I had posted for amusement value, but I actually inserted some dummy content in there as well. Finally, even when you ask to see all the posts from specific users in your feed, you don't. You have to drill down to their user page to see all the content. Facebook won't show you all the content you ask to see in your stream.
Anyone who takes Facebook's word for it is dumber than dumb, and deserves to be taken advantage of all day.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My politics, such as they are, are slightly to the other side of the line than most of the people in my Facebook contacts. A good number of those contacts are prone to posting what seem to me to be quite biased, divisive articles essentially preaching the moral superiority of the choir to the choir. My preferred style of engagement is to ask questions rather than assert "truths" and I try to steer clear of speculation on motive, appeals to authority, and all those rhetorical cop-outs. When I try to engage people on this stuff, the result is often quite hostile and sometimes personal. This makes me suspect that many people posting these things aren't really looking for debate, they're just looking for approval from their group. It would save me a lot of grief if Facebook provided a flag so people could indicate what kind of responses they're looking for when they post these things.
Having said all that, I find pretty much the same thing here on Slashdot and on most on-line fora. I just don't get the impression that many people see debate as a constructive way of testing one's beliefs and ideas.
If there is one thing that can cause an argument it is how to spend someone elses money. It is on both sides of the 'aisle'. They just have different things they want to spend the money on.
One side wants to give it to deadbeats. The other side wants to give it to 1%rs who think they need a 5 yacht made of gold. Sometimes they even flip positions and you are not sure which side is advocating what.
I think you've got it backwards. When I was growing up, a thousand years ago, there were only three sources of news: NBC, ABC, and CBS. The evening national news television shows were standard and the only available source of news for anybody.
Now people have the World Wide Web which connects them to others all over the world. You can follow friends in Norway and India and Hong Kong. Yes, you can restrict it somewhat. But the global connectivity will leak through.
My American ex-wife still lives in the same house we owned when I left, and hasn't talked to me in twenty years. My Thai ex-wife now lives in another country but we are Facebook Friends.
At one point during the Vietnam war, French reporters learned that the US was bombing the dikes in North Vietnam. The reporters had been there and seen it. But the reports were hear-say to the American people; stories published elsewhere and reports leaked to the US news media. Today you yourself, in Chicago, can read the French newspapers and get the stories first hand. You can be Facebook friends with the guy you went to high school with who now lives in Paris. And thanks to Google Translate, even language is not as much of a barrier as it used to be.
There used to be an American consciousness, and a German consiosness, and a Chinese consiousness.When one went wacko, we had World War Two or the Korean War There is now a growing being, a Global consiousness. It's neurons are the cables of the Internet. This is CNN, and BBC, and Al-Jazeera, and even Facebook. This is good.
Your choice of friends my create a feedback loop that reinforces your views - join us at 11:00 for more news on this discovery!
Seriously, people, how and why do you choose friends, on the net, or in real life? How and why do CB and ham operators become friends, or enemies? How and why do people learn to love one news commentator, but love another?
I strive to avoid creating a bubble for myself - but I suspect that I merely end up living in a larger bubble than I would live in otherwise.
Anyone who wishes to avoid the confines of a small bubble simply needs to look further afield for his news. Have a news feed from each of the continents, for starters. Make sure to include at least two communist countries, at least two "western" industrialized nations, and not less than half a dozen third world and/or non-aligned nations. The more news feeds you peruse, the more likely you are to have a more balanced view of the world.
But, yeah, Facebook is going to reinforce that feedback loop. If you're an ignorant redneck, and you only have friends who are ignorant rednecks, you can bet your bottom dollar that Facebook is going to tell you and your friends exactly what you want to hear, because that generates more page views for them. No - I'm not picking on ignorant rednecks - the same applies to inner city ghetto kids, dopeheads, gun nuts, hoplophobes, homosexuals, etc ad nauseum.
It is up to YOU to broaden your horizons. It is YOUR responsibility to discover that not all opposing views are evil. YOU need to learn that not everyone who disagrees with you is a monster, or a brainwashed idiot, or whatever.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Good thing my political views are the right ones.
Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?
Politics is about making other people do what you think is right. It's just like forcing your religion on someone except that somehow if there's not a God involved it's considered to be morally acceptable. It's the worst form of blind faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and it's used to justify tyranny. We replaced hereditary tyrants with taking turns being tyrants, instead of replacing tyranny with freedom.
I'm not talking about people defending themselves from others who would wrong them - there's no problem with that. But politics is more than just appointing someone to run a mutual protection arrangement. When two neighbors have differing political signs up, each of them is hoping that his man will win the election and desires that his neighbor be subjugated to the winner.
Given that politics is all about oppressing your neighbor, it's hard to see how anyone could expect to get along over this.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I've been doing this deliberately removing those noisy, often abusive but devoid of real content and unable to debate left leaning do gooding green types.
I purposely have crackbook block the right wing lunatic websites/pages, the bigoted anti-muslim sites/pages, and a host of others.
I see no reason why I should have crap like that shoved in front of my face when I'd never seek it out on my own. And the people who *post* that racist crap get themselves removed from the "friend" list and blocked. I'll have no truck with bigots.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
One of the few times when a question in the headline might actually equal yes.
Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?
Far too many people on Facebook (or elsewhere online!), instantly froth at the mouth at any mention of The Other Party(tm).
Yes, we've all seen that pic of your mom's woo woo. And yes, we've also seen the one of your OCD cousin's junk.
You don't have to keep reminding us your family's dirty Facebook photos.
...as the answer is unequivocally yes.
And yes, it's really sad. Most people will be polite and sit down with people who disagree with them, and when you realize that the gay guy is just a dude, or that the gun owner isn't a survivalist, and that the gay gun owner... you expose yourself to arguments, stories and backgrounds in a non-idealogical way. You aren't just being told what you want to hear.
In fairness to the other side, people's behaviour on facebook isn't the equivalent of sitting down for a meal and being polite and is more likely to hate people with children, but you get the gist.
Think about ALL of the political sites you have seen - they all have one thing in common. They like to ridicule the "Other".
Only to do so, you end up reading both sides.
Now it's true your first source is going to be pushing you to believe something a certain way. But rather than only seeing things you agree with, instead you are CONSTANTLY reading things you disagree with in order to laugh at or complain about it.
The end effect is basically no bubble whatsoever, at least in terms of input. Ideologically people drift further one way or the other than they used to, but it's not because of lack of information but rather a surplus.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I didn't read the article, but I did notice the following.
Maybe it's out of context, but someone should look into it.
Who would use Facebook as a news source? It is a source of trivial information posted by friends and family. It is necessarily personal and filtered. News comes from more general "news" sites.
Of course Facebook is keeping you in a bubble... of exactly the things you chose to put in your bubble. It's no different than any other source of news. Fox News, MSNBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post - all bubbles telling one part of one side of the story.
If you don't actively look for other sources of information or other sides points of view, your news sources aren't going to give you "fair and balanced" information.
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
As a personal choice, if you want to isolate yourself into your own bubble where you pretend everyone agrees with you, is fine.
But at some point, reality is going to come around, and do something you weren't expecting. Whether that just gives you a wake up call, or kills you, or somewhere in between, is probably random.
But the thing about reality is, even if you don't believe it, it doesn't go away.
I'm sure we're all guilty somewhat of believing what we want to believe. It's so easy. But if you get to the point where you don't even know there are people who disagree with you, you're probably going to be in for a hard lesson at some point.
No it isn't. I get inane stories, politically correct garbage, and opposing opinions in my feed all the time. That's why I don't go there that much. Mostly it's the inane stuff people post, though. If I want politically biased stories, that's what large news corporations are for.
Is Slashdot keeping you in a political bubble?
Especially on issues like os choices, piracy, copyright protections and patents.
There is a simple way to avoid having fb or any other social network keeping you in a "bubble". Pop the bubble! Meet people with views you don't share, and talk to them. I am "far-left" by US standards, though I believe the NFA needs to be destroyed and the ATF dismantled, because I believe in personal liberty and rights while restricting the liberties and "rights" of corporations but still believe that estate taxes are necessary to prevent certain families from accumulating all the wealth. Friends include Bush-style neo-conservatives, libertarians, and more. The up side of this is that beliefs and ideas get shared, and discussions happen. I know I've changed my stance on some issues due to discussions, and I've been told that they have as well.
As for why more liberals "unfriend" people is because I see more conservative people posting "If you don't believe then just unfriend me now." After the third one of those posts in a month, I asked a conservative friend if he really wanted me to unfriend him because I did not agree with his post; he did not and has since stopped posting those memes.