Hand-Fed by Algorithms

Nowadays most people get content through news feed applications, whether it’s directly through their phones’ embedded news app, or social media, search engine queries and news aggregator apps.

Our information is being shared with all these tech companies whether we know and allow it or not. Even apps that we haven’t shared our location or contacts can track us through our App stores which have access to our basic email info.

This information is then sold to Facebook, Google, among other tech companies and they therefore know, which foods we eat, what articles we read, which videos we watch, what times, from what IP addresses, among many other details that feed the algorithms that create a digital footprint of us, profiling our likes and dislikes.

On one hand, the algorithms revolutionize the way we consume media, as we spend less time looking for what we want, and get tailored suggestions on what to read, watch or play based on our interests.

On the other hand, the more we get used to being “hand-fed” by these algorithms, the more we surround ourselves with one point of view, and are exposed to information bias. As algorithms are made to show us more of what engages us, they don’t care about the accuracy of the result, the content bias, prejudiced, and false information being spread, or the other side of the picture, as most likely we will ignore that content.

In this modern internet world, we like surrounding ourselves with like-minded individuals, we read the newspapers and watch the channels that support our view points, and are also very quick to try and spread that idea to others.

A YouTube or Facebook, or Flipboard newsfeed of a person who does not like immigration or refugees will be very different than the one who does. And the problem here is that either one or the other will in a way surround themselves with information that validates their viewpoint, without trying to check the other side of the coin. And most of this is the new era algorithms’ fault.

This article talks in detail about why we as human beings behave this way, and I feel as though it is an interesting topic to discuss in modern day society as now with the latest surge in conspiracy theories, alternate facts, and people triggered by racial movements whether they believe themselves to be racist or not. I believe it is time that we as a society go for independent sources of journalism, together with both the sources that we agree and disagree on.

An excerpt from the article:

Our brain works like a lawyer; it will find the arguments to defend our convictions, whatever the cost or the facts.

This habit is maintained even if your convictions change or seem too contradictory. You can believe one thing at one point, then another thing later on.

In a follow-up experiment Kahan presented respondents with two articles about climate change; one confirmed the risks, another was skeptical.

The headlines of both articles were suggestive. One was worded in such a way as to appear novel: “Scientists Report Surprising Evidence: Arctic Ice Melting Even Faster Than Expected.” The other headline suggested no such surprise: “Scientists Find Still More Evidence that Global Warming Slowed in the Last Decade.”

He asked the participants to choose which article to read. And here, the power of curiosity became evident. The curious types didn’t choose the article whose headline accorded with their convictions: they preferred the challenging one. For these respondents, curiosity was a stronger influence than personal ideology.

Don’t just read articles that confirm what you already think. Instead, find out information that might surprise you, which goes against your beliefs, or makes you feel angry, desperate, uncomfortable.

— Why clever people say silly things, The Correspondent