Free Impact of Personalized Web Content Essay Sample
According to the three articles, when people are using the internet or any other form of web search, they tend to find the information they want to see and not theinformation they need. In the article by Eli Pariser, the speaker has indicated that the internet tends to filter out information based on information a person inputs in the search engine. In this situation, a person will only find the information that he wants to see and not fresh information he may need. According to the other article about mind control, it has indicated that Google tailor’s information based on what the mind has directed it to do. In this case, information provided by Google is meant to reinforce a person’s ideas. In the last article by Clive Thompson, when people are obtaining their information in the social media, they always get the same information. As a result, they do not receive new information. They only receive information that reinforces their ideas.
In the first two articles, one by Pariser and the other by Sue Harpen, they have all indicated that internet or the web produces information based on what the mind of a person has directed it to do. This means that people will only receive information reinforcing their own ideas. Additionally, in the two articles, this is something continually happening from the past until present. When this information is compared to the last article by Thompson, there are many similarities. In addition, Thompson indicates that it is wrong to receive information for the purposes of reinforcing ones own ideas. Therefore, he has added new information that will help in attaining new facts. For example, people should consider adding new friends who are not close to them because it will lead to new, fresh ideas. This is information is not included in the other two articles thus showing the differences. Therefore, the articles by Pariser and Harpen are only indicating the facts of the problem while the article by Thompson is providing solutions to the problem.
The concept of the filter bubble, as described by Eli Pariser, delves into the algorithms employed by online platforms to present personalized content. Pariser warns that while this may cater to user preferences, it inadvertently limits exposure to diverse viewpoints. Sue Harpen further supports this idea by explaining how the mind's direction influences the information received through internet searches, thereby contributing to a reinforcing loop of existing beliefs.
Moreover, the issue of information reinforcement is not confined to search engines alone, as discussed by Clive Thompson in his article. Thompson extends the discussion to social media platforms, emphasizing that individuals are often exposed to the same information within their social circles, leading to a lack of diversity in perspectives. This insight adds a layer to the overall argument, highlighting that the echo chamber effect extends beyond search engines to encompass the broader online environment.
Thompson's unique contribution lies in his emphasis on practical solutions. He advocates for intentional efforts to diversify one's social connections, suggesting that interacting with people holding different views can break the cycle of information reinforcement. This proactive stance sets Thompson's article apart, offering a constructive approach to counteract the negative effects outlined by Pariser and Harpen.
In essence, the collective insights from these articles underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of how online information is tailored and consumed. Pariser and Harpen focus on diagnosing the issue, while Thompson introduces a remedy by encouraging individuals to actively seek out diverse perspectives in their online interactions.