Homophilic Algorithms and Your Internet

“Birds of a feather flock together.”

Such is the cliché that often describes those with like minds. Interestingly enough, this same cliché can be used to describe the algorithms applied by major internet websites to tailor the information presented to their users.

The first example, mentioned by Eli Pariser is the omission of choice posts on his Facebook newsfeed. He claims that Zuckerberg has created an algorithm that detects what types of links its users frequently click on. Using this algorithm, Facebook will then filter out links or posts that are not related to what has been calculated to be a user’s “preference.” Specifically, Pariser claims that based on his previous actions on Facebook, his preference has been calculated to be that of a democrat, therefore omitted any posts that may relate to the Republican or Tea Party.

Similarly, Google has established a system that tailors the results of a particular search to the predicted audience. Essentially, this means that rather than having a uniform set of results for a given search, results will vary from person to person. The algorithm that calculates these preferences is based on websites and previous searches recorded for each Internet user. The reasoning behind such a system is meant to make a person’s search process more efficient, and therefore help each user find what they are looking for with less of a struggle. However, by restricting a person’s search results to information to affirm their current preference/opinion, a person’s exposure to alternate (inevitably contrasting, but not always negative) opinions.

When an individual is not exposed to various points of view, it creates conditions that can potentially cause this individual to be close-minded in regards to any idea that contrasts their beliefs. We must realize that this is an issue because in order to effectively counter ideas that contrast with your beliefs, you must be able to understand contrasting points of view. It is impossible to make well rounded, rational, and informed opinions if these filtering algorithms continue to hinder those who are not aware of their presence.

Conversely, Thompson believes that this “homophily” that is enforced by these algorithms can help individuals strengthen their worldviews. He states that although being exposed to contrasting opinions may in the long run be beneficial, it is the volume of a person’s interactions with both similar and different opinions that are fundamentally important. This basically states that individuals will interact with those who share their point of view on a frequent basis, whereas, it is likely that they will interact with those they disagree with as often. Ergo, even though many of the same ideas are shared between peers with similar beliefs, it is inevitable that from time to time, a new idea will be shared between peers. This interaction over time is more cumulative than the amount of new ideas shared between dissenting peers, because as previously stated, the volume of exchanged ideas is higher, therefore there is a higher probability of new ideas being shared between similar minded peers.

In my opinion, homophily seems like a recipe for restriction. Restriction of thought, restriction of exchange, and restriction of change. We must be informed citizens of the world, and it is impossible to do this if computer generated algorithms are telling deciding our preferences, and therefore the information that it deems valuable for us to know. We should be able to chose what we value as important, and be able to find information to contrast our values just as easily as those that support them.

How Obama did it

A main issue touched upon in the documentary we all watched was the generational gap that is emphasized by the internet's prominance in today's society. One would be oblivious, and quite in denial, if they were to disagree with this statement. Simply put, the internet has become an inevitable part of society, and it isn't going anywhere. Conversely, the internet is an imperative part of our future.

The magazine by David Talbot elaborates on the methods that the Obama campaign (of 2008) used to draw in more voters by taking advantage of the role of social networking in today's society. Those running for an election had an advantage over many of their predecessors who ran for office - they had a medium with which to reach a younger audience. Although not all candidates utilized the potential power of this medium to its full potential, those who did reaped numerous benefits in regards to their campaign.

Through effective social networking, the Obama campaign was able to set up a system in which volunteers could not only raise/donate money, but also organize their own campaigns. The latter is perhaps the most efficient aspect of the campaign because it allowed voters to work together and truly become a part of the campaign process, therefore making a change. This alleviated some of the campaign pressures from the main campaign office because individuals were taking on some of the "burden" and reaching out to target audiences on their own.

An additional benefit that Obama had through his large emphasis on social networking is the demographic of voters that would be reached. Traditionally, younger generations are not particularly interested in politics, however, the Obama campaign created an environment in which youngsters could become more involved, without having to worry too much about the technicalities of politics. Social networking was a medium to inform those who would have otherwise been disregarded, and consequently left uninformed.

Lastly, the Obama campaign was effective in creating an online resource that would make it easy for voters to follow the campaign, and more importantly to support the campaign. While I've already mentioned the man-power that was constructed through individual volunteer efforts, the monetary efforts were equally important. Unlike the Paul campaign, Obama was able to effectively organize the funds that he recieved through online donations. Similarly, unlike the Clinton campaign, Obama did not present an image that was too proud to accept the "small" donations (less than $200). As a result, the Obama campaign was able to receive a majority of its funding from the contributions of its supporters.

Bottom line: the internet is an extremely powerful tool in today's society, and one would be foolish to not take advantage of its potential - especially in a political campaign.

Growing Up Online

As a part of the generation described in this documentary, I can understand very much what the directors were addressing when they worked on this piece. Technology, namely the internet has without a doubt created a generational gap, leaving the older generations of people feeling obsolete, irrelevant, and inevitably, out-of-the-loop.

For those who have grown up using the internet, its functions seem to be second nature. It is hard for these individuals to imagine a world where they are unable to log on and explore the world, from the convenience of their own bedroom. A raised awareness of online predators and scams creates an environment that understandably leaves many parents concerned about this openness that the internet is offering to their children.

In this documentary, the parents' overbearing nature caused their children to live vicariously through secret online alter-egos. A prime example of this is teenager Jessica Hunter, or she prefers to call herself, Autumn Edows. Although she was a timid, soft spoken girl around her family and peers, through her online persona she gained a new sense of confidence and began posting racy images of herself. Needless to say, Jessica made sure to keep her secret identity just that - secret.

Another example provided in the documentary of a secret lifestyle was that of Ryan. Without his parents' knowledge, Ryan was able to become a part of an online community of youngsters encouraging each other and giving tips on how to commit suicide. Unfortunately for Ryan, his parents were unable to find out about his cyber activities until it was too late.

While many cases such as these two exist in today's online world, it is important to keep everything in perspective. Yes, these were very BIG instances for the parents, especially those in the latter case. However, what this documentary fails to mention is that a majority of young adults and children using the internet are not using it to post provocative photos or plan their death. Many individuals of the younger generation are using the internet simply to communicate with friends (and occasionally find the easy way out of doing homework assignments).

In the modern era, technology and the internet are inescapable aspects of life. Rather than monitor a child's every move (which is in fact impossible, but I digress), parents who are truly concerned should teach their children at a young age the basic do's and don't of the internet. From there, the cyber world is not much different than the real world - all you can do is trust that your children will do the right thing.