In the face of increasingly unavoidable online-based activities such as unencrypted social media platforms, ads, newsfeeds, and day-to-day conversations doing-rounds on with the internet, researchers, consumers, commentators, and policymakers; filter bubbles continue to attract researchers, consumers and policymakers and innovators’ divided attention. The changing times of personal space are no longer easily tenable as people tend to knowingly or unknowingly share their personal information while browsing online. In so doing that, search engines secretly stores details of your search, and next time you’re online, the website suggests to you your most likely search options thereby intellectually personalizing your searches. Filter bubbles has been likened to a membrane filtering out information an individual sends or receives back (Delaney, K. J., 2017). At the end of it all, users become swayed away from views which they perceivably do not subscribe to. In this study research survey, a comparative analysis has been made on two different internet users to investigate the magnitude unraveling incidences of filter bubble, the and compelling inferences that can be made thereof.
Method
The sample space of this survey comprises two participants with uniquely social preferences in life. The first participant, Z, is a thirty-three year old female from Alabama, a financial advisor doubling as a local bar attendant. On the other hand, second participant Q is a sixteen year old male techno savvy student living with a single mother in Ohio, but with access to parent’s laptop, and Facebook login details.
For the purposes of this research, a multi-method data collection strategy is used to help come with scientifically viable observations.
First Method
The first methodology aimed at comparing advertising features appearing in participants’ Facebook accounts to ascertain the automated generation of personally sensitive information. Through coordination, the two participants were made to simultaneously log into ‘their’ respective Facebook accounts using their respective laptops. Actually, the simultaneously logging-in was aimed reducing any errors that may arise due to time zone difference. After every control measure is ensured, sponsored advertisements appearing on each participant’s newsfeed were observed, recorded and monitored for analysis. Form newsfeed on alcohol brands, fashion, stock exchange rates, and best hospitality destinations characterized the thirty-three year old female marketer.
Second Method
The second methodology in this survey involves Participant Q, who, being a young adolescent has insatiably high appetite for pornographic and other obscene materials easily accessible though advertisement ads restricted televised media among others. With an unmasked Google search engine, the second participant concurrently search ‘dirty music dance, best pornographic sites and how to seduce a girl. Instead of using unmasked Google search engine, the first participant instead used private search engine called SearchEncrypt.com. After the simultaneous search, their respective results were documented for analysis.
Results
The following observations were made after the first five advertisements simultaneously appeared on participant Z and Q’s respective laptops:
For the first participant, Z; top on Facebook newsfeeds were: FxPro 45%), MetaTrader, (15%), Delicious Meals (20), favorable music (10%) and best alcohol brands (10%). On the other hand, top on participant Q’s Facebook advertisements were pages on: Dance Clubs (50%), Partying Group pages (20%), Fashions (15%), Dating Group pages (10%) and Local politics (5%) in that order.
Discussion and Analysis
Basing on the results, it can clearly be seen that Method Z on SearchEncrypt.com had relevant advertisements since site is able to carry out self-monitoring and evaluation. According to Tarantola, A., 2013), appropriate argument can be made that this reported algorithmic interference to search results was partly helpful to both participants since there were lots of locations, accompanied by many types of searchable data for them to navigate through. However, Goggle search is trying to illustrate a variety of automated possibilities through these filter bubbles. Reasonably, it can be said that such king of options raises significant negative implications. People could become more isolated from effectively from feeling the sense of alternatives and search results because they only shown limited options. According to Leetaru, K. (2017), “instead of, say, participant Q searching balanced and informative information probably on nutritious foods, best schools to study, best gospel songs, he ends up being fed on somewhat destructive newsfeeds due filter bubble. On the other hand, participant Z being a pretty well focused young woman was able to use SearchEncrypt.com search engine, which is known to have restrictions and self-monitoring measures when conducting a search. Consequently, the internet, which sometimes seems to be a number one window into getting resourceful information, could be detrimental to many people if ineffectively utilized (Delaney, K. J., 2017). To help address this situation where your sensitive personal information is obliviously viewed on uncontrolled search sites, one needs to consider using protective ad-blocking browser extensions, delete browse history and cookies, switch focus to insightfully engaging issues, and sometimes read news from blogs proving a variety of readers ’perspectives. Alternatively, internet users could seriously consider limiting the personalized or sometimes tailor made aspects World Wide Web as much as possible despite enthusiasm and browsing experience that comes with customization
References
Delaney, K. J. (2017, Feb. 21). Filter bubbles are a serious problem with news, says Bill Gates, Quartz, 1-6.< https://qz.com/913114/bill-gates-says-filter-bubbles-are-a-serious-problem-with-news/>
Leetaru, K. 2017, Dec. 18). Why 2017 was the year of the filter bubble?. Forbes, 1-5. <https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/12/18/why-was-2017-the-year-of-the-filter-bubble/#578df0c0746b.>
Tarantola, A. (2013, March 26). VPNs: what they do, how they work, and why you’re dumb for not using one. GIZMODO.COM, 1-5. <https://gizmodo.com/5990192/vpns-what-they-do-how-they-work-and-why-youre-dumb-for-not-using-one>
