Comments on: filter bubbles | TED http://www.theodigital.com/2011/06/filter-bubbles-ted.html missional theology. digital media ecology. biscuits and gravy. Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:29:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Chris Ridgeway http://www.theodigital.com/2011/06/filter-bubbles-ted.html/comment-page-1#comment-918 Chris Ridgeway Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:20:46 +0000 http://www.theodigital.com/?p=894#comment-918 Bob - I love your comments about the political bubble people find themselves in. What's interesting to me is that this is mostly a product of cable TV news: a broadcast medium, not digital, but with similar effects maybe. I find myself having similar conversations with portion of my family who only follow one source of news, and suddenly the facts are in dispute, not only the solutions. As often as I can, I encourage people to broaden their sources widely and compare in order to get a complete or even remotely true view. I actually like Google News for this, which compiles print sources from a wide variety and lets you compare articles side by side. I'd also be interested to hear more of your thoughts on your novel, etc. I'll drop you an e-mail. It's not common to provide e-mail information on public websites because of spam. Bob -

I love your comments about the political bubble people find themselves in. What’s interesting to me is that this is mostly a product of cable TV news: a broadcast medium, not digital, but with similar effects maybe.

I find myself having similar conversations with portion of my family who only follow one source of news, and suddenly the facts are in dispute, not only the solutions. As often as I can, I encourage people to broaden their sources widely and compare in order to get a complete or even remotely true view. I actually like Google News for this, which compiles print sources from a wide variety and lets you compare articles side by side.

I’d also be interested to hear more of your thoughts on your novel, etc. I’ll drop you an e-mail. It’s not common to provide e-mail information on public websites because of spam.

]]> By: Bryan W. Kieft http://www.theodigital.com/2011/06/filter-bubbles-ted.html/comment-page-1#comment-916 Bryan W. Kieft Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:54:40 +0000 http://www.theodigital.com/?p=894#comment-916 Chris, I totally agree with you that this phenom is not entirely new, but I do think it's getting harder to avoid, and possibly getting stronger. Of course people themselves self select their filter bubbles to a great extent, which is both good and bad. It's good because we can more easily and quickly find the "news" in the bias we prefer faster, or the entertainment we like best etc.. but it's bad because we stop listening to new ideas and can sometimes be blindsided by "the opposition", whatever that might be per person. People are great at finding evidence for things they already believe. I think i'ts great that some people are pointing it out, but at the same time the it represents extra levels of awareness one needs. The more subtle and automatic the filter bubble is, the more work and self awareness it takes to access new and different ideas. There are people who really enjoy just having their own views reinforced all the time, and that is the easiest way to do things, but it's best if it's not constant and we can choose to outside of our filter bubble in order to be challenged easily as well. Chris, I totally agree with you that this phenom is not entirely new, but I do think it’s getting harder to avoid, and possibly getting stronger. Of course people themselves self select their filter bubbles to a great extent, which is both good and bad. It’s good because we can more easily and quickly find the “news” in the bias we prefer faster, or the entertainment we like best etc.. but it’s bad because we stop listening to new ideas and can sometimes be blindsided by “the opposition”, whatever that might be per person. People are great at finding evidence for things they already believe. I think i’ts great that some people are pointing it out, but at the same time the it represents extra levels of awareness one needs. The more subtle and automatic the filter bubble is, the more work and self awareness it takes to access new and different ideas. There are people who really enjoy just having their own views reinforced all the time, and that is the easiest way to do things, but it’s best if it’s not constant and we can choose to outside of our filter bubble in order to be challenged easily as well.

]]> By: Bob Barrett http://www.theodigital.com/2011/06/filter-bubbles-ted.html/comment-page-1#comment-915 Bob Barrett Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:34:07 +0000 http://www.theodigital.com/?p=894#comment-915 Hello again, Here I am, totally disoriented in a new "media environment" because I am not a Facebooker, but a 1990's e-mailer! I looked all over your "webpage" for "contact information" and could find no e-mail address. No postal address, either. So I have no way to communicate with you except by leaving another "comment" about filter bubbles. I'd like to talk with you more about contextual theology and media ecology, especially because my major enterprise this summer is writing a science fiction novel (with timeless themes) set in a very different society that derives a very different culture from the same Bible we read... plus a few other books that survived the sudden collapse of a high-tech society. How would iron-age people ignorant of their past re-invent their world? In the process of telling a tale of peril, romance, corruption by power, and difficult choices, I'll make some humorous points about our present world, but one of the main themes is the intersection of the temporal and the eternal. Or contextual theology. You and I have a lot to talk about. I have a message I want to present to a larger audience, and have chosen the format of speculative fiction. What medium shall we use to communicate? As a last resort, snail mail still functions for sharing ideas. Since this message is just for you, Chris, feel free to remove it from the public replies to your blog. Or leave it, if it helps you prove a point you wish to make. Bob Barrett Hello again,
Here I am, totally disoriented in a new “media environment” because I am not a Facebooker, but a 1990′s e-mailer! I looked all over your “webpage” for “contact information” and could find no e-mail address. No postal address, either. So I have no way to communicate with you except by leaving another “comment” about filter bubbles.

I’d like to talk with you more about contextual theology and media ecology, especially because my major enterprise this summer is writing a science fiction novel (with timeless themes) set in a very different society that derives a very different culture from the same Bible we read… plus a few other books that survived the sudden collapse of a high-tech society. How would iron-age people ignorant of their past re-invent their world? In the process of telling a tale of peril, romance, corruption by power, and difficult choices, I’ll make some humorous points about our present world, but one of the main themes is the intersection of the temporal and the eternal. Or contextual theology.

You and I have a lot to talk about. I have a message I want to present to a larger audience, and have chosen the format of speculative fiction. What medium shall we use to communicate? As a last resort, snail mail still functions for sharing ideas.

Since this message is just for you, Chris, feel free to remove it from the public replies to your blog. Or leave it, if it helps you prove a point you wish to make.

Bob Barrett

]]> By: Bob Barrett http://www.theodigital.com/2011/06/filter-bubbles-ted.html/comment-page-1#comment-914 Bob Barrett Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:33:52 +0000 http://www.theodigital.com/?p=894#comment-914 Hello Chris, I'm the uncle of Nick Modrzejewski's wife Amy, and last week we visited them and talked about "filter bubbles", so she sent me the link to this page, and I just listened to Eli Pariser's presentation, which confirmed what I noticed years ago: people who defend on opposing sources of information cannot have a rational debate about current events because they cannot agree on what really exists. I gave the example of trying to persuade an opposite partisan that his priorities were misplaced, while he attempted the same with me. He said, "Bob, for such a smart guy, it's amazing how you've been taken in by the lies of the liberal media!" He only listened to "true information" from the smart guys who agreed with him: Rush L and Newt G. Plus Fox News on TV. We could not agree on anything except Classic Rock music! Did Saddam have WMDs? Are tax rates in the US comparatively high or low? Is the US military or the EPA underfunded? Do more Americans die from Islamic terrorists or air pollution? Do public schools or the Canadian health care system "work"? Do big businesses more often compete or collude to lower or raise prices? And so on. We agreed that power corrupts, but discovered we had a basic disagreement over whether the public is more threatened by the concentrated powers of big government or big business. That philosophic difference seemed to drive our preference in news media, which provided our paradigms for viewing the world. But it may go beyond that to the conflicting theologies preached at our churches. If you're interested, I'll talk about that, but I'm trying not to exhaust a total stranger with my opinions. Which are always correct, obviously. Bob Barrett Hello Chris,
I’m the uncle of Nick Modrzejewski’s wife Amy, and last week we visited them and talked about “filter bubbles”, so she sent me the link to this page, and I just listened to Eli Pariser’s presentation, which confirmed what I noticed years ago: people who defend on opposing sources of information cannot have a rational debate about current events because they cannot agree on what really exists.

I gave the example of trying to persuade an opposite partisan that his priorities were misplaced, while he attempted the same with me. He said, “Bob, for such a smart guy, it’s amazing how you’ve been taken in by the lies of the liberal media!” He only listened to “true information” from the smart guys who agreed with him: Rush L and Newt G. Plus Fox News on TV.

We could not agree on anything except Classic Rock music! Did Saddam have WMDs? Are tax rates in the US comparatively high or low? Is the US military or the EPA underfunded? Do more Americans die from Islamic terrorists or air pollution? Do public schools or the Canadian health care system “work”? Do big businesses more often compete or collude to lower or raise prices? And so on.

We agreed that power corrupts, but discovered we had a basic disagreement over whether the public is more threatened by the concentrated powers of big government or big business. That philosophic difference seemed to drive our preference in news media, which provided our paradigms for viewing the world.

But it may go beyond that to the conflicting theologies preached at our churches. If you’re interested, I’ll talk about that, but I’m trying not to exhaust a total stranger with my opinions. Which are always correct, obviously.

Bob Barrett

]]>