Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn this paper, we will re-elaborate the notions of filter bubble and of echo chamber by considering human cognitive systems' limitations in everyday interactions and how they experience digital technologies. Researchers who applied the concept of filter bubble and echo chambers in empirical investigations see them as forms of algorithmically-caused systems that seclude the users of digital technologies from viewpoints and opinions that oppose theirs. However, a significant majority of empirical research has shown that users do find and interact with opposing views. Furthermore, we argue that the notion of filter bubble overestimates the social impact of digital technologies in explaining social and political developments without considering the not-only-technological circumstances of online behavior and interaction. This provides us with motivation to reconsider this notion's validity and re-elaborate it in light of existing epistemological theories that deal with the discomfort people experience when dealing with what they do not know. Therefore, we will survey a series of philosophical reflections regarding the epistemic limitations of human cognitive systems. In particular, we will discuss how knowledge and mere belief are phenomenologically indistinguishable and how people's experience of having their beliefs challenged is cause of epistemic discomfort. We will then go on to argue, in contrast with Pariser's assumptions, that digital media users might tend to conform to their held viewpoints because of the "immediate" way they experience opposing viewpoints. Since online people experience others and their viewpoints as material features of digital environments, we maintain that this modality of confronting oneself with contrasting opinions prompts users to reinforce their preexisting beliefs and attitudes.

In this paper, we will re-elaborate the notions of filter bubble and of echo chamber by considering human cognitive systems' limitations in everyday interactions and how they experience digital technologies. Researchers who applied the concept of filter bubble and echo chambers in empirical investigations see them as forms of algorithmically-caused systems that seclude the users of digital technologies from viewpoints and opinions that oppose theirs. However, a significant majority of empirical research has shown that users do find and interact with opposing views. Furthermore, we argue that the notion of filter bubble overestimates the social impact of digital technologies in explaining social and political developments without considering the not-only-technological circumstances of online behavior and interaction. This provides us with motivation to reconsider this notion's validity and re-elaborate it in light of existing epistemological theories that deal with the discomfort people experience when dealing with what they do not know. Therefore, we will survey a series of philosophical reflections regarding the epistemic limitations of human cognitive systems. In particular, we will discuss how knowledge and mere belief are phenomenologically indistinguishable and how people's experience of having their beliefs challenged is cause of epistemic discomfort. We will then go on to argue, in contrast with Pariser's assumptions, that digital media users might tend to conform to their held viewpoints because of the "immediate" way they experience opposing viewpoints. Since online people experience others and their viewpoints as material features of digital environments, we maintain that this modality of confronting oneself with contrasting opinions prompts users to reinforce their preexisting beliefs and attitudes.

Introduced by tech entrepreneur and activist Eli Pariser in 2011, the 'filter bubble' is a persistent concept which suggests that search engines and social media, together with their recommendation and personalisation algorithms, are centrally culpable for the societal and ideological polarisation experienced in many countries: we no longer encounter a balanced and healthy information diet, but only see information that targets our established interests and reinforces our existing worldviews. Filter bubbles are seen as critical enablers of Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, and other populist political phenomena, and search and social media companies have been criticised for failing to prevent their development. Yet, there is scant empirical evidence for their existence, or for the related concept of 'echo chambers': indeed, search and social media users generally appear to encounter a highly centrist media diet that is, if anything, more diverse than that of non-users. However, the persistent use of these concepts in mainstream media and political debates has now created its own discursive reality that continues to impact materially on societal institutions, media and communication platforms, and ordinary users themselves. This article provides a critical review of the 'filter bubble' idea, and concludes that its persistence has served only to redirect scholarly attention from far more critical areas of enquiry.

Are online audiences today fragmented into echo chambers or filter bubbles? Do users only see what digital platforms (like search engines or social media) let them see? And if so, what are the consequences for the cohesion of a society? Concerns like these abound in recent years. They attest to widely held assumptions about a negative influence of digital media or even the Internet in general on society. Empirical studies on these phenomena are, however, not as unequivocal. To understand why results from previous research are so far inconclusive, this study investigates the role of the Internet for social integration from a more general point of view. The integrative potential of the Internet is assessed to compare it with other media and ultimately better understand to what degree and due to which factors the Internet may or may not help bring society together. Using survey data, clickstream data on actual usage of websites, and data on content structures, the present work investigates how user behavior and structural features of the Internet determine its positive or negative effects on social integration. The results reveal that the Internet in general is not as bad as popular accounts of digital fragmentation may suggest. How much integrative potential can be realized via online offerings, however, depends on numerous factors on the side of the users as well as content and platform providers.

The concepts of filter bubble and echo chamber are two of the most disturbing drifts on the future of digital societies that communication research has offered in the last ten years. They are two online closed spaces: the first is the result of the filtering logics introduced by the affordances of the platforms that govern communication exchanges on the web and is regulated mainly by algorithms; the second derives from the desire to reduce cognitive dissonance through "self-enclosure" in digital environments in which only the same opinions and points of view are repeated. By comparing the urban sociology of the 1980s and 1990s, and the most recent theories produced in the field of Internet studies, this article aims to demonstrate that the platform society in which we live today – and its most dystopian drifts – had already been anticipated and prepared by the urban reconfiguration that took place, especially in the United States starting from the 1950s, with the housing form of Suburbia. The American suburb was born as a desire of a slice of the population to shut themselves up in homogeneous and controlled spaces (echo chambers) but it is also the result of political, urban, economic, and technological algorithms aimed at profiling and classifying the urban population (filter bubbles), thus defusing the conflictual potential of the anonymous metropolitan crowd.

The concepts of filter bubble and echo chamber are two of the most disturbing drifts on the future of digital societies that communication research has offered in the last ten years. They are two online closed spaces: the first is the result of the filtering logics introduced by the affordances of the platforms that govern communication exchanges on the web and is regulated mainly by algorithms; the second derives from the desire to reduce cognitive dissonance through "self-enclosure" in digital environments where only the same opinions and points of view are repeated.By comparing the urban sociology of the 1980s and 1990s, and the most recent theories produced in the field of Internet studies, this article aims to demonstrate that the platform society in which we live today – and its most dystopian drifts – had already been anticipated and prepared by the urban reconfiguration that took place, especially in the United States starting from the 1950s, with the housing form of Suburbia. The American suburb was born as a desire of a slice of the population to shut themselves up in homogeneous and controlled spaces (echo chambers) but it is also the result of political, urban, economic, and technological algorithms aimed at profiling and classifying the urban population (filter bubbles), thus defusing the conflictual potential of the anonymous metropolitan crowd. ; Due delle derive più inquietanti sul futuro delle società digitali che ci prospetta la sociologia della comunicazione più recente, fanno riferimento ai concetti di Filter Bubbleed Echo Chamber. Si tratta di due spazi chiusi online: il primo derivante dalle logiche di filtraggio introdotte dalle affordances delle grandi piattaforme che governano oggi gli scambi comunicativi (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Instagram, etc.) e regolate principalmente da algoritmi; il secondo dal desiderio di ridurre la dissonanza cognitiva attraverso l'«autoreclusione» in ambienti digitali in cui si ripetono esclusivamente le stesse opinioni e punti di vista. Attraverso un confronto tra la sociologia urbana degli anni '80 e '90 del '900 e le più recenti teorie prodotte nell'ambito degli internet studies, l'obiettivo di questo articolo è dimostrare che la platform society attuale e le sue derive più distopiche erano già state anticipate e preparate dalla riconfigurazione urbanistica che avviene soprattutto negli Stati Uniti a partire dagli anni '50 del '900 con la diffusione esponenziale della forma abitativa del sobborgo. Il sobborgo americano nasce sia come desiderio di una fetta di popolazione di rinchiudersi in spazi omogenei e controllati (Echo Chambers) ma è anche l'esito di algoritmi politici, urbanistici, economici e tecnologici volti a profilare e classificare la popolazione urbana (Filter Bubbles) e disinnescare così il potenziale conflittuale dell'anonima folla metropolitana.

The intensified selective exposure of political news on social media, personalization of the news receiving process, and emerging new information phenomena, such as filter bubbles and echo chambers, call for a rethink of the role of new digital media in a democratic society. This article analyzes the possible influence of new information phenomena on social media - information wells and filter bubbles - in receiving political news. The mechanisms and conditions of the formation of echo chambers and filter bubbles in social media are discussed in detail, and results of research conducted to date proving these phenomena are briefly presented. The article examines the possibilities of disseminating political news on social media and the restrictions on accessing comprehensive political information due to new information phenomena. The problems of political partisans' perception of the news related to these restrictions, their possible extreme actions, and their influence on democratic processes are discussed.

Filter bubbles and echo chambers continue to be controversial topics among scholars in the realm of digital studies. Put simply, these two terms describe a digital quandary where users preferentially choose only to engage with 'like-minded others', creating an information cocoon that limits people's worldviews. Numerous media scholars contend that filter bubbles and echo chambers, collectively referred to in the literature as 'enclave deliberation', pose a threat to democracy by creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop that hinders the development of a well-informed citizenry. However, several other thinkers are more critical of this argument, claiming that such a sweeping statement is too simplistic, promotes technological determinism, and disregards human agency. This review paper tackles the ongoing debate surrounding the real societal impacts of enclave deliberation, particularly exploring the extent to which such a phenomenon affects democracy. To conclude, a brief typology of practical and regulatory recommendations at the micro, meso and macro levels is presented, high-lighting the role of human agency in the digital space, while equally holding powerful social media platforms accountable for their algorithmic design and its consequent impacts on society.