"liking" and "sharing"

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I found this interesting snippet of a Leadership blog article on how "liking" and "sharing" (and even clicking to read a story)  affects what you are effectively shown on your Facebook page, and elsewhere when you view websites... but not only things like cars or other things to buy, but it influences what is shown scientifically, educationally, politically, and in the news.

 

It made me wonder how many people only see the stuff that tends to bolster their own chosen viewpoints and interests...and that could be a big reason why so many people are at odds on various issues – here on C/A, as well as Facebook and other places..

 

The idea that the politicians will be using that data to sock us with manipulative campaigns isn't making me very happy.

 

So...I guess I shall be doing less "Liking" and "Sharing" (except for genealogy... they can show me all that's out there, and I'll be a happy camper!)

 

 

No single company has more at stake, or will do more to understand your sensibilities, than the campaigns and political parties of those hopefuls making a bid to run for the Presidency—the most powerful office in the world. We’re all aware of how wrong polling data can be. They may claim a 3% margin of error, but polling is more often proven to be wrong than to be dependable. Yet, poll results continue to make headlines, generate clicks and sound bytes, and reporters still can’t wait to report on the latest poll.  My prediction is that sooner than later, political polls will go the way of the buggy whip. While the media’s insistence on sharing polling data with us won’t change in 2016, political operatives will barely consider polls when devising strategies and will instead go to their data room to learn more about the demographic they need to target.   Consider this: the more we learn about genomes, the more pharmaceutical companies are able to create personalized medicine designed specifically for individuals. (See Wikipedia, “pharmacogenomics”). Similarly, the more big data learns about your political leanings, likes and dislikes, the more political marketers will know exactly what you want to hear and how you want to hear it. Whatever you like on Facebook, Pinterest or Google will enlighten and inform the GOP, the Democratic Party and the candidate’s campaign spending. Sooner than we want to believe, our “research” on a candidate’s political stances will be as manipulated as the “research” we tell ourselves we do on Google. You will be shown what appeals to you in spite of your efforts to learn what’s really true.  Consider the ramifications that this highly individualized degree of manipulation can have on our country. The implications are far more horrific than the manipulation most campaigns currently use to seduce and sway specific demographics. To paraphrase a quote from a bad 1987 horror movie, “This time …it’s PERSONAL.”*  And to make matters worse, our minds will be so used to the convenience of seeing, hearing and reading what we want that we won’t even realize how much we’re being manipulated. - See more at: http://www.carusoleadership.com/blog/2015/trade-offs-of-big-data/

[Bravus]

It's a great point: the various media, social and otherwise, are so overwhelming that we need filters to manage them, but at the same time our filters can tend to spiral in on themselves so that our consumption gets narrower and narrower. I tend to avoid the 'if you like this music you might also like this' type filters for just that reason: they narrow rather than broaden my interests. 

In research, one of the important but often-neglected activities is the search for disconfirming evidence and 'discrepant' cases. Perhaps that's a good model for media consumption too: actively seeking out difference.