Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The Filter Bubble

Expand Messages
  • Barbara Dieu
    Recommended by Lawrence Lessig, a book to read I read Eli Pariser s book in draft. Everyone should read it in print: The Filter Bubble — http://t.co/YhneDxk
    Message 1 of 10 , May 17, 2011
      Recommended by Lawrence Lessig, a book to read
      I read Eli Pariser's book in draft. Everyone should read it in print: The
      Filter Bubble � http://t.co/YhneDxk
      https://twitter.com/lessig/status/70386900304789504

      *Q: What is a �Filter Bubble�?*

      A: We�re used to thinking of the Internet like an enormous library, with
      services like Google providing a universal map. But that�s no longer really
      the case. Sites from Google and Facebook to Yahoo News and the New York
      Times are now increasingly personalized � based on your web history, they
      filter information to show you the stuff they think you want to see. That
      can be very different from what everyone else sees � or from what we need to
      see.

      Your filter bubble is this unique, personal universe of information created
      just for you by this array of personalizing filters. It�s invisible and it�s
      becoming more and more difficult to escape.

      *Q: I like the idea that websites might show me information relevant to my
      interests�it can be overwhelming how much information is available I already
      only watch TV shows and listen to radio programs that are known to have my
      same political leaning. What�s so bad about this*?

      A: It�s true: We�ve always selected information sources that accord with our
      own views. But one of the creepy things about the filter bubble is that
      we�re not really doing the selecting. When you turn on Fox News or MSNBC,
      you have a sense of what their editorial sensibility is: Fox isn�t going to
      show many stories that portray Obama in a good light, and MSNBC isn�t going
      to the ones that portray him badly. Personalized filters are a different
      story: You don�t know who they think you are or on what basis they�re
      showing you what they�re showing. And as a result, you don�t really have any
      sense of what�s getting edited out � or, in fact, that things are being
      edited out at all.

      *Q: How does money fit into this picture?*

      A: The rush to build the filter bubble is absolutely driven by commercial
      interests. It�s becoming clearer and clearer that if you want to have lots
      of people use your website, you need to provide them with personally
      relevant information, and if you want to make the most money on ads, you
      need to provide them with relevant ads. This has triggered a personal
      information gold rush, in which the major companies � Google, Facebook,
      Microsoft, Yahoo, and the like � are competing to create the most
      comprehensive portrait of each of us to drive personalized products. There�s
      also a whole �behavior market� opening up in which every action you take
      online � every mouse click, every form entry � can be sold as a commodity.

      *Q: What is the Internet hiding from me?*

      A: As Google engineer Jonathan McPhie explained to me, it�s different for
      every person � and in fact, even Google doesn�t totally know how it plays
      out on an individual level. At an aggregate level, they can see that people
      are clicking more. But they can�t predict how each individual�s information
      environment is altered.

      In general, the things that are most likely to get edited out are the things
      you�re least likely to click on. Sometimes, this can be a real service � if
      you never read articles about sports, why should a newspaper put a football
      story on your front page? But apply the same logic to, say, stories about
      foreign policy, and a problem starts to emerge. Some things, like
      homelessness or genocide, aren�t highly clickable but are highly important.

      *Q: Which companies or Websites are personalizing like this?*

      A: In one form or another, nearly every major website on the Internet is
      flirting with personalization. But the one that surprises people most is
      Google. If you and I Google the same thing at the same time, we may get very
      different results. Google tracks hundreds of �signals� about each of us �
      what kind of computer we�re on, what we�ve searched for in the past, even
      how long it takes us to decide what to click on � and uses it to customize
      our results. When the result is that our favorite pizza parlor shows up
      first when we Google pizza, it�s useful. But when the result is that we only
      see the information that is aligned with our religious or social or
      political beliefs, it�s difficult to maintain perspective.

      *Q: Are any sites being transparent about their personalization?
      *
      A: Some sites do better than others. Amazon, for example, is often quite
      transparent about the personalization it does: �We�re showing you Brave New
      World because you bought 1984.� But it�s one thing to personalize products
      and another to personalize whole information flows, like Google and Facebook
      are doing. And very few users of those services are even marginally aware
      that this kind of filtering is at work.

      *Q: Does this issue of personalization impact my privacy or jeopardize my
      identity at all?*

      A: Research psychologists have known for a while that the media you consume
      shapes your identity. So when the media you consume is also shaped by your
      identity, you can slip into a weird feedback loop. A lot of people see a
      simple version of this on Facebook: You idly click on an old classmate,
      Facebook reads that as a friendship, and pretty soon you�re seeing every one
      of John or Sue�s posts.

      Gone awry, personalization can create compulsive media � media targeted to
      appeal to your personal psychological weak spots. You can find yourself
      eating the equivalent of information junk food instead of having a more
      balanced information diet.

      *Q: You make it clear that while most Websites� user agreements say they
      won�t share our personal information, they also maintain the right to change
      the rules at any time. Do you foresee sites changing those rules to profit
      from our online personas?
      *
      A: They already have. Facebook, for example, is notorious for its
      bait-and-switch tactics when it comes to privacy. For a long time, what you
      �Liked� on Facebook was private, and the site promised to keep it that way.
      Then, overnight, they made that information public to the world, in order to
      make it easier for their advertisers to target specific subgroups.

      There�s an irony in the fact that while Rolex needs to get Tom Cruise�s
      permission to put his face on a billboard, it doesn�t need to get my
      permission to advertise my endorsement to my friends on Facebook. We need
      laws that give people more rights in their personal data.

      *Q: Is there any way to avoid this personalization? What if I�m not logged
      into a site?*

      A: Even if you�re not logged into Google, for example, an engineer told me
      there are 57 signals that the site uses to figure out who you are: whether
      you�re on a Mac or PC or iPad, where you�re located when you�re Googling,
      etc. And in the near future, it�ll be possible to �fingerprint� unique
      devices, so that sites can tell which individual computer you�re using.
      That�s why erasing your browser cookies is at best a partial solution�it
      only partially limits the information available to personalizers.

      What we really need is for the companies that power the filter bubble to
      take responsibility for the immense power they now have � the power to
      determine what we see and don�t see, what we know and don�t know. We need
      them to make sure we continue to have access to public discourse and a view
      of the common good. A world based solely on things we �Like� is a very
      incomplete world.

      I�m optimistic that they can. It�s worth remembering that newspapers weren�t
      always informed by a sense of journalistic ethics. They existed for
      centuries without it. It was only when critics like Walter Lippman began to
      point out how important they were that the newspapers began to change. And
      while journalistic ethics aren�t perfect, because of them we have been
      better informed over the last century. We need algorithmic ethics to guide
      us through the next.

      *Q: What are the business leaders at Google and Facebook and Yahoo saying
      about their responsibilities?*

      A: To be honest, they�re frustratingly coy. They tend to frame the trend in
      the passive tense: Google�s Eric Schmidt recently said �It will be very hard
      for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been
      tailored for them,� rather than �Google is making it very hard�� Mark
      Zuckerberg perfectly summed up the tension in personalization when he said
      �A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests
      right now than people dying in Africa.� But he refuses to engage with what
      that means at a societal level � especially for the people in Africa.
      *
      Q: Your background is as a political organizer for the liberal Website
      MoveOn.org. How does that experience inform your book?*

      A: I�ve always believed the Internet could connect us all together and help
      create a better, more democratic world. That�s what excited me about MoveOn
      � here we were, connecting people directly with each other and with
      political leaders to create change.

      But that more democratic society has yet to emerge, and I think it�s partly
      because while the Internet is very good at helping groups of people with
      like interests band together (like MoveOn), it�s not so hot at introducing
      people to different people and ideas. Democracy requires discourse and
      personalization is making that more and more elusive.

      And that worries me, because we really need the Internet to live up to that
      connective promise. We need it to help us solve global problems like climate
      change, terrorism, or natural resource management which by their nature
      require massive coordination, and great wisdom and ingenuity. These problems
      can�t be solved by a person or two � they require whole societies to
      participate. And that just won�t happen if we�re all isolated in a web of
      one.
      Review
      If you feel that the Web is your wide open window on the world, you need to
      read this book to understand what you aren`t seeing
      B.

      --
      Barbara Dieu
      http://barbaradieu.com
      http://beespace.net


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Maria D
      Hi Barbara, Thanks for sharing this. Of course, I d noticed every page I entered had ads relevant to my interests or recent clicks, but I had no idea
      Message 2 of 10 , May 17, 2011
        Hi Barbara,

        Thanks for sharing this. Of course, I'd noticed every page I entered had ads relevant to my interests or recent clicks, but I had no idea newspapers were doing the same with the news, and had never thought of the implications this might have for our vision of the world. "A web of one" sounds quite creepy indeed.

        Best,
        Mary

        --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, Barbara Dieu <beeonline@...> wrote:
        >
        > Recommended by Lawrence Lessig, a book to read
        > I read Eli Pariser's book in draft. Everyone should read it in print: The
        > Filter Bubble � http://t.co/YhneDxk
        > https://twitter.com/lessig/status/70386900304789504
        >
        > *Q: What is a �Filter Bubble�?*
        >
        > A: We�re used to thinking of the Internet like an enormous library, with
        > services like Google providing a universal map. But that�s no longer really
        > the case. Sites from Google and Facebook to Yahoo News and the New York
        > Times are now increasingly personalized � based on your web history, they
        > filter information to show you the stuff they think you want to see. That
        > can be very different from what everyone else sees � or from what we need to
        > see.
        >
        > Your filter bubble is this unique, personal universe of information created
        > just for you by this array of personalizing filters. It�s invisible and it�s
        > becoming more and more difficult to escape.
        >
        > *Q: I like the idea that websites might show me information relevant to my
        > interests�it can be overwhelming how much information is available I already
        > only watch TV shows and listen to radio programs that are known to have my
        > same political leaning. What�s so bad about this*?
        >
        > A: It�s true: We�ve always selected information sources that accord with our
        > own views. But one of the creepy things about the filter bubble is that
        > we�re not really doing the selecting. When you turn on Fox News or MSNBC,
        > you have a sense of what their editorial sensibility is: Fox isn�t going to
        > show many stories that portray Obama in a good light, and MSNBC isn�t going
        > to the ones that portray him badly. Personalized filters are a different
        > story: You don�t know who they think you are or on what basis they�re
        > showing you what they�re showing. And as a result, you don�t really have any
        > sense of what�s getting edited out � or, in fact, that things are being
        > edited out at all.
        >
        > *Q: How does money fit into this picture?*
        >
        > A: The rush to build the filter bubble is absolutely driven by commercial
        > interests. It�s becoming clearer and clearer that if you want to have lots
        > of people use your website, you need to provide them with personally
        > relevant information, and if you want to make the most money on ads, you
        > need to provide them with relevant ads. This has triggered a personal
        > information gold rush, in which the major companies � Google, Facebook,
        > Microsoft, Yahoo, and the like � are competing to create the most
        > comprehensive portrait of each of us to drive personalized products. There�s
        > also a whole �behavior market� opening up in which every action you take
        > online � every mouse click, every form entry � can be sold as a commodity.
        >
        > *Q: What is the Internet hiding from me?*
        >
        > A: As Google engineer Jonathan McPhie explained to me, it�s different for
        > every person � and in fact, even Google doesn�t totally know how it plays
        > out on an individual level. At an aggregate level, they can see that people
        > are clicking more. But they can�t predict how each individual�s information
        > environment is altered.
        >
        > In general, the things that are most likely to get edited out are the things
        > you�re least likely to click on. Sometimes, this can be a real service � if
        > you never read articles about sports, why should a newspaper put a football
        > story on your front page? But apply the same logic to, say, stories about
        > foreign policy, and a problem starts to emerge. Some things, like
        > homelessness or genocide, aren�t highly clickable but are highly important.
        >
        > *Q: Which companies or Websites are personalizing like this?*
        >
        > A: In one form or another, nearly every major website on the Internet is
        > flirting with personalization. But the one that surprises people most is
        > Google. If you and I Google the same thing at the same time, we may get very
        > different results. Google tracks hundreds of �signals� about each of us �
        > what kind of computer we�re on, what we�ve searched for in the past, even
        > how long it takes us to decide what to click on � and uses it to customize
        > our results. When the result is that our favorite pizza parlor shows up
        > first when we Google pizza, it�s useful. But when the result is that we only
        > see the information that is aligned with our religious or social or
        > political beliefs, it�s difficult to maintain perspective.
        >
        > *Q: Are any sites being transparent about their personalization?
        > *
        > A: Some sites do better than others. Amazon, for example, is often quite
        > transparent about the personalization it does: �We�re showing you Brave New
        > World because you bought 1984.� But it�s one thing to personalize products
        > and another to personalize whole information flows, like Google and Facebook
        > are doing. And very few users of those services are even marginally aware
        > that this kind of filtering is at work.
        >
        > *Q: Does this issue of personalization impact my privacy or jeopardize my
        > identity at all?*
        >
        > A: Research psychologists have known for a while that the media you consume
        > shapes your identity. So when the media you consume is also shaped by your
        > identity, you can slip into a weird feedback loop. A lot of people see a
        > simple version of this on Facebook: You idly click on an old classmate,
        > Facebook reads that as a friendship, and pretty soon you�re seeing every one
        > of John or Sue�s posts.
        >
        > Gone awry, personalization can create compulsive media � media targeted to
        > appeal to your personal psychological weak spots. You can find yourself
        > eating the equivalent of information junk food instead of having a more
        > balanced information diet.
        >
        > *Q: You make it clear that while most Websites� user agreements say they
        > won�t share our personal information, they also maintain the right to change
        > the rules at any time. Do you foresee sites changing those rules to profit
        > from our online personas?
        > *
        > A: They already have. Facebook, for example, is notorious for its
        > bait-and-switch tactics when it comes to privacy. For a long time, what you
        > �Liked� on Facebook was private, and the site promised to keep it that way.
        > Then, overnight, they made that information public to the world, in order to
        > make it easier for their advertisers to target specific subgroups.
        >
        > There�s an irony in the fact that while Rolex needs to get Tom Cruise�s
        > permission to put his face on a billboard, it doesn�t need to get my
        > permission to advertise my endorsement to my friends on Facebook. We need
        > laws that give people more rights in their personal data.
        >
        > *Q: Is there any way to avoid this personalization? What if I�m not logged
        > into a site?*
        >
        > A: Even if you�re not logged into Google, for example, an engineer told me
        > there are 57 signals that the site uses to figure out who you are: whether
        > you�re on a Mac or PC or iPad, where you�re located when you�re Googling,
        > etc. And in the near future, it�ll be possible to �fingerprint� unique
        > devices, so that sites can tell which individual computer you�re using.
        > That�s why erasing your browser cookies is at best a partial solution�it
        > only partially limits the information available to personalizers.
        >
        > What we really need is for the companies that power the filter bubble to
        > take responsibility for the immense power they now have � the power to
        > determine what we see and don�t see, what we know and don�t know. We need
        > them to make sure we continue to have access to public discourse and a view
        > of the common good. A world based solely on things we �Like� is a very
        > incomplete world.
        >
        > I�m optimistic that they can. It�s worth remembering that newspapers weren�t
        > always informed by a sense of journalistic ethics. They existed for
        > centuries without it. It was only when critics like Walter Lippman began to
        > point out how important they were that the newspapers began to change. And
        > while journalistic ethics aren�t perfect, because of them we have been
        > better informed over the last century. We need algorithmic ethics to guide
        > us through the next.
        >
        > *Q: What are the business leaders at Google and Facebook and Yahoo saying
        > about their responsibilities?*
        >
        > A: To be honest, they�re frustratingly coy. They tend to frame the trend in
        > the passive tense: Google�s Eric Schmidt recently said �It will be very hard
        > for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been
        > tailored for them,� rather than �Google is making it very hard�� Mark
        > Zuckerberg perfectly summed up the tension in personalization when he said
        > �A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests
        > right now than people dying in Africa.� But he refuses to engage with what
        > that means at a societal level � especially for the people in Africa.
        > *
        > Q: Your background is as a political organizer for the liberal Website
        > MoveOn.org. How does that experience inform your book?*
        >
        > A: I�ve always believed the Internet could connect us all together and help
        > create a better, more democratic world. That�s what excited me about MoveOn
        > � here we were, connecting people directly with each other and with
        > political leaders to create change.
        >
        > But that more democratic society has yet to emerge, and I think it�s partly
        > because while the Internet is very good at helping groups of people with
        > like interests band together (like MoveOn), it�s not so hot at introducing
        > people to different people and ideas. Democracy requires discourse and
        > personalization is making that more and more elusive.
        >
        > And that worries me, because we really need the Internet to live up to that
        > connective promise. We need it to help us solve global problems like climate
        > change, terrorism, or natural resource management which by their nature
        > require massive coordination, and great wisdom and ingenuity. These problems
        > can�t be solved by a person or two � they require whole societies to
        > participate. And that just won�t happen if we�re all isolated in a web of
        > one.
        > Review
        > If you feel that the Web is your wide open window on the world, you need to
        > read this book to understand what you aren`t seeing
        > B.
        >
        > --
        > Barbara Dieu
        > http://barbaradieu.com
        > http://beespace.net
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Dr. Elizabeth Hanson-Smith
        Thanks, Bee, for a very informative mini-article. Makes me very worried about membership in such sites as Facebook. But I despair of Google! It is so useful
        Message 3 of 10 , May 19, 2011
          Thanks, Bee, for a very informative "mini-article." Makes me very worried about membership in such sites as Facebook. But I despair of Google! It is so useful as a search engine, but I feel it increasingly doesn't get me the results I want/need. It's hard not to long for the days of a simplier and "woolier" Internet.
          --Elizabeth HS


          --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, Barbara Dieu <beeonline@...> wrote:
          >
          > Recommended by Lawrence Lessig, a book to read
          > I read Eli Pariser's book in draft. Everyone should read it in print: The
          > Filter Bubble — http://t.co/YhneDxk
          > https://twitter.com/lessig/status/70386900304789504
          >
          > *Q: What is a "Filter Bubble"?*
          >
          > A: We're used to thinking of the Internet like an enormous library, with
          > services like Google providing a universal map. But that's no longer really
          > the case. Sites from Google and Facebook to Yahoo News and the New York
          > Times are now increasingly personalized – based on your web history, they
          > filter information to show you the stuff they think you want to see. That
          > can be very different from what everyone else sees – or from what we need to
          > see.
          >
          > Your filter bubble is this unique, personal universe of information created
          > just for you by this array of personalizing filters. It's invisible and it's
          > becoming more and more difficult to escape.
          >
          > *Q: I like the idea that websites might show me information relevant to my
          > interests—it can be overwhelming how much information is available I already
          > only watch TV shows and listen to radio programs that are known to have my
          > same political leaning. What's so bad about this*?
          >
          > A: It's true: We've always selected information sources that accord with our
          > own views. But one of the creepy things about the filter bubble is that
          > we're not really doing the selecting. When you turn on Fox News or MSNBC,
          > you have a sense of what their editorial sensibility is: Fox isn't going to
          > show many stories that portray Obama in a good light, and MSNBC isn't going
          > to the ones that portray him badly. Personalized filters are a different
          > story: You don't know who they think you are or on what basis they're
          > showing you what they're showing. And as a result, you don't really have any
          > sense of what's getting edited out – or, in fact, that things are being
          > edited out at all.
          >
          > *Q: How does money fit into this picture?*
          >
          > A: The rush to build the filter bubble is absolutely driven by commercial
          > interests. It's becoming clearer and clearer that if you want to have lots
          > of people use your website, you need to provide them with personally
          > relevant information, and if you want to make the most money on ads, you
          > need to provide them with relevant ads. This has triggered a personal
          > information gold rush, in which the major companies – Google, Facebook,
          > Microsoft, Yahoo, and the like – are competing to create the most
          > comprehensive portrait of each of us to drive personalized products. There's
          > also a whole "behavior market" opening up in which every action you take
          > online – every mouse click, every form entry – can be sold as a commodity.
          >
          > *Q: What is the Internet hiding from me?*
          >
          > A: As Google engineer Jonathan McPhie explained to me, it's different for
          > every person – and in fact, even Google doesn't totally know how it plays
          > out on an individual level. At an aggregate level, they can see that people
          > are clicking more. But they can't predict how each individual's information
          > environment is altered.
          >
          > In general, the things that are most likely to get edited out are the things
          > you're least likely to click on. Sometimes, this can be a real service – if
          > you never read articles about sports, why should a newspaper put a football
          > story on your front page? But apply the same logic to, say, stories about
          > foreign policy, and a problem starts to emerge. Some things, like
          > homelessness or genocide, aren't highly clickable but are highly important.
          >
          > *Q: Which companies or Websites are personalizing like this?*
          >
          > A: In one form or another, nearly every major website on the Internet is
          > flirting with personalization. But the one that surprises people most is
          > Google. If you and I Google the same thing at the same time, we may get very
          > different results. Google tracks hundreds of "signals" about each of us –
          > what kind of computer we're on, what we've searched for in the past, even
          > how long it takes us to decide what to click on – and uses it to customize
          > our results. When the result is that our favorite pizza parlor shows up
          > first when we Google pizza, it's useful. But when the result is that we only
          > see the information that is aligned with our religious or social or
          > political beliefs, it's difficult to maintain perspective.
          >
          > *Q: Are any sites being transparent about their personalization?
          > *
          > A: Some sites do better than others. Amazon, for example, is often quite
          > transparent about the personalization it does: "We're showing you Brave New
          > World because you bought 1984." But it's one thing to personalize products
          > and another to personalize whole information flows, like Google and Facebook
          > are doing. And very few users of those services are even marginally aware
          > that this kind of filtering is at work.
          >
          > *Q: Does this issue of personalization impact my privacy or jeopardize my
          > identity at all?*
          >
          > A: Research psychologists have known for a while that the media you consume
          > shapes your identity. So when the media you consume is also shaped by your
          > identity, you can slip into a weird feedback loop. A lot of people see a
          > simple version of this on Facebook: You idly click on an old classmate,
          > Facebook reads that as a friendship, and pretty soon you're seeing every one
          > of John or Sue's posts.
          >
          > Gone awry, personalization can create compulsive media – media targeted to
          > appeal to your personal psychological weak spots. You can find yourself
          > eating the equivalent of information junk food instead of having a more
          > balanced information diet.
          >
          > *Q: You make it clear that while most Websites' user agreements say they
          > won't share our personal information, they also maintain the right to change
          > the rules at any time. Do you foresee sites changing those rules to profit
          > from our online personas?
          > *
          > A: They already have. Facebook, for example, is notorious for its
          > bait-and-switch tactics when it comes to privacy. For a long time, what you
          > "Liked" on Facebook was private, and the site promised to keep it that way.
          > Then, overnight, they made that information public to the world, in order to
          > make it easier for their advertisers to target specific subgroups.
          >
          > There's an irony in the fact that while Rolex needs to get Tom Cruise's
          > permission to put his face on a billboard, it doesn't need to get my
          > permission to advertise my endorsement to my friends on Facebook. We need
          > laws that give people more rights in their personal data.
          >
          > *Q: Is there any way to avoid this personalization? What if I'm not logged
          > into a site?*
          >
          > A: Even if you're not logged into Google, for example, an engineer told me
          > there are 57 signals that the site uses to figure out who you are: whether
          > you're on a Mac or PC or iPad, where you're located when you're Googling,
          > etc. And in the near future, it'll be possible to "fingerprint" unique
          > devices, so that sites can tell which individual computer you're using.
          > That's why erasing your browser cookies is at best a partial solution—it
          > only partially limits the information available to personalizers.
          >
          > What we really need is for the companies that power the filter bubble to
          > take responsibility for the immense power they now have – the power to
          > determine what we see and don't see, what we know and don't know. We need
          > them to make sure we continue to have access to public discourse and a view
          > of the common good. A world based solely on things we "Like" is a very
          > incomplete world.
          >
          > I'm optimistic that they can. It's worth remembering that newspapers weren't
          > always informed by a sense of journalistic ethics. They existed for
          > centuries without it. It was only when critics like Walter Lippman began to
          > point out how important they were that the newspapers began to change. And
          > while journalistic ethics aren't perfect, because of them we have been
          > better informed over the last century. We need algorithmic ethics to guide
          > us through the next.
          >
          > *Q: What are the business leaders at Google and Facebook and Yahoo saying
          > about their responsibilities?*
          >
          > A: To be honest, they're frustratingly coy. They tend to frame the trend in
          > the passive tense: Google's Eric Schmidt recently said "It will be very hard
          > for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been
          > tailored for them," rather than "Google is making it very hard…" Mark
          > Zuckerberg perfectly summed up the tension in personalization when he said
          > "A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests
          > right now than people dying in Africa." But he refuses to engage with what
          > that means at a societal level – especially for the people in Africa.
          > *
          > Q: Your background is as a political organizer for the liberal Website
          > MoveOn.org. How does that experience inform your book?*
          >
          > A: I've always believed the Internet could connect us all together and help
          > create a better, more democratic world. That's what excited me about MoveOn
          > – here we were, connecting people directly with each other and with
          > political leaders to create change.
          >
          > But that more democratic society has yet to emerge, and I think it's partly
          > because while the Internet is very good at helping groups of people with
          > like interests band together (like MoveOn), it's not so hot at introducing
          > people to different people and ideas. Democracy requires discourse and
          > personalization is making that more and more elusive.
          >
          > And that worries me, because we really need the Internet to live up to that
          > connective promise. We need it to help us solve global problems like climate
          > change, terrorism, or natural resource management which by their nature
          > require massive coordination, and great wisdom and ingenuity. These problems
          > can't be solved by a person or two – they require whole societies to
          > participate. And that just won't happen if we're all isolated in a web of
          > one.
          > Review
          > If you feel that the Web is your wide open window on the world, you need to
          > read this book to understand what you aren`t seeing
          > B.
          >
          > --
          > Barbara Dieu
          > http://barbaradieu.com
          > http://beespace.net
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Vanessa
          I think this also shows the tip of the learning analytics iceberg and how it could be used to customize both DIY and course pack learning materials. I knew
          Message 4 of 10 , May 20, 2011
            I think this also shows the tip of the learning analytics iceberg and how it could be used to customize both DIY and course pack learning materials.

            I knew that about the 'like' button but had let it slip my mind... sharp reminder.

            The many, many implications more than just a little unnerving. Now what can we do to subvert the algorithm, even if incompletely? At least warp its data, give it indigestion?

            Vanessa
          • Vance
            Yet more on this intriguing concept, an interview with Eli Pariser by Brook Gladstone on NPR s On the Media, in transcript and MP3 format
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 6, 2011
              Yet more on this intriguing concept, an interview with Eli Pariser by Brook Gladstone on NPR's On the Media, in transcript and MP3 format
              http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/05/20/05

              Sorry for all the trailing information, but it's all relevant.

              Enjoy,
              Vance


              --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Elizabeth Hanson-Smith" <ehansonsmi@...> wrote:
              >
              > Thanks, Bee, for a very informative "mini-article." Makes me very worried about membership in such sites as Facebook. But I despair of Google! It is so useful as a search engine, but I feel it increasingly doesn't get me the results I want/need. It's hard not to long for the days of a simplier and "woolier" Internet.
              > --Elizabeth HS
              >
              >
              > --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, Barbara Dieu <beeonline@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Recommended by Lawrence Lessig, a book to read
              > > I read Eli Pariser's book in draft. Everyone should read it in print: The
              > > Filter Bubble — http://t.co/YhneDxk
              > > https://twitter.com/lessig/status/70386900304789504
              > >
              > > *Q: What is a "Filter Bubble"?*
              > >
              > > A: We're used to thinking of the Internet like an enormous library, with
              > > services like Google providing a universal map. But that's no longer really
              > > the case. Sites from Google and Facebook to Yahoo News and the New York
              > > Times are now increasingly personalized – based on your web history, they
              > > filter information to show you the stuff they think you want to see. That
              > > can be very different from what everyone else sees – or from what we need to
              > > see.
              > >
              > > Your filter bubble is this unique, personal universe of information created
              > > just for you by this array of personalizing filters. It's invisible and it's
              > > becoming more and more difficult to escape.
              > >
              > > *Q: I like the idea that websites might show me information relevant to my
              > > interests—it can be overwhelming how much information is available I already
              > > only watch TV shows and listen to radio programs that are known to have my
              > > same political leaning. What's so bad about this*?
              > >
              > > A: It's true: We've always selected information sources that accord with our
              > > own views. But one of the creepy things about the filter bubble is that
              > > we're not really doing the selecting. When you turn on Fox News or MSNBC,
              > > you have a sense of what their editorial sensibility is: Fox isn't going to
              > > show many stories that portray Obama in a good light, and MSNBC isn't going
              > > to the ones that portray him badly. Personalized filters are a different
              > > story: You don't know who they think you are or on what basis they're
              > > showing you what they're showing. And as a result, you don't really have any
              > > sense of what's getting edited out – or, in fact, that things are being
              > > edited out at all.
              > >
              > > *Q: How does money fit into this picture?*
              > >
              > > A: The rush to build the filter bubble is absolutely driven by commercial
              > > interests. It's becoming clearer and clearer that if you want to have lots
              > > of people use your website, you need to provide them with personally
              > > relevant information, and if you want to make the most money on ads, you
              > > need to provide them with relevant ads. This has triggered a personal
              > > information gold rush, in which the major companies – Google, Facebook,
              > > Microsoft, Yahoo, and the like – are competing to create the most
              > > comprehensive portrait of each of us to drive personalized products. There's
              > > also a whole "behavior market" opening up in which every action you take
              > > online – every mouse click, every form entry – can be sold as a commodity.
              > >
              > > *Q: What is the Internet hiding from me?*
              > >
              > > A: As Google engineer Jonathan McPhie explained to me, it's different for
              > > every person – and in fact, even Google doesn't totally know how it plays
              > > out on an individual level. At an aggregate level, they can see that people
              > > are clicking more. But they can't predict how each individual's information
              > > environment is altered.
              > >
              > > In general, the things that are most likely to get edited out are the things
              > > you're least likely to click on. Sometimes, this can be a real service – if
              > > you never read articles about sports, why should a newspaper put a football
              > > story on your front page? But apply the same logic to, say, stories about
              > > foreign policy, and a problem starts to emerge. Some things, like
              > > homelessness or genocide, aren't highly clickable but are highly important.
              > >
              > > *Q: Which companies or Websites are personalizing like this?*
              > >
              > > A: In one form or another, nearly every major website on the Internet is
              > > flirting with personalization. But the one that surprises people most is
              > > Google. If you and I Google the same thing at the same time, we may get very
              > > different results. Google tracks hundreds of "signals" about each of us –
              > > what kind of computer we're on, what we've searched for in the past, even
              > > how long it takes us to decide what to click on – and uses it to customize
              > > our results. When the result is that our favorite pizza parlor shows up
              > > first when we Google pizza, it's useful. But when the result is that we only
              > > see the information that is aligned with our religious or social or
              > > political beliefs, it's difficult to maintain perspective.
              > >
              > > *Q: Are any sites being transparent about their personalization?
              > > *
              > > A: Some sites do better than others. Amazon, for example, is often quite
              > > transparent about the personalization it does: "We're showing you Brave New
              > > World because you bought 1984." But it's one thing to personalize products
              > > and another to personalize whole information flows, like Google and Facebook
              > > are doing. And very few users of those services are even marginally aware
              > > that this kind of filtering is at work.
              > >
              > > *Q: Does this issue of personalization impact my privacy or jeopardize my
              > > identity at all?*
              > >
              > > A: Research psychologists have known for a while that the media you consume
              > > shapes your identity. So when the media you consume is also shaped by your
              > > identity, you can slip into a weird feedback loop. A lot of people see a
              > > simple version of this on Facebook: You idly click on an old classmate,
              > > Facebook reads that as a friendship, and pretty soon you're seeing every one
              > > of John or Sue's posts.
              > >
              > > Gone awry, personalization can create compulsive media – media targeted to
              > > appeal to your personal psychological weak spots. You can find yourself
              > > eating the equivalent of information junk food instead of having a more
              > > balanced information diet.
              > >
              > > *Q: You make it clear that while most Websites' user agreements say they
              > > won't share our personal information, they also maintain the right to change
              > > the rules at any time. Do you foresee sites changing those rules to profit
              > > from our online personas?
              > > *
              > > A: They already have. Facebook, for example, is notorious for its
              > > bait-and-switch tactics when it comes to privacy. For a long time, what you
              > > "Liked" on Facebook was private, and the site promised to keep it that way.
              > > Then, overnight, they made that information public to the world, in order to
              > > make it easier for their advertisers to target specific subgroups.
              > >
              > > There's an irony in the fact that while Rolex needs to get Tom Cruise's
              > > permission to put his face on a billboard, it doesn't need to get my
              > > permission to advertise my endorsement to my friends on Facebook. We need
              > > laws that give people more rights in their personal data.
              > >
              > > *Q: Is there any way to avoid this personalization? What if I'm not logged
              > > into a site?*
              > >
              > > A: Even if you're not logged into Google, for example, an engineer told me
              > > there are 57 signals that the site uses to figure out who you are: whether
              > > you're on a Mac or PC or iPad, where you're located when you're Googling,
              > > etc. And in the near future, it'll be possible to "fingerprint" unique
              > > devices, so that sites can tell which individual computer you're using.
              > > That's why erasing your browser cookies is at best a partial solution—it
              > > only partially limits the information available to personalizers.
              > >
              > > What we really need is for the companies that power the filter bubble to
              > > take responsibility for the immense power they now have – the power to
              > > determine what we see and don't see, what we know and don't know. We need
              > > them to make sure we continue to have access to public discourse and a view
              > > of the common good. A world based solely on things we "Like" is a very
              > > incomplete world.
              > >
              > > I'm optimistic that they can. It's worth remembering that newspapers weren't
              > > always informed by a sense of journalistic ethics. They existed for
              > > centuries without it. It was only when critics like Walter Lippman began to
              > > point out how important they were that the newspapers began to change. And
              > > while journalistic ethics aren't perfect, because of them we have been
              > > better informed over the last century. We need algorithmic ethics to guide
              > > us through the next.
              > >
              > > *Q: What are the business leaders at Google and Facebook and Yahoo saying
              > > about their responsibilities?*
              > >
              > > A: To be honest, they're frustratingly coy. They tend to frame the trend in
              > > the passive tense: Google's Eric Schmidt recently said "It will be very hard
              > > for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been
              > > tailored for them," rather than "Google is making it very hard…" Mark
              > > Zuckerberg perfectly summed up the tension in personalization when he said
              > > "A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests
              > > right now than people dying in Africa." But he refuses to engage with what
              > > that means at a societal level – especially for the people in Africa.
              > > *
              > > Q: Your background is as a political organizer for the liberal Website
              > > MoveOn.org. How does that experience inform your book?*
              > >
              > > A: I've always believed the Internet could connect us all together and help
              > > create a better, more democratic world. That's what excited me about MoveOn
              > > – here we were, connecting people directly with each other and with
              > > political leaders to create change.
              > >
              > > But that more democratic society has yet to emerge, and I think it's partly
              > > because while the Internet is very good at helping groups of people with
              > > like interests band together (like MoveOn), it's not so hot at introducing
              > > people to different people and ideas. Democracy requires discourse and
              > > personalization is making that more and more elusive.
              > >
              > > And that worries me, because we really need the Internet to live up to that
              > > connective promise. We need it to help us solve global problems like climate
              > > change, terrorism, or natural resource management which by their nature
              > > require massive coordination, and great wisdom and ingenuity. These problems
              > > can't be solved by a person or two – they require whole societies to
              > > participate. And that just won't happen if we're all isolated in a web of
              > > one.
              > > Review
              > > If you feel that the Web is your wide open window on the world, you need to
              > > read this book to understand what you aren`t seeing
              > > B.
              > >
              > > --
              > > Barbara Dieu
              > > http://barbaradieu.com
              > > http://beespace.net
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
            • ElizabethA
              Thanks Vance for bringing this back to the top of the pile. Although I had noticed that the students in class get a different first page when we all do the
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 10, 2011
                Thanks Vance for bringing this back to the top of the pile.
                Although I had noticed that the students in class get a different "first page" when we all do the same Google search (for a class exercise :-) I always just shrugged it off.
                On the other hand - it's great not having to feel silly anymore as I did yesterday during a training session for teacher when, before going to google docs, I first signed out of the google front page as I always do ! (well, thats just one extra little hurdle for big-brother to jump)
                Thanks B for bringing Eli Pariser to the Webheads - I just watched his 8 minute Ted Talk too which someone may also have mentioned.

                My new problem is caused by moving from del.ici.us to diigo after being scared off delicious by the new terms of use it requires following its recent acquisition (you may not have noticed that - because it was specifically about delicious coming under the US data laws, which are not the same as those in Europe) ANYWAY, this move was a jump in the dark, because now (and I think it's new today) I cannot manage to disconnect my diigo account from google. Today my google search page, which I THINK is coming to me through diigo, does actually announce "custom search" in the middle of the page under the logo,(have Eli Pariser's words been heard already?) but it has lost it's easily available "sign out" option.
                In the end, I signed out of diigo .... so it looks as if the move away from delicious was not so astute after all.
                I agree with Elizabeth - oh for the good old days :-)
                amitiés
                ElizabethA

                --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, Barbara Dieu <beeonline@...> wrote:
                >
                > Recommended by Lawrence Lessig, a book to read
                > I read Eli Pariser's book in draft. Everyone should read it in print: The
                > Filter Bubble — http://t.co/YhneDxk
                > https://twitter.com/lessig/status/70386900304789504
                >
                > *Q: What is a "Filter Bubble"?*
                >
                > A: We're used to thinking of the Internet like an enormous library, with
                > services like Google providing a universal map. But that's no longer really
                > the case. Sites from Google and Facebook to Yahoo News and the New York
                > Times are now increasingly personalized – based on your web history, they
                > filter information to show you the stuff they think you want to see. That
                > can be very different from what everyone else sees – or from what we need to
                > see.
                >
                > Your filter bubble is this unique, personal universe of information created
                > just for you by this array of personalizing filters. It's invisible and it's
                > becoming more and more difficult to escape.
                >
                > *Q: I like the idea that websites might show me information relevant to my
                > interests—it can be overwhelming how much information is available I already
                > only watch TV shows and listen to radio programs that are known to have my
                > same political leaning. What's so bad about this*?
                >
                > A: It's true: We've always selected information sources that accord with our
                > own views. But one of the creepy things about the filter bubble is that
                > we're not really doing the selecting. When you turn on Fox News or MSNBC,
                > you have a sense of what their editorial sensibility is: Fox isn't going to
                > show many stories that portray Obama in a good light, and MSNBC isn't going
                > to the ones that portray him badly. Personalized filters are a different
                > story: You don't know who they think you are or on what basis they're
                > showing you what they're showing. And as a result, you don't really have any
                > sense of what's getting edited out – or, in fact, that things are being
                > edited out at all.
                >
                > *Q: How does money fit into this picture?*
                >
                > A: The rush to build the filter bubble is absolutely driven by commercial
                > interests. It's becoming clearer and clearer that if you want to have lots
                > of people use your website, you need to provide them with personally
                > relevant information, and if you want to make the most money on ads, you
                > need to provide them with relevant ads. This has triggered a personal
                > information gold rush, in which the major companies – Google, Facebook,
                > Microsoft, Yahoo, and the like – are competing to create the most
                > comprehensive portrait of each of us to drive personalized products. There's
                > also a whole "behavior market" opening up in which every action you take
                > online – every mouse click, every form entry – can be sold as a commodity.
                >
                > *Q: What is the Internet hiding from me?*
                >
                > A: As Google engineer Jonathan McPhie explained to me, it's different for
                > every person – and in fact, even Google doesn't totally know how it plays
                > out on an individual level. At an aggregate level, they can see that people
                > are clicking more. But they can't predict how each individual's information
                > environment is altered.
                >
                > In general, the things that are most likely to get edited out are the things
                > you're least likely to click on. Sometimes, this can be a real service – if
                > you never read articles about sports, why should a newspaper put a football
                > story on your front page? But apply the same logic to, say, stories about
                > foreign policy, and a problem starts to emerge. Some things, like
                > homelessness or genocide, aren't highly clickable but are highly important.
                >
                > *Q: Which companies or Websites are personalizing like this?*
                >
                > A: In one form or another, nearly every major website on the Internet is
                > flirting with personalization. But the one that surprises people most is
                > Google. If you and I Google the same thing at the same time, we may get very
                > different results. Google tracks hundreds of "signals" about each of us –
                > what kind of computer we're on, what we've searched for in the past, even
                > how long it takes us to decide what to click on – and uses it to customize
                > our results. When the result is that our favorite pizza parlor shows up
                > first when we Google pizza, it's useful. But when the result is that we only
                > see the information that is aligned with our religious or social or
                > political beliefs, it's difficult to maintain perspective.
                >
                > *Q: Are any sites being transparent about their personalization?
                > *
                > A: Some sites do better than others. Amazon, for example, is often quite
                > transparent about the personalization it does: "We're showing you Brave New
                > World because you bought 1984." But it's one thing to personalize products
                > and another to personalize whole information flows, like Google and Facebook
                > are doing. And very few users of those services are even marginally aware
                > that this kind of filtering is at work.
                >
                > *Q: Does this issue of personalization impact my privacy or jeopardize my
                > identity at all?*
                >
                > A: Research psychologists have known for a while that the media you consume
                > shapes your identity. So when the media you consume is also shaped by your
                > identity, you can slip into a weird feedback loop. A lot of people see a
                > simple version of this on Facebook: You idly click on an old classmate,
                > Facebook reads that as a friendship, and pretty soon you're seeing every one
                > of John or Sue's posts.
                >
                > Gone awry, personalization can create compulsive media – media targeted to
                > appeal to your personal psychological weak spots. You can find yourself
                > eating the equivalent of information junk food instead of having a more
                > balanced information diet.
                >
                > *Q: You make it clear that while most Websites' user agreements say they
                > won't share our personal information, they also maintain the right to change
                > the rules at any time. Do you foresee sites changing those rules to profit
                > from our online personas?
                > *
                > A: They already have. Facebook, for example, is notorious for its
                > bait-and-switch tactics when it comes to privacy. For a long time, what you
                > "Liked" on Facebook was private, and the site promised to keep it that way.
                > Then, overnight, they made that information public to the world, in order to
                > make it easier for their advertisers to target specific subgroups.
                >
                > There's an irony in the fact that while Rolex needs to get Tom Cruise's
                > permission to put his face on a billboard, it doesn't need to get my
                > permission to advertise my endorsement to my friends on Facebook. We need
                > laws that give people more rights in their personal data.
                >
                > *Q: Is there any way to avoid this personalization? What if I'm not logged
                > into a site?*
                >
                > A: Even if you're not logged into Google, for example, an engineer told me
                > there are 57 signals that the site uses to figure out who you are: whether
                > you're on a Mac or PC or iPad, where you're located when you're Googling,
                > etc. And in the near future, it'll be possible to "fingerprint" unique
                > devices, so that sites can tell which individual computer you're using.
                > That's why erasing your browser cookies is at best a partial solution—it
                > only partially limits the information available to personalizers.
                >
                > What we really need is for the companies that power the filter bubble to
                > take responsibility for the immense power they now have – the power to
                > determine what we see and don't see, what we know and don't know. We need
                > them to make sure we continue to have access to public discourse and a view
                > of the common good. A world based solely on things we "Like" is a very
                > incomplete world.
                >
                > I'm optimistic that they can. It's worth remembering that newspapers weren't
                > always informed by a sense of journalistic ethics. They existed for
                > centuries without it. It was only when critics like Walter Lippman began to
                > point out how important they were that the newspapers began to change. And
                > while journalistic ethics aren't perfect, because of them we have been
                > better informed over the last century. We need algorithmic ethics to guide
                > us through the next.
                >
                > *Q: What are the business leaders at Google and Facebook and Yahoo saying
                > about their responsibilities?*
                >
                > A: To be honest, they're frustratingly coy. They tend to frame the trend in
                > the passive tense: Google's Eric Schmidt recently said "It will be very hard
                > for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been
                > tailored for them," rather than "Google is making it very hard…" Mark
                > Zuckerberg perfectly summed up the tension in personalization when he said
                > "A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests
                > right now than people dying in Africa." But he refuses to engage with what
                > that means at a societal level – especially for the people in Africa.
                > *
                > Q: Your background is as a political organizer for the liberal Website
                > MoveOn.org. How does that experience inform your book?*
                >
                > A: I've always believed the Internet could connect us all together and help
                > create a better, more democratic world. That's what excited me about MoveOn
                > – here we were, connecting people directly with each other and with
                > political leaders to create change.
                >
                > But that more democratic society has yet to emerge, and I think it's partly
                > because while the Internet is very good at helping groups of people with
                > like interests band together (like MoveOn), it's not so hot at introducing
                > people to different people and ideas. Democracy requires discourse and
                > personalization is making that more and more elusive.
                >
                > And that worries me, because we really need the Internet to live up to that
                > connective promise. We need it to help us solve global problems like climate
                > change, terrorism, or natural resource management which by their nature
                > require massive coordination, and great wisdom and ingenuity. These problems
                > can't be solved by a person or two – they require whole societies to
                > participate. And that just won't happen if we're all isolated in a web of
                > one.
                > Review
                > If you feel that the Web is your wide open window on the world, you need to
                > read this book to understand what you aren`t seeing
                > B.
                >
                > --
                > Barbara Dieu
                > http://barbaradieu.com
                > http://beespace.net
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Barbara Dieu
                I have been following this bubble/privacy affair closely and more voices are raising the subject. Evgeny Morozov, who wrote the book The Net Delusion: The Dark
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 11, 2011
                  I have been following this bubble/privacy affair closely and more
                  voices are raising the subject.
                  Evgeny Morozov, who wrote the book The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of
                  Internet Freedom, reviews Pariser's book on NYTimes.
                  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-the-filter-bubble-by-eli-pariser.html

                  You can also watch Eben Moglen at the Personal Democracy Forum : The
                  alternate net we need.
                  http://www.livestream.com/pdf2011/video?clipId=pla_8ad51bab-a440-4e9b-87c8-6e0b9e196903

                  Enjoy your weekend!
                  B.

                  --
                  Barbara Dieu
                  http://barbaradieu.com
                  http://beespace.net
                • Dr. Elizabeth Hanson-Smith
                  Hi ElizabethA-- I use Diigo quite frequently, and sign in using my Google Id for my personal account, and a separate ID and PW for the CALL_IS_VSL account. I
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 12, 2011
                    Hi ElizabethA--

                    I use Diigo quite frequently, and sign in using my Google Id for my personal account, and a separate ID and PW for the CALL_IS_VSL account. I added the Diigo toolbar to Firefox on some of my desktops, and use the Diigolet toolbar on my netbook and laptop (takes less real estate). I have a gmail account, but don't use it frequently.

                    So I can't figure out where the problem is for you? I find that Diigo automatically signs me out at least daily, usually after an hour or so, as does Google. (I'd rather stay signed in but it is safer this way.) Maybe if you use the Diigo toolbar in your browser it would behave for you? (I am using Firefox/Mozilla on an iMac Intel OS X.5.) And I do think it is wise to sign out of sites like Yahoo and Google before going anywhere else.

                    It is indeed interesting that students in a class will hit different starting lists/pages when they do the same Google search. Are they (or some of them) signed in to their own accounts when they use the search function? I agree with the interview Bee sent--there is already too much personalization of the Internet, and we are becoming dumber because of it!

                    Was it me who longed for the good ole days, or did you mean Bee? I am a here-and-nower, as much as possible!

                    Cheers--
                    --ElizabethHS




                    --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, "ElizabethA" <eanne_grenoble@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Thanks Vance for bringing this back to the top of the pile.
                    > Although I had noticed that the students in class get a different "first page" when we all do the same Google search (for a class exercise :-) I always just shrugged it off.
                    > On the other hand - it's great not having to feel silly anymore as I did yesterday during a training session for teacher when, before going to google docs, I first signed out of the google front page as I always do ! (well, thats just one extra little hurdle for big-brother to jump)
                    > Thanks B for bringing Eli Pariser to the Webheads - I just watched his 8 minute Ted Talk too which someone may also have mentioned.
                    >
                    > My new problem is caused by moving from del.ici.us to diigo after being scared off delicious by the new terms of use it requires following its recent acquisition (you may not have noticed that - because it was specifically about delicious coming under the US data laws, which are not the same as those in Europe) ANYWAY, this move was a jump in the dark, because now (and I think it's new today) I cannot manage to disconnect my diigo account from google. Today my google search page, which I THINK is coming to me through diigo, does actually announce "custom search" in the middle of the page under the logo,(have Eli Pariser's words been heard already?) but it has lost it's easily available "sign out" option.
                    > In the end, I signed out of diigo .... so it looks as if the move away from delicious was not so astute after all.
                    > I agree with Elizabeth - oh for the good old days :-)
                    > amitiés
                    > ElizabethA
                    >
                  • ElizabethA
                    Elizabeth - thank you so much for taking the time to reply [:)] I obviously need to check my settings on diigo, google and/or Firefox - goodness! But
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 13, 2011
                      Elizabeth - thank you so much for taking the time to reply [:)]
                      I obviously need to check my settings on diigo, google and/or Firefox -
                      goodness! But there's definitely no automatic logout at present (I've
                      just spent the W/E on my computer !)

                      Actually your question "are the students logged in to their own
                      accounts" opens a new question for me .. I was going to say "yes"
                      because we work wifi in class, (I have 18 netbooks in a plugged in
                      mobile cupboard, and the other teachers haven't got wise on their
                      potential yet !) so although our wifi connection no longer goes
                      through a VPN, access to the internet is of course pasword protected,
                      that's why I was going to say yes - but in fact I guess you mean are
                      they logged in to their Google account .... I don't think so, but that's
                      something I'll have to observe next term - thanks

                      As for your last question ... I checked it out .... and the words were
                      "makes it hard not to long for ..." [;)]
                      so from one here and now Elizabeth to another
                      bye - and thanks

                      --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Elizabeth
                      Hanson-Smith" <ehansonsmi@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Hi ElizabethA--
                      >
                      > I use Diigo quite frequently, and sign in using my Google Id for my
                      personal account, and a separate ID and PW for the CALL_IS_VSL account.
                      I added the Diigo toolbar to Firefox on some of my desktops, and use the
                      Diigolet toolbar on my netbook and laptop (takes less real estate). I
                      have a gmail account, but don't use it frequently.
                      >
                      > So I can't figure out where the problem is for you? I find that Diigo
                      automatically signs me out at least daily, usually after an hour or so,
                      as does Google. (I'd rather stay signed in but it is safer this way.)
                      Maybe if you use the Diigo toolbar in your browser it would behave for
                      you? (I am using Firefox/Mozilla on an iMac Intel OS X.5.) And I do
                      think it is wise to sign out of sites like Yahoo and Google before going
                      anywhere else.
                      >
                      > It is indeed interesting that students in a class will hit different
                      starting lists/pages when they do the same Google search. Are they (or
                      some of them) signed in to their own accounts when they use the search
                      function? I agree with the interview Bee sent--there is already too much
                      personalization of the Internet, and we are becoming dumber because of
                      it!
                      >
                      > Was it me who longed for the good ole days, or did you mean Bee? I am
                      a here-and-nower, as much as possible!
                      >
                      > Cheers--
                      > --ElizabethHS
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, "ElizabethA"
                      eanne_grenoble@ wrote:
                      > >

                      > > Thanks B for bringing Eli Pariser to the Webheads - I just watched
                      his 8 minute Ted Talk too which someone may also have mentioned.
                      > >
                      > > My new problemis that I cannot manage to disconnect my diigo account
                      from google. (...)
                      > > amiti�s
                      > > ElizabethA
                      > >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Vance
                      I just came across another On the Media podcast on this topic http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jun/17/echo-chamber-revisited/ Vance
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jul 16, 2011
                        I just came across another On the Media podcast on this topic

                        http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jun/17/echo-chamber-revisited/

                        Vance

                        --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, Barbara Dieu <beeonline@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I have been following this bubble/privacy affair closely and more
                        > voices are raising the subject.
                        > Evgeny Morozov, who wrote the book The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of
                        > Internet Freedom, reviews Pariser's book on NYTimes.
                        > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-the-filter-bubble-by-eli-pariser.html
                        >
                        > You can also watch Eben Moglen at the Personal Democracy Forum : The
                        > alternate net we need.
                        > http://www.livestream.com/pdf2011/video?clipId=pla_8ad51bab-a440-4e9b-87c8-6e0b9e196903
                        >
                        > Enjoy your weekend!
                        > B.
                        >
                        > --
                        > Barbara Dieu
                        > http://barbaradieu.com
                        > http://beespace.net
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.