Beware online "filter bubbles" - Eli Pariser

[Music] [Applause]

Mark Zuckerberg, a journalist, was asking him a question about the newsfeed, and the journalist was asking him, you know, why is this so important? Zuckerberg said, “A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interest right now than people dying in Africa.”

I want to talk about what a web based on that idea of relevance might look like. So, when I was growing up in a really rural area in Maine, you know, the internet meant something very different to me. It meant a connection to the world. It meant something that would connect us all together, and I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy and for our society. But there's this kind of shift in how information is flowing online, and it's invisible. If we don't pay attention to it, it could be a real problem.

I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time—my Facebook page. I'm progressive politically, big surprise, but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives. I like hearing what they're thinking about. I like seeing what they link to. I like learning a thing or two. I was kind of surprised when I noticed one day that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed.

What it turned out was going on was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on, and it was noticing that actually I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links than on my conservative friends' links. Without consulting me about it, it had edited them out. They disappeared.

So, Facebook isn't the only place that's doing this kind of invisible algorithmic editing of the web. Google's doing it too. If I search for something and you search for something, even right now at the very same time, we may get very different search results. Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me there are 57 signals that Google looks at. Everything from what kind of computer you're on to what kind of browser you're using to where you're located, that it uses to personally tailor your query results.

Think about it for a second. There is no standard Google anymore. And you know the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see. You can't see how different your search results are from anyone else's. But a couple of weeks ago, I asked a bunch of friends to Google "Egypt" and to send me screenshots of what they got.

So, here's my friend Scott's screenshot, and here's my friend Daniel's screenshot. When you put them side by side, you don't even have to read the links to see how different these two pages are. But when you do read the links, it's really quite remarkable. Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all in his first page of Google results. Scott's results were full of them. This was the big story of the day at that time. That's how different these results are becoming.

So, it's not just Google and Facebook either. You know, this is something that's sweeping the web. There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization: Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the internet is now personalized—different people get different things. Huffington Post, the Washington Post, New York Times—all flirting with personalization in various ways.

Where this moves us very quickly toward is a world in which the internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see. As Eric Schmidt said, "It'll be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them."

So, I do think this is a problem. If you take all of these filters together, if you take all of these algorithms, you get what I call a filter bubble. Your filter bubble is kind of your own personal unique universe of information that you live in online. What's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do.

But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in, and more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out. One of the problems with the filter bubble was discovered by some researchers at Netflix. They were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny that a lot of us probably have noticed, which is there are some movies that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses. They enter the queue, they just zip right out.

So, Iron Man zips right out, right? And Waiting for Superman can wait for a really long time. What they discovered was that in our Netflix queues, there's kind of this epic struggle going on between our future aspirational selves and our more impulsive present selves. You know, we all want to be someone who has watched Rashomon, but right now we want to watch Ace Ventura for the fourth time.

So, the best editing gives us a bit of both. It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber and a little bit of Afghanistan. It gives us some informational vegetables; it gives us some informational dessert. The challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that because they're mainly looking at what you click on first, you know, it can throw off that balance.

Instead of a balanced information diet, you can end up surrounded by information junk food. So, what this suggests is actually that we may have the story about the internet wrong in a broadcast society. You know, this is how the founding mythology goes, right? In a broadcast society, there were these gatekeepers—the editors—and they controlled the flows of information.

Along came the internet, and it swept them out of the way, and it allowed us—all of us—to connect together, and it was awesome. But that's not actually what's happening right now. What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones.

The thing is that the algorithms don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics that the editors did. So, if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see, then we need to make sure that they're not just keyed to relevance. We need to make sure that they also show us things that are uncomfortable or challenging or important.

This is what TED does, right? Other points of view. The thing is we've actually kind of been here before as a society. In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot about their civic responsibilities then. People kind of noticed that they were doing something really important—that, in fact, you couldn't have a functioning democracy if citizens didn't get a good flow of information.

The newspapers were critical because they were acting as the filter, and that journalistic ethics developed. It wasn't perfect, but it got us through the last century. So now we're kind of back in 1915 on the web, and we need the new gatekeepers to encode that kind of responsibility into the code that they're writing.

You know, I know there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google—Larry and Sergey—people who have helped build the web as it is, and I'm grateful for that. But we really need you to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility.

We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough that we can see what the rules are that determine what gets through our filters, and we need you to give us some control so that we can decide what gets through and what doesn't.

Because I think we really need the internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it's not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a web of one.

Thank you. Thank you.