If you live on the wrong side of the digital tracks, you won't even see a credit offer from leading lending institutions, and you won't realize that loans are available to help you with your current personal or professional priorities.
From personal experience and rational consideration, I'd say credit offers are NOT made "to help you". It's like saying bait is to help a fish by getting it firmly prioritized on a hook.
I'm looking at this differently. I'm looking at it as a sort of censorship that could be used not just in ads but in other parts of the web. Also what if the web somehow know's what race I am.. would that make this different?
So... rich and poor people get served different ads. Who gives a shit? Pricing differences based on user attributes are well-known and (while they offend some) make a lot of sense.
The stuff about political echo chambers at the end seems to be thrown in without any justification whatsoever. Is there any reason to think I'm seeing pages that cater to my political interests (beyond the fact that I may intentionally visit such pages)?
If the thing refuses to do what I want it to do because it thinks I shouldn't have the knowledge I am asking for, either because that knowledge is forbidden me or because I cannot afford it, if the thing I am facing is making that decision then changing the way that thing behaves will change what I can have, therefore will change who I can be because what I get determines who I will become. -- Eben Moglen
This is quite low quality, but as my "flag" link has gone away now you have suffered it too.
Too Dull; Don't Read: Personalization and targeted advertising show different people different things. Could be titled "Class Orange People See a Different Internet Than Class Teal".
This is an information-lite summary of the concept of targeted ads. I suspect the difference between what groups see is more pronounced along geographical and political boundaries...rather than there being a subset of ads that only 1% of the internet actually sees. I was hoping that the OP would actually have some example of these 1% ads (private jet leasing? How to make money while working at home in your off-shore mansion?)
Adwords has advertised private jet leasing in the past. The fact that they appeared in my google apps indicates that the technology isn't as scary / all knowing as the article tries to lead readers to believe.
It touches on but IMO fails to explore a bunch of legitimately interesting topics - the sociological effects of filter bubbles, the ethics/legality of digital 'redlining' (and how Google just picked up a patent for it no less), formation of digital class divides as well as others.
It's a post that would have benefited from a less hyperbolic title, and posting on eg a blog where it wouldn't be completely destroyed by editing. I'm not sure who the 1% are supposed to be (advertisers, I guess?) and fluff aside, the article doesn't really have much meat in its current form.
Also, wtf with having a second page containing 15 words that on their own read like a drunken friday night text message and don't really tie in as a conclusion?
Most word processors are smart enough to not create widows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widows_and_orphans) but I guess the same doesn't apply to CMSes yet. The cynical part of me thinks the last sentence was added specifically to stretch the article to (just barely) two pages, to generate more impressions.
Who is interested in building the inverted echo chamber of the internet? Take a standard recommendation algorithm, apply it to news, let's say, and invert the similarity measure for the cluster the article belongs to.
In the best case, the end result would be a page filled with "relevant" (in the sense of read by people with a similar background) articles, but challenging your current position on an individual topic. Think having a "small government" believer receiving an article about the success of nordic social systems.
I, personally, would rather read such news than the "more of the same" you get with a standard similarity measure.
19 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 43.2 ms ] threadFrom personal experience and rational consideration, I'd say credit offers are NOT made "to help you". It's like saying bait is to help a fish by getting it firmly prioritized on a hook.
And just because a few might abuse that freedom doesn't mean everyone should be denied the right thereto.
The stuff about political echo chambers at the end seems to be thrown in without any justification whatsoever. Is there any reason to think I'm seeing pages that cater to my political interests (beyond the fact that I may intentionally visit such pages)?
Don't you think that only seeing ads for your local community college versus only seeing ads for Harvard will impact which school you try to go to?
Fortunately on the Internet there is an easy fix: Use Adblock. Unfortunately not nearly enough people use it.
Tools can have more then one purpose.
Too Dull; Don't Read: Personalization and targeted advertising show different people different things. Could be titled "Class Orange People See a Different Internet Than Class Teal".
I was considerably let down.
> As a result, 99 percent of us live on the wrong side of a one-way mirror, in which the other 1 percent manipulates our experiences.
It touches on but IMO fails to explore a bunch of legitimately interesting topics - the sociological effects of filter bubbles, the ethics/legality of digital 'redlining' (and how Google just picked up a patent for it no less), formation of digital class divides as well as others.
It's a post that would have benefited from a less hyperbolic title, and posting on eg a blog where it wouldn't be completely destroyed by editing. I'm not sure who the 1% are supposed to be (advertisers, I guess?) and fluff aside, the article doesn't really have much meat in its current form.
Also, wtf with having a second page containing 15 words that on their own read like a drunken friday night text message and don't really tie in as a conclusion?
In the best case, the end result would be a page filled with "relevant" (in the sense of read by people with a similar background) articles, but challenging your current position on an individual topic. Think having a "small government" believer receiving an article about the success of nordic social systems.
I, personally, would rather read such news than the "more of the same" you get with a standard similarity measure.
Bug me again when people are involuntarily served content based upon their socioeconomic status.