Reading media which agrees with your views.

Blisterman

I used to strongly believe the internet was a major force in challenging people's opinions, opening their minds, allowing a wide range of views to be expressed and challenged, which was never possible in traditional media. where an editorial tone and opinion was generally maintained.

In recent years however, I'm beginning to wonder if the opposite is occurring, that people are retreating to websites where everybody more or less shares their opinion, and where any opposing views are quickly shut down by a mass of people, without being considered or entertained, and views which comply with the

This is evidenced in the comments pages of various news sites. The vast majority of comments on the Guardian website are of a vaguely left wing nature, the Daily Mail website of a right wing nature etc, generally agreeing with the editorial tone of the website.

Those are websites of publications who's views were established before the internet, but there are all sorts of communities with a variety of views, where people can immerse themselves in, from the benign to the extremist.

What do people think the consequences are for this? Are people becoming more open minded, or are their views becoming fixed and calcified through reinforcement?

Peregrinus

Has anything changed? I take the point you make about the Guardian and Daily Mail websites, but even in pre-internet days didn't people choose to read the Guardian or the Daily Mail on the basis of which appealed more to their own views, values and assumptions?

Turtwig

The concern here should not be about what people choose to read but what they are given the option of reading. Facebook actively filters away content from people you disagree with. Google also does it a certain extent. The search results are usually tailored into what the web thinks you'll like and trapit takes this "filter bubble" idea even one step further. All of which makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

As Perengrinus said people will always tend to stick with opinions and journalists they agree with. That'll always be the way because let's face life would be very complicated if we had to continuously seek out a different reviewer for products of our interest. What's worrying is that the internet is for marketing reasons choosing to make sure you're less likely to come across opposing views on your initial searches and the whole concept of 'liking' or 'thumbing up' comments is rather negative. Maybe I'm being a bit scaremongering here but I love the internet and how you can find any whacky or barmy viewpoint represented on it but nowadays you really just have to explore for yourself because as the OP said any "troll" comment will be probably be hidden from view. But more so the problem is that nowadays what defines a troll is very often seen as just going against the consensus. There are no rules or etiquette. Character assassinations are frequent. Facebook basically operates a carte blanche system for reinforcing groupthinks. Blog sites like scienceblogs, skepchick and even some discussion forums pretty much do the same.

In a way,we are lucky to have Boards. It is actually brilliant in regard to purposeful discourse and debate. The standard and etiquette of some fora is excellent. So yeah, the internet needs more places like boards and this issue will go away. Mobs will always accumulate in places but as long individuals can find places less heated by mobs then there's the internet is always going to be good thing.

So a very grey answer then, some people are becoming more open minded but others are just using the internet to reinforce their prejudices.

As Peregrinus says, people will typically read literature, watch television shows and documentaries, and so on, that affirm their pre-existing beliefs, values and convictions. This can be explained as a confirmation bias, which is a cognitive bias inherent in most, if not all, people. Becoming consciously aware of the bias and how it manifests itself in our decision making regarding what our sources of information should be is the only way to control it, but becoming consciously aware of our own biases is an uncomfortable process, and one that can uproot many of our beliefs and convictions, as well as significantly alter our modes and methods of thought. Since confronting our biases is an uncomfortable process, most people, I believe, shy away from it once such biases are discovered and continue on in deliberate, if not completely intentional, ignorance.

That the internet has made more information available, and that information is now available that is sympathetic towards one or another ideological or philosophical viewpoint, is largely irrelevant. Before, people read their liberal newspaper while shunning conservative counterparts; now, people subscribe to liberal websites while ignoring the conservative ones. The opposite is true in both cases, of course. The same principle applies to everything from news sites to discussion fora and social networking sites; if a site provides information, or a forum discusses a topic, that clashes with our existing beliefs, we tend to ignore it and instead focus our attention on sites and fora that support our beliefs, values and convictions. Essentially, we're cowards: we want to reaffirm our own beliefs and are too afraid to admit that the possibility exists that we might be wrong, so we largely ignore sources of information that conflict with what we hold to be true, or to be right or correct.

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

The concern here should not be about what people choose to read but what they are given the option of reading. Facebook actively filters away content from people you disagree with. Google also does it a certain extent. The search results are usually tailored into what the web thinks you'll like and trapit takes this "filter bubble" idea even one step further. All of which makes me incredibly uncomfortable.

That's a very good point. Filter Bubbles, as you point out, result in Google providing us with search results that affirm our beliefs while filtering out any sites that clash with "who we are" — or at least with who Google's algorithms believe we are as a person. It doesn't do this all of the time, or do it absolutely, but it still favours our search results in certain directions, being more sympathetic to sites that espouse one viewpoint over another. The same is true of most sites, with the inevitable result being a positive reinforcement of our confirmation bias. And you're right, this is slightly scary, because it goes against what the internet should be. I don't want Google or Facebook indirectly telling me what sites I should visit if I search for a certain topic; it's my decision, not the decision of a likely faulty algorithm.

Blisterman

Interesting points.

So what's the solution if you want to overcome this bias? Deliberately read media which opposes your views, or is it a more subtle process, reading media close to, but not exactly following your views, so as not to completely close your mind to what you're reading.

I know myself, if the headline to an article indicates that it's in complete opposition to my opinion, then I immediately approach it with a "this is nonsense" attitude, whereas a more moderate article is more likely to make me consider the points being made.