The problem with a lot of "intelligent" content-driven sites, is that they create an almost obsessive focus for the user. In truth this is occurring in lots of places, not just on the web, but there seems to me to be something of a rush to make it real. Google's Desktop News Gadget proudly explains that it will provide you with news stories that are tailored against what you have been looking at. If I read lots of sports stories then it will increase the number of sports stories made available to me. Not a bad thing you might think. But at what cost?
Assuming I only have a limited time available for the consumption of news (or any information really), then it follows that if I spend more of that time reading sports news, then something else that I would have read will disappear. For someone like me that's a bit worrying, but at least I'm aware of the problem. Read lots of stories about sport - get nothing but sport - which means I read lots of stories about sport - etc, etc. Fine if all I want to read about is sport, but it does rather imply that I miss out on some "random discovery" opportunities.
The prevalence of data and the ease of personalisation that abounds on the Internet makes it something of an extreme example, but this has actually been going on for a while now. Newspaper editors have long influenced the views of their respective readerships, but theirs was always an inexact science. Market research helped tell them a bit, but not in quite such an efficient way. And it wasn't that long ago that most of our TV news came from short, broad-interest, telecasts from the BBC or ITN. Nowadays, with the advent of 24 hour news, it is entirely possible to find a news channel that focuses on the type of news you like, and maybe even with the political slant you like. Again, you may well be saying: "So what? I never cared about the silly story with the dog that can say 'Sausages' anyway". Perhaps, but by appealing to a broad range of interest, the editors of these services were almost always showing you something you might not have sought out when left to your own devices. And it may be that it turned out to interest or influence you.
An abundance of choice, which is certainly what the Internet provides, theoretically leads to a broader range of knowledge. But when that choice becomes overwhelming and tools are put into place to help filter it for you, then a strange kind of censorship occurs. The truth is not as bleak as I'm making out here. There will always be external influences that affect us and the things we're interested in, otherwise my daughter will end up with a lifetime of reading about Polly Pocket. However, it's not easy to guard against something unless you're aware of it.
Be careful how you set your preferences..
Monday, 4 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
