There was a lot going on in these three pieces. The Ted Talk about online filter bubbles discussed how it's harmful to only be exposed to information or media you want to hear and see. The mind-control article was about integrating the organic with the inorganic. And, finally, the Bandwidth article was about how associating with people who think like you and believe the same things you do is not such a bad thing. I agree that having your browsing experience tailored to you can be detrimental to your intellectual growth as you become so fixed and stubborn about your views you fail to see the views of others. One of the biggest problems with this, as mentioned in the Ted Talk, was how a lot of information you could receive is filtered out so you are unable to experience what you're searching for holistically. I also agree that having your browsing experience specially tailored to you is a wonderful thing as it shows you things relevant to your interests so you'll enjoy reading them and consuming the media more. It also helps to strengthen your beliefs and ideas about certain topics as it gives you a wealth of information related to the subject of your research. However, this is where the opposite stance comes into play. It is indeed dangerous to just saturate your mind with things relevant to you and prevents you from being a well-rounded, attentive, and educated person. However, the Bandwidth article does make mention of how you should have different types of friends along with the ones who think similarly to you so you may get similar perspectives to nurture your ideas, but also different friends who are not so close to you with different beliefs to act as a new channel of information.
I admit I indulge in homophily, but I make no mistake to drown myself in it. I believe it is very important to see multiple perspectives as they all create a lens through which we can look at something and see it in a plethora of lights.
The article about mind control basically speaks about putting the internet into our minds and controlling it with our brains. This is revolutionary as we are taking steps towards this. However this idea has great and devastating potential at the same time. We could think on a quantum level and expand our horizons greatly, though I don't think the chip talked about in the article would be available for everyone to use. On the other hand, we must recall that knowledge is power, and by virtue of human nature, placing such immense power in the hands of people can lead to disaster. I just don't think human civilization is evolved enough to handle such vast amounts of information, not while there's still sexism, murder, war, poverty, and so on. We're just simply not ready for that next level of consciousness--not yet.
Your post summarized, compared, and contrasted the three articles fairly well. Your additional comments and personal experience on such matters as homophily, made your post relateable and human, I didn't feel as if I was reading a boring analysis
ReplyDelete- Christine Cialdella