Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

International Journal of Communication Development

The International Journal of Communication Development (IJCD) is a new journal devoted to the analysis of communication, mass media and development in a global context in both Indian and...

ISSN: 2231-2498 Quarterly English Since 2011
Current Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2020)

Articles Vol. 11 Issue 1 & 2 Jul - Dec 2020
DOI 10.65301/ijcd.2020.11.1.2.5

Deconstructing Filter Bubble Hypothesis: How Algorithm Media Functions to Constrict the Opinion-making

Authors
Assistant Professor, University School of Mass Communication, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi Research Scholar, University School of Mass Communication, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi
24 Views
7 Downloads
Published 2020-12-30
Pages 46-57
Abstract

 Filter Bubble Hypothesis is a situation in which algorithm based media functions to provide the information and content on the Internet that reiterates or replicates an individuals' belief system, choices and preferences. It reconfirms the individual’s pre-existing knowledge and belief leaving lesser scope for newer ideas to penetrate. As the name suggests it creates a ‘bubble’ around individual choices and way of thinking. It is aimed at personalizing the digital experience of the Internet user, however, it constrains the diversity of opinions and basket of perspectives available on the internet thus leading to a flawed opinion-making process and skewed choices.


Such functioning of the Algorithm based media may harm the political opinion formation where an individual is not encountering critical views, contrasting opinions, and newer perspectives and which may lead to a repetition of electoral choices. The paper attempts to understand the process of the Filter Bubble Hypothesis and Echo chambers in the context of political communication. Echo Chambers is a metaphorical situation where an individuals' own opinion gets enlarged when applied in a closed system. 

References
  1. 1. Bechmann, Anja and Nielbo, Kristoffer L. (2018). Digital Journalism, 6:8, 990- 002, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1510741
  2. 2. Bakshy, E; Rosenn, Itamar; Marlow, Cameron and Adamic, Lada (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web.
  3. 3. Baran, Stanley J. and Davis, Dennis K. (2014). Theories of Mass Communication: Glossary, Introduction to Mass Communication, New York City: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978- 1285052076.
  4. 4. Bryant, Jennings and Zillmann, Dolf (2002). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Inc. New Jersey.
  5. 5. Curran, James (2011) Media and Democracy, Routledge, Oxon
  6. 6. Colleoni, E; Rozza, A and Arvidsson, Adam (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily on Twitter using big data, Journal of Communication, Vol 64, PP 317–332.
  7. 7. Conover, M D; Ratkiewicz, J;Francisco; M; Goncalves, B; Flammini A and Menczer, F. Political polarization on Twitter, Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
  8. 8. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge: Blackwell
  9. 9. Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266
  10. 10. Fuchs, Christian (2016). Critical Theory of Communication, University of Westminster Press, London
  11. 11. Green, Holly (August 29, 2011). Breaking Out of Your Internet Filter Bubble. Forbes.
  12. 12. Garrett, RK (2019). Social media’s contribution to political misperceptions in U.S. Presidential elections. PLoS ONE 14(3): e0213500.
  13. 13. Iyengar, S; Sood, G and Lelkes, Y (2012).Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization, Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 76
  14. 14. Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix (1955). Personal Influence: the Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. ISBN 978-1-4128- 0507-0.
  15. 15. Kim, Joohoan (1997) On the Intercations of News Media, Interpersonal Communication, Opinion Formation and Participation : Deliberative Democracy and the Public Sphere, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  16. 16. Kühne, Rinaldo (2012). Media-induced affects and opinion formation: How related and unrelated affects influence political opinions. Living Reviews in Democracy, (3):online.
  17. 17. Lund, Darren E and Carr, Paul R (2008). Doing Democracy : Striving for Political Literacy and Social Justice (Counter points) New Edition, Peter Lang Inc. , International Academic Publishers.
  18. 18. Metaxas, Panagiotis T. and Mustafaraj, Eni (2012). Social Media and the Elections, Science, Vol. 338, No. 6106, PP 472-473.
  19. 19. Mario, Haim, Graefe, A and Brosius, H (2018). Burst of the Filter Bubble?, Digital Journalism, Volume 6, Issue 3.
  20. 20. Nechushtai, Efrat and Lewis, Seth (2019). What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations, Computers in Human Behavior ,Volume 90.
  21. 21. Puschmann, Cornelius (2019). Beyond the Bubble: Assessing the Diversity of Political Search Results. Digital Journalism, Volume 7, Issue 6, PP 824-843
  22. 22. PR, Biju (2016) Political Internet : State and Politics in the Age of Social Media, Routledge India
  23. 23. .Pariser, Eli (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think, Penguin. ISBN 9781101515129.
  24. 24. .Pedro-Caranana, Joan; Broudy, Daniel and Klaehn, Jeffery (2018). The Propaganda Model Today : Filtering, Perception and Awareness, University of Westminster.
  25. 25. Schroeder, Ralph (2018). Social Theory after the Internet, UCL Press, London, ISBN : 978-1-78735
  26. 26. Smith, Trevor Garrison (2017) Politicising Digital Space : Theory, the Internet, and Renewing Democracy, University of Westminster Press
  27. 27. Sunstein, Cass (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  28. 28. Shoemaker, Pamela J and Vos, Tim P. (2009). Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415981392.
  29. 29. Van Alstyne, Marshall and Brynjolfsson, Erik (1997). Electronic communities: Global village or cyberbalkans? Economic Theory
  30. 30. Weaver, Russell L. (2020). Social Media Platforms and Democratic Discourse, Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 23:4
  31. 31. Xiong, Fei and Liu, Yun (2014). Opinion Formation on Social media : An Empirical Approach, Chaos : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Non-Linear Science
  32. 32. www.thecut.com/2016/11/how-facebook-and-the-filter-bubble-pushed-trump-to-victory.html
  33. 33. www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy
  34. 34. www.fb.com/news/2018/01/sunstein-democracy
  35. 35. www.techopedia.com/definition/28087/cyberbalkanization
✓ Citation copied to clipboard