Eli Pariser speaks about the way we receive information online, how algorithms determine what we see and do not see. Ultimately, algorithms act as sensors. The algorithms, selecting our preferred avenues, gather information from how often we click on things, who we speak to online, and who we appear to be close with (photos, being tagged, etc.). Essentially, the algorithms create an online profile of a person. A created profile, although created by an algorithm without “morals”, according to Eli Pariser, does gather information from what we choose to put online.
The information we put online, including the “about” section on Facebook, our photos, status updates and location updates, all contribute to a created online narrative and identity. Facebook features glamorous lives, ones of adventure, parties and friendship. We keep the photos we like, and “untag” the ones we do not. Our online narratives showcase who we want to be and what we want people to see about out lives. We avoid the mundane and unpleasantries of normal every day life, such as: failing grades, family fights, failing relationships…or the cold porridge we eat for breakfast.
Just as algorithms filter information, we filter what we put online. Our online identities are created by us, showcasing the aspects of ourselves we find worthy and interesting. Algorithms, although censoring, and without human morals, do reflect what we choose to put out there.
Algorithms reflect our perceived images based on our online information. For this blogger, this raises questions about the location of authenticity online.
However, authenticity of online narratives may not be so different than questions of authenticity of more historical narratives/diaries (like Anne Frank). This raises questions like:
What makes social media narratives different from the more traditional narratives? Or, what similarities do social media narratives share with the traditional? Are they one in the same, with social media as the modern equivalent?
With regards to the first question you pose in your last paragraph, this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22165917) study at the Utah State University shone some light on the answer for me. The reference to the availability heuristic made me think about how truncated most everything I see on Facebook is. Each person’s life narrative is mediated through miniature sound-bites, be it a picture of someone looking happy, or a status affirming acceptance into grad school. From these, we extrapolate the overarching notion of a person’s life that they are happy. This may not be the entire truth, but the brevity of each piece of information we see gives us ample space to lift and perceive what we want. Contrary to a more traditional narrative like an autobiography or a memoir, where more gaps are filled, where each instance of happiness may be filled with hesitations and where in total it seems more honest, Facebook in its short form just imagines these short burst of glee or success which punctuate a life but by no means represent it fully. From this we interpret others as being happier, despite what may be the case.
Quincy Arthur
Sweet, thanks for the comment, Quincy!
Your comment makes me think about the instant gratification aspect of Facebook and social media. Many times we just scan Facebook and instagram, perusing over headlines, photos, or positive affirmations about people’s lives. Less “gaps are filled” concerning social media narratives compared to traditional narratives. Perhaps we aren’t looking for the “gaps” or glimpses of the darker, more realistic aspects of life when scrolling through instagram. We visit Facebook, or instagram in periods of down time: waiting for the bus, awkward social situations, or any time we aren’t occupied by something else. There doesn’t seem to be much down time anymore, anytime we are bored or at a loss, we visit social media!