Social Media, the Filter Bubble and Us

[Savonarola]

Good thing we avoided all that here

Heh, we've seen this sort of article before.  Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?

[CountDeMoney]

Good thing we avoided all that here

Heh, we've seen this sort of article before.  Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?

derspiess has become more liberal.  Now he just believes in segregation.  He's come around.

[MadImmortalMan]

This is a load of BS. The newspapers of old (and now) were also set on one particular world view and agenda. And those who did not read news before Facebook were reliant on their social circle, and the pub, to get news. If you think that was any better than "eco chambers" it has been YOU who have been confined to a bubble your whole life.

I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.

[Admiral Yi]

I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.

I don't think the two are related.  I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.

[Malthus]

I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.

I don't think the two are related.  I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.

Exactly.

Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.   

[derspiess]

Good thing we avoided all that here

Heh, we've seen this sort of article before.  Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?

derspiess has become more liberal.  Now he just believes in segregation.  He's come around.

I embrace diversity.

[CountDeMoney]

I embrace diversity.

Yes, the more restrooms and water fountains, the better.

[mongers]

I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.

I don't think the two are related.  I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.

Exactly.

Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.

I think CdM was calling it correctly, based on his RL interactions with the ordinary people in the NE. 

I certainly didn't call a Trump victory, I believed the polls, but if I'd been living in the USA and canvassing people in rust belt states I too might have come to his conclusions.

I say that because during the Brexit campaign if you leafleted people on a typical street*, within an hour or two you'd have an impression entirely at odds with what the polls/pundits were saying.



*not in the big metropolitan areas of London, Bristol, Manchester, central Scotland etc

[Valmy]

Good thing we avoided all that here

The Timmay news network is remarkable indeed.

[Valmy]

Good thing we avoided all that here

Heh, we've seen this sort of article before.  Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?

I listened to right wing talk radio for over ten years. By this point I generally know what their take on something is going to be without having to listen anymore

[Delirium]

The new technology has not in practice brought people together, it has separated them even further and forced them to create groups with which to identify, and opposing groups to demonize. Filter bubble, identity politics, anti-establishment populism, all part of the same problem. If anything, we are more prejudiced now than before against "others".

[Malthus]

I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.

I don't think the two are related.  I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.

Exactly.

Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.

I think CdM was calling it correctly, based on his RL interactions with the ordinary people in the NE. 

I certainly didn't call a Trump victory, I believed the polls, but if I'd been living in the USA and canvassing people in rust belt states I too might have come to his conclusions.

I say that because during the Brexit campaign if you leafleted people on a typical street*, within an hour or two you'd have an impression entirely at odds with what the polls/pundits were saying.



*not in the big metropolitan areas of London, Bristol, Manchester, central Scotland etc

That doesn't make any sense, though. Why would anyone reasonably expect that their experience of random people in the place they happen to live accurately corresponds to that of people they have never seen in places they have never gone? Just because everyone one meets in (say) Iowa was rooting for Trump, doesn't mean that the same feelings are of necessity going to be expressed in (say) Florida, or vice versa.

Thing is that the margins were close. Clinton actually *won* the popular vote, allegedly by an estimated 2 million or so votes (and growing, as counts come in). What led to her defeat was how the vote was split. No reasonable person could have predicted in advance how that split would shake out across the entire country, based on a bunch of impressions of street sentiment, and claiming otherwise strikes me as pure hind-sightism.

[mongers]

I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.

I don't think the two are related.  I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.

Exactly.

Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.

I think CdM was calling it correctly, based on his RL interactions with the ordinary people in the NE. 

I certainly didn't call a Trump victory, I believed the polls, but if I'd been living in the USA and canvassing people in rust belt states I too might have come to his conclusions.

I say that because during the Brexit campaign if you leafleted people on a typical street*, within an hour or two you'd have an impression entirely at odds with what the polls/pundits were saying.



*not in the big metropolitan areas of London, Bristol, Manchester, central Scotland etc

That doesn't make any sense, though. Why would anyone reasonably expect that their experience of random people in the place they happen to live accurately corresponds to that of people they have never seen in places they have never gone? Just because everyone one meets in (say) Iowa was rooting for Trump, doesn't mean that the same feelings are of necessity going to be expressed in (say) Florida, or vice versa.

Thing is that the margins were close. Clinton actually *won* the popular vote, allegedly by an estimated 2 million or so votes (and growing, as counts come in). What led to her defeat was how the vote was split. No reasonable person could have predicted in advance how that split would shake out across the entire country, based on a bunch of impressions of street sentiment, and claiming otherwise strikes me as pure hind-sightism.

More sense than solely relying on polls.

Just imagine yourself involved in a fight on an ancient or medieval battlefield, a lot of confusion and shouting all about, but doesn't a point come when you can sense how the battle is going and act accordingly?

[Tamas]

One thing that is worse nowadays is that the lunatic and the reckless have easier access to spread their bullshit, and due to the infancy of the media, many people don't realise that just because it's on a webpage, it's not necessarily true.

But guess what, that used to be the situation with my grandparents' generation, and any people on TV with a tie on.

But otherwise please don't pretend/assume that Facebook and the rest have somehow triggered a lower base of discussion and political views. Those discussions have always happened, those views have always been there, the only difference is that you were sheltered from them.
Social media has brought MORE insight into other bubbles, not less.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason for the growing internal divides is not that we understand each other less, but, in fact, more!

[garbon]

More sense than solely relying on polls.

Just imagine yourself involved in a fight on an ancient or medieval battlefield, a lot of confusion and shouting all about, but doesn't a point come when you can sense how the battle is going and act accordingly?

But that's just it, a misplaced analogy. Ears to the ground in Maryland/PA won't tell you what is going to happen across an entire nation. The comparison, if apt, would be that you think the one battle you are in is predictive of all battles that will be fought in an entire campaign.