The Debate of Mind Control and the Internet

     Before the creation of the web, individuals have always had access to information through other people, whether it be through the form of mails, conferences, seminars, meetings, and other sources such as books. Even those techniques of gaining information still exist today, information is primarily gathered through the internet and the entire list mentioned above can even be accessed or prepared from the internet. What many people are debating about is the concern about mind control through the Internet. In other words, are we letting the Internet control our views and influences? Is the Internet only providing us a single outlook on how we reach other people? These are questions that are circling around rapidly. Eli Pariser, an author of "The Filter Bubble", discusses his view of the internet and how it decides what information we get exposed to and what information edits out. His entire discussion relates around this idea that humans get trapped in a filter bubble and therefore are not exposed to information that could challenge our views. His main concern the "Filter Bubble" is a problem that arises when a personalized search does not allow you to decide what information can be viewed and what information is taken out without your control. He reiterates that some information is invisible and even shows that no two people are given the same information when making a personalized search. With Google, Yahoo, and media sites like Netflix providing information from their own idea of what you may want, the individual is not getting the full picture and therefore is not given all the information he/she needs. The person is only getting one side of the argument and is isolated from other points of views.
     Another article that gives the same point of view called "Mind Control & the Internet" by Sue Halpern discusses the same idea that the internet is controlling our views. According to her article, Google profiles the individual and gives them the information it believes that will reflect with their opinions, ideas, and views. With this matter in hand the problem becomes that the individual cannot gain access to information that is probably the general view on that matter and therefore is led to create unbiased opinions. In summary the person may never get the information they want and are stuck with one point of view. Although these two authors come to same conclusion, an article named "Clive Thompson on High-Bandwidth Buddies" by Clive Thompson actually agrees with the techniques the internet is using to control our personalized searches and results. According to two economists named Sinan Aral and Marshall Van Alstyne, having like-minded peers (People who have the same opinions and views as you) are not a bad thing. By performing a test in an executive recruiting firm through the analysis of 10 months of email, they discovered that having a small number of high-bandwidth relationships can be more beneficial. Through the experiment it was seen that those who relied on a tight number of well known contacts saw more new information being produced which led to more revenue for the firm. In order words, the author and the economists are stating that it may not be so bad to only have information provided through people who have the same values as you. This can also be said for Google and Yahoo as they give you the information you want based on your preferences. In all Eli Pariser and Sue Halpern are against the way information is provided through one outlook while Clive Thompson supports the idea that new information can still be brought in from similar people that share your same ideas.