For the filter bubble showed in this week’s tute, to summarize, it’s just what you tell the tool and the tool back to you. I have talk about it in week 2’s reflection, a Microsoft tweeter bot.
I have learned the unit ‘Communication Evolution’ in last semester, it also tells us how filter bubble works. It will back to you the search results depend on what you searched before. It depends on people’s living habit, religion, work place and more.
One of the article in this week’s handbook says this feature could limit people’s horizon.
That’s true, but not always true.
Filter bubble can optimize people’s experience. People won’t expect to get the result about ‘University of Canberra’ if they live in California, and don’t want to see the good news about Donald Trump if they support Democratic Party.
I’ve heard a news about Facebook, it says the Facebook is more likely to show good news about Democratic Party rather than Republican. This status could be the result of people’s searching, Barack Obama is very popular on Facebook since he starts election. Or some people says that’s the result of Facebook and financial group’s control.
I’ve read the article’s about bias in collection research in the handbook. Perhaps it just like what we get from search engine. I’m interested to do my project about this, but I don’t know how to start.
Serendipity is very cool. It just shows me the results of some key words input, and you can expect magic happened. Some results are very interesting. The difference between Serendip-o-matic and Google is, Serendip-o-matic give you the results just from the collections, but Google gives you the results from the whole Internet. You can see the ‘past’ in Serendip-o-matic, and see the ‘now’ through Google.
For the Copyright issue in week 3 workshop, I think it’s indeed a problem. What we can do is just work hard in current condition, and try our best to get good results. It also apply to other problems we may face in heritage research.
