Within recent years the common habit of scrolling on one’s phone has become included in the American daily routine. Despite negative connotations that may hover over this habit of individuals interactions with social media do enhance knowledge of current events. Although the definition of current events is not limited and can vary from observing a sports team, stock market or simple life updates of those we socialize with. Despite the reasoning, social media does create an environment that helps aid in understanding what’s going on around us. In fact, this is one of the most intriguing segments of social media. Social media has been able to curate a said environment that is applicable to our own personal ideals, in other words the algorithm developed based off our own interaction with social media and technology. As referenced in The New York Times article, What if You Knew What You Were Missing on Social Media? “Most social media platforms algorithms use your behavior to narrow in on the posts you are shown”. The algorithms developed on our behalf grant guidance of the virality of content we consume through media as it factors in one’s interests and behavior. Therefore, depending on your behavior and interactions with social media that includes sharing, liking and clicking your algorithm will begin to predict preferences that will display content within your feed curated to your viewpoints and interests. How the algorithm creates this distinctive separation of what should be both included and excluded is like the categorization method observed in the article, Social groups and polarization of aesthetic values from symmetry and complexity. The premise of this study provides a focus on determining the preferences of individuals for visual aesthetics. Data collected on individuals being observed within the study is used to divide the individuals into islands, another way to specifically separate individuals based on visual aesthetic preferences. This study conducted its experiment by showing a set of images with varying intensities of symmetry and complexity, both aspects of visual aesthetics specifically being tested, and had the participant rank each photo from one to ten according to one’s likeability of each visual display. Like how individuals were specifically isolated into islands, where membership was strictly dependent on the data per individual. Social media segregates individuals into their own islands, creating realms for those who have shared preferences. Have you ever seen someone you know like or comment on the same post or perhaps read the same article that showed on their feed. This may have been a result of the algorithm developing a feed based off data. When this separation occurs, the algorithm has then created what’s known as a filter bubble. Which is a means of the algorithm limiting an individual’s exposure due to its enhancement of including material adhering to the user's personal preferences. This strongly encourages polarization as it limits what a user may view, since the algorithm will keep excluding what does not relate to previous preferences and behavior. Yet, the difference between the two examples of distinction between both articles is that the individuals within the study were granted access to all of the information and visuals. While those who engage on social media platforms are limited to viewing the entirety of what is available for viewing, since the algorithm will exclude nearly anything that does not express similarities to previous interactions. This results in echo chambers, where individuals are only exposed to information that simply reinforces their current opinions, beliefs and interests. Due to this situation amplifying polarization it hones the concept of islands as found in the article pertaining to polarization of aesthetic values.
Sources Referenced: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/17/opinion/social-media-algorithm-choice.html?searchResultPosition=5
No comments:
Post a Comment