<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>The new high-choice media environment has raised concerns that users of social networking sites primarily select political information that supports their political opinions and avoid information that challenges them. This behaviour is reinforced by personalisation algorithms that create filter bubbles and both narrow the available content and exclude challenging information over time. These concerns have, however, been contested. This article challenges the underlying theoretical assumptions about filter bubbles, and compares filter bubbles to what we already know about selective exposure and human psychology. The article lists nine counterarguments to the filter bubble thesis. In short, I argue that the assumptions of filter bubbles contradict many of the previous findings of selective exposure research. More specifically, when discussing filter bubbles there is a risk of confusing two arguments: one strong – but also trivial – that is about technology (e.g., personalisation leads to different information), and one weak and speculative – but also the most interesting – that is about society (e.g., personalisation increases political polarisation in society).</p>
</abstract>

The new high-choice media environment has raised concerns that users of social networking sites primarily select political information that supports their political opinions and avoid information that challenges them. This behaviour is reinforced by personalisation algorithms that create filter bubbles and both narrow the available content and exclude challenging information over time. These concerns have, however, been contested. This article challenges the underlying theoretical assumptions about filter bubbles, and compares filter bubbles to what we already know about selective exposure and human psychology. The article lists nine counterarguments to the filter bubble thesis. In short, I argue that the assumptions of filter bubbles contradict many of the previous findings of selective exposure research. More specifically, when discussing filter bubbles there is a risk of confusing two arguments: one strong – but also trivial – that is about technology (e.g., personalisation leads to different information), and one weak and speculative – but also the most interesting – that is about society (e.g., personalisation increases political polarisation in society).

A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure

Department of Journalism, Media and Communication

Nordicom Review

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure"}

The new high-choice media environment has raised concerns that users of social networking sites primarily select political information that supports their...

A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure

Data publikacji: 29 sty 2021

Zakres stron: 15 - 33

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0002

Słowa kluczowe
selective exposure, echo chambers, audience fragmentation, confirmation bias, personalisation algorithms

© 2021 Peter M. Dahlgren, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure

Data publikacji: 29 sty 2021

Zakres stron: 15 - 33

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0002

Słowa kluczoweselective exposure, echo chambers, audience fragmentation, confirmation bias, personalisation algorithms

© 2021 Peter M. Dahlgren, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Słowa kluczowe
selective exposure, echo chambers, audience fragmentation, confirmation bias, personalisation algorithms