Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design

Ethics and Information Technology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 249-265

  Bozdag, Engin ^a   van den Hoven, Jeroen ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Democracy; Design; Diversity; Filter bubble; Selective exposure; Value sensitive design; Viewpoint diversity

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; DIGITAL DEVICES; SEARCH ENGINES;

DEMOCRACY; DIVERSITY; FILTER BUBBLE; SELECTIVE EXPOSURE; VALUE SENSITIVE DESIGN; VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 84955674852     PISSN: 13881957     EISSN: 15728439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Ahlström, K. (2012). Why deliberative democracy is (still) untenable. Public Affairs Quarterly, 26(3). http://philpapers.org/rec/AHLWDD-3.
2. American Press Institute. (2014). The personal news cycle: How Americans choose to get their news. http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/personal-news-cycle/.
3. Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme,3(1–2), 8–22. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8.
4. Bentham, J. (1780). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML.html.
5. Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Episteme,3(03), 175–191. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.3.175.
6. Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology,15(3), 209–227.
7. Bozdag, E., Gao, Q., Houben, G. J., & Warnier, M. (2014). Does offline political segregation affect the filter bubble? An empirical analysis of information diversity for Dutch and Turkish Twitter users. Computers in Human Behavior,41, 405–415.
8. Caplan, B. (2008). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. New edition. Princeton, NJ; Woodstock: Princeton University Press. http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp/0691138737.
9. Christiano, T. (2006). Democracy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, July 27. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/.
10. Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97(1), 26–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381404.
11. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
12. Cohen, J. (2009). Reflections on Deliberative Democracy. In T. Christiano & J. Christman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in political philosophy. West-Sussex: Blackwell.
13. Crawford, K. (2013). Can an algorithm be agonistic? Ten scenes about living in calculated publics. In Governing algorithms 2013.
14. den Hoven, J. (2005). E-democracy, E-contestation and the monitorial citizen. Ethics and Information Technology,7(2), 51–59. doi:10.1007/s10676-005-4581-4.
15. Diakopoulos, N. (2014). Algorithmic accountability reporting: On the investigation of black boxes. Tow Center for Digital Journalism Brief, Columbia University. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:ALGORITHMIC+ACCOUNTABILITY+REPORTING+:+ON+THE+INVESTIGATION+OF+BLACK+BOXES#0.
16. Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 133–142). doi:10.1145/1958824.1958844.
17. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18. Doris-Down, A., Husayn, V., & Gilbert, E. (2013). Political blend: An application designed to bring people together based on political differences. In Proceedings of international conference on communities and technologies (C&T) (pp. 120–130). doi:10.1145/2482991.2483002.
19. Dunn, J. (1979). Western political theory in the face of the future (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://books.google.nl/books/about/Western_Political_Theory_in_the_Face_of.html?id=vw3tKOTVG0AC&pgis=1.
20. Elster, J. (1997). The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 3–34). Cambridge: The MIT Press. doi:10.1177/019145370102700505.
21. Eslami, M., Rickman, A., Vaccaro, K., Aleyasen, A., Vuong, A., Karahalios, K., et al. (2015). ‘I always assumed that i wasn’t really that close to [her]’: Reasoning about invisible algorithms in the news feed. In Human factors in computing systems conference (CHI), 2015. Seoul, Korea.
22. Faridani, S., Ephrat, B., Kimiko, R., & Ken, G. (2010). Opinion space: A scalable tool for browsing online comments. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1175–1184). doi:10.1145/1753326.1753502.
23. Freelon, D. G., Kriplean, T., Morgan, J., Bennett, W. L., & Borning, A. (2012). Facilitating diverse political engagement with the living voters guide. Journal of Information Technology & Politics,9(3), 279–297. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.665755.
24. Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P. H., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems: Three case studies. In Human-Computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations. New York: M. E. Sharp Inc.
25. Garrison, J. (2008). Reconstructing democracy and recontextualizing Deweyan pragmatism. In J. Garrison (Ed.), Reconstructing democracy, recontextualizing Dewey: Pragmatism and interactive constructivism in the twenty-first century (pp. 1–17). Albany: State University of New York Press.
26. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Deliberative-Democracy-Amy-Gutmann/dp/0691120196.
27. Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press. http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=4n9AiZtPq5YC.
28. Hardin, R. (2009). Deliberative Democracy. In T. Christiano & J. Christman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in political philosophy. West-Sussex: Blackwell.
29. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
30. Jürgens, P., Jungherr, A., & Schoen, H. (2011). Small worlds with a difference: New gatekeepers and the filtering of political information on Twitter. In WebSci’11.
31. Kriplean, T., Morgan, J., Freelon, D., Borning, A., & Bennett, L. (2012). Supporting reflective public thought with ConsiderIt. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work—CSCW’12 (p. 265). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145249.
32. Kriplean, T., Toomim, M., Morgan, J. T., Borning, A., & Ko, A. J. (2011). REFLECT: Supporting active listening and grounding on the web through restatement. In Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW). http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:REFLECT+:+Supporting+Active+Listening+and+Grounding+on+the+Web+through+Restatement#0.
33. Lafrance, A. (2015). Facebook is eating the Internet. The Atlantic.
34. Landemore, H. (2012). Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collective intelligence in politics. In H. Landemore & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective wisdom: Principle and mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Liao, Q. V., & Fu, W. T. (2013). Beyond the filter bubble: Interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. doi:10.1145/2470654.2481326.
36. Liao, Q. V., & Fu, W. T. (2014). Expert voices in echo chambers: Effects of source expertise indicators on exposure to diverse opinions. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2745–2754).
37. Luckerson, V. (2015). Here’s how Facebook’s news feed actually works. Time. http://time.com/3950525/facebook-news-feed-algorithm/.
38. Madison, J. (1787). Federalist 10. The Federalist Papers, no. 10 (pp. 1–7). http://www.brucesabin.com/pdf_files/readings/Federalist_10.pdf.
39. Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-theory/principles-representative-government.
40. McQuail, D., & van Cuilenburg, J. J. (1983). Diversity as a media policy goal: A strategy for evaluative research and a Netherlands case study. International Communication Gazette,31(3), 145–162.
41. Meyer, R. (2015). Facebook as a Press Baron. The Atlantic.
42. Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. Kitchener: Batoche. http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486421309/ref=la_B000APZ4H4_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400687071&sr=1-1, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LIRp0mUrlsMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=On+Liberty&ots=hwSXQSCwNp&sig=QMROngY-5koGwMeDVg9-y8YGa0.
43. Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J., & Matsa, K. (2014). Political polarization & media habits. http://www.journalism.org/files/2014/10/Political-Polarization-and-Media-Habits-FINAL-REPORT-11-10-14-2.pdf.
44. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research,66(3), 745–758.
45. Mouffe, C. (2009). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
46. Munson, S. A., Lee, S. Y., & Resnick, P. (2013). Encouraging reading of diverse political viewpoints with a browser widget. In International conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), Boston.
47. Munson, S. A., & Resnick, P. (2010). Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI 2010 (pp. 1457–1466). New York, New York, USA.
48. Nagulendra, S., & Vassileva, J. (2014). Understanding and controlling the filter bubble through interactive visualization: A user study. In HT 14 (pp. 107–115).
49. Panzarino, M. (2014). Twitter’s timeline could get (more) algorithmic. TechCrunch.
50. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.
51. Park, S., Kang, S., Chung, S., & Song, J. (2009). NewsCube: Delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias. In Proceedings of CHI’09, the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 443–453). doi:10.1145/1518701.1518772.
52. Park, S., Lee, K., & Song, J. (2011). Contrasting opposing views of news articles on contentious issues. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 340–349). https://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/P/P11/P11-1035.pdf.
53. Pentina, I., & Tarafdar, M. (2014). From ‘information’ to ‘knowing’: Exploring the role of social media in contemporary news consumption. Computers in Human Behavior,35, 211–223. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.045.
54. Pettit, P. (1999). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
55. Rader, E., & Gray, R. (2015). Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed. In CHI’15 proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 173–182). New York: ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2702174.
56. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
57. Rawls, J. (1997). The idea of public reason. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (p. 447). Cambridge: MIT Press.
58. Rosoff, M. (2015). Here’s how dominant Google is in Europe. Business Insider.
59. Sterling, G. (2015). Bing reaches 20 percent search market share milestone in US. Search Engine Land.
60. Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. First Edit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
61. Talisse, R. B. (2005). Deliberativist responses to activist challenges: A continuation of Young’s dialectic. Philosophy & Social Criticism,. doi:10.1177/0191453705052978.
62. Van Cuilenburg, J. (1999). On competition, access and diversity in media, old and new some remarks for communications policy in the information age. New Media & Society,1(2), 183–207.
63. White, A. (2015). Google accused of abusing power on search as Android probed. Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/eu-accuses-google-of-antitrust-violations-starts-android-probe.
64. Whittaker, Z. (2015). Facebook Q1: Mixed earnings; 1.44 billion monthly active users. ZDNet. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-q1-2015-earnings.
65. Witschge, T. (2008). Examining online public discourse in context: A mixed method approach. Javnost—The Public,15(2), 75–91.
66. Xing, X., Meng, W., & Doozan, D. (2014). Exposing inconsistent web search results with bobble. In PAM 2014.
67. Yom-Tov, E., Dumais, S., & Guo, Q. (2013). Promoting civil discourse through search engine diversity. Social Science Computer Review. doi:10.1177/0894439313506838.
68. Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy (Oxford political theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.