# Filter and Label Email

### My Rules


### Readings
On the topic of filter bubbles, I keep thinking about the spread of misinformation. Much like one of our first readings discussed the term agnotology, these filter bubbles can be really harmful when it comes to spreading and reinforcing misinformation. For example, if someone sees something that is misinformed or from a flawed source and they interact with it, they will likely be shown more content that is similar in nature to that flawed information. In one of my other classes, Global and Intercultural Communication, we've been talking a lot about the divisiveness about the facts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is intrinsically related to filter bubbles, because people who believed that the facts coming out about the virus were a hoax or falsified, were likely led to believe so because of their internet footprints. Their online world knew that they would interact with that type of content and continued feeding it to them, which in turn reinforced that idea for them because they were seeing it from multiple sources. Especially if these people, like many, weren't taught much media literacy, there's less of a chance for them to confirm that the information they are getting is true.

The article, *How Filter Bubbles Distort Reality: Everything You Need to Know* makes the point that democracy is built upon everyone being "equally informed" and that with filter bubbles, people are less likely to see varying viewpoints and are therefore not equally informed. This raises the question of when online algorithms are necessary for personalizing your content. While they are beneficial in content from social media, maybe they can be scaled down for information that is related to news and current events. Especially with the pandemic, it feels like far right-wing talking points have been based in false information that is easily disprovable. However, because of the information bubble that these people are likely in they believe that these ideas are based in truth. Without an understanding of this concept, there is no incentive to fact-check the information you are getting.

It is important to also keep in mind during this discussion that there is a huge factor of convenience in this issue. Looking into sources and confirming information takes time and effort, while blindly listening to what is put in front of you is the easy answer. Danah Boyd indirectly discusses this a few times in *Did Media Literacy Backfire?*, first when discussing Wikipedia and then when mentioning people getting medical information online. With Wikipedia, she mentions the blanket statement that many of us have been taught that Wikipedia is untrustworthy. This can be true, but it's not as black-and-white as that, as we've discussed in class. Instead of finding a strong source from Wikipedia, people are more inclined to find another source that at face value looks more legitimate, when in reality it could be just as if not more inaccurate as that Wikipedia page. As for finding medical information, she mentions that people turn to the internet rather than a medical professional because "it’s a lot cheaper than seeing a doctor". In both of these instances, people are prioritizing fast information over quality information, and in a time where everything is so fast-paced, that temptation is strong.