Here is another article that looks at the apparent filter bubble issue affecting social media, this time considering whether there is an ‘ideological polarization’ present and whether it is perpetuated by algorithmic curation and other tools being deployed by social media providers.

The concept is interesting, set out well by the introduction and literature review. The author questions whether systems are placing users in a ‘filter bubble of content that decreases their likelihood of encountering ideologically cross-cutting news content’, and has developed a theoretical framework to guide future research to this aim.

Two major news stories in recent times – the U.S. presidential election and the British referendum on EU membership – were considered to explore a possible relationship between fake news surrounding the news coverage. The author has done a good job with the scoping of his argument and presenting the situation. The end goal is, should ideological polarization be confirmed as present, to seek to mitigate it, to avoid a ‘measurable, negative impact on society and democracy as a whole’ and prevent extremism (of any kind).

Clearly social media services want to show their users the type of content their users like to see. It would be pointless showing me stories about British football, for example, as I’d be ignoring them. Give me too much junk and maybe I don’t engage with your platform as much, or as closely.

This article gave interesting pointers and the research supports the argument well, drawing out that the largest issues observed are selective exposure to content instead of an echo chamber-type effect of self-imposed filter bubble. Discussions can exist about what is a filter bubble, and arguably there can be several such filter bubbles sharing the same name, albeit with different characteristics and motivations.

This was a well-presented and credible piece of research to add a further valid data point to the body of knowledge. Further research has been clearly identified and motivated.