I was reading the book "What Happened" by Hillary Clinton. Its a book about her failure during the 2016 elections - she relives pretty much every excruciating detail of that election but at the end of it, I got the sense that she did not quite understand why she lost.
I dont think anyone understands precisely why. Normally I would have been very uninterested in a topic such as this one. However, this general election was fought on a new turf - the internet. It was extremely interesting to me how much of the war was actually information warfare. Clinton, by her own admission, is not very technically savvy, and I am guessing she did not understand the complexity of what was going on around her during election time while it was happening. Most likely, none of us did, at that point.
True, Russian interference might have been a part of the problem. This is one of the problems listed out by Clinton. However, I think that the filter bubble would have amplified the problem as well - once Facebook or Google gets even a minor (or even erroneous) signal that you are interested in negative coverage about Hillary, it will bombard you with such types of items. Worse, it is also likely to show you positive coverage about Trump, because other readers with such tendencies are consuming more such articles. In short, it creates a vicious cycle.
Dont believe me? Here is an example:
I once happened to click on an article regarding Kareena Kapoor. It was something about her and losing weight after she became a mommy. I was pregnant, and wanted to know what she had done to lose weight afterwards. I am not a fan of hers, never have been, and am unlikely to ever become one in the future. My interest was just in her fitness. However, since reading that article I started to get a daily dose on Kareena Kapoor from Google Now. I did not observe the change in frequency right away. And without thinking I clicked on some stories and ignored others. Soon enough, more and more stories about Kareena Kapoor started to appear, until half my newsfeed was about this lady. By now I realized what was happening, and then started reversing the trend - I completely stopped clicking on the links, started clicking on items that were more interesting / representational for me etc. Also I tried to make sure all my searches were in incognito. Slowly Kareena Kapoor stopped dominating my feed. I still get about 1-2 stories about her everyday. I dont click the stories, so the algos mustbe figuring out that I dont care anymore.
Now imagine someone who doesnt even know what the filter bubble is. And this person sees some disparaging remarks about Clinton and clicks on it. Soon that person will start getting a steady stream of such topics - and very likely they will keep looking at those feeds because they are interested in knowing whether or not Clinton made mistakes. The fact that they click on the news items will reinforce the "personalization" algos, and they will crank out more stuff that makes Clinton look bad.
Clinton losing the election was very much a result of how the internet works today. I wonder if the folks who wrote it thought about these far reaching consequences when they first implemented Personalization. I am guessing a few engineers who wanted to squeeze out better performance from the search engine (and who probably wanted a promo for themselves) never thought about the adverse effects it will have on the US elections.
It seems to me that I notice such unintended consequences around me w.r.t. nearly everything - antibiotics, for example. Whowever thought it would start getting used so much for raising chickens and cowns? And who ever imagined superbugs that were resitent to antibiotics?
Maybe I am noticing such things because I am getting older. Age gives you perspective.
Now imagine someone who doesnt even know what the filter bubble is. And this person sees some disparaging remarks about Clinton and clicks on it. Soon that person will start getting a steady stream of such topics - and very likely they will keep looking at those feeds because they are interested in knowing whether or not Clinton made mistakes. The fact that they click on the news items will reinforce the "personalization" algos, and they will crank out more stuff that makes Clinton look bad.
Clinton losing the election was very much a result of how the internet works today. I wonder if the folks who wrote it thought about these far reaching consequences when they first implemented Personalization. I am guessing a few engineers who wanted to squeeze out better performance from the search engine (and who probably wanted a promo for themselves) never thought about the adverse effects it will have on the US elections.
It seems to me that I notice such unintended consequences around me w.r.t. nearly everything - antibiotics, for example. Whowever thought it would start getting used so much for raising chickens and cowns? And who ever imagined superbugs that were resitent to antibiotics?
Maybe I am noticing such things because I am getting older. Age gives you perspective.
