This weekend's edition of NPR's On The Media had an interesting item about the Web's niche problem, i.e. the problem that people might flock to groups and news sources online that cater specifically to their established interests and that this might make for a more narrow-minded citizenry. They called this problem "homophily." This was preceded by a story about a search engine tailored for black users called Rushmore Drive.
Transcripts and audio of the two stories are here: Search is the New Black and The Pleasure Principle.
Both are interesting interviews and worth listening to. One observation I'd add is that there's a common assumption made in this discussion: that "regular" search (i.e. Google) is not biased and represents the all-inclusive truth against which to measure niche search engines.
Search engines index only a fraction of what's on the web, and the ranking they assign is based on metrics of popularity that surely suit some needs better than others (when they're not being gamed outright).* Whether intentional or not, search engines always exhibit bias. So really they're all niche search engines, in a way.
The main thing I wanted to write about, though, was a moment in the second story during Brooke Gladstone's interview with Ethan Zuckerman about homophily or "preaching to the choir" (which I do think is a real concern, but I'm no expert). They're talking about Zuckerman's suggestions for getting people to pay attention online to stuff outside their comfort zone. From the transcript:
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now, how do you try to lure people into paying attention? You wrote that you have a short list of arguments – actually you have three appeals – to guilt, to fear and to greed.
ETHAN ZUCKERMAN: [... on using guilt, fear, and greed as appeals ...]
My hope is that there's another form of attention, which I refer to as xenophilia, basically this idea that what's most fascinating and what's most exciting out there is the diversity of the world, the diversity of perspectives.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: It's funny, but whenever I talk to deep thinkers about the Internet, you probe down a little and they always end up with these appeals to human nature. And [LAUGHS] it makes me sad.
ETHAN ZUCKERMAN: Well, I mean, there's the sort of Soylent Green response to this, right, which is to say, the Internet is people, because obviously it is. All these networks can do is bring us together. That's all they do. And what that means is that our behavior, the good and the bad, can get amplified within these networks.
When we're talking about the problem of homophily, this isn't an Internet problem. This is a human problem.
The way I heard Brooke Gladstone's statement, which I admit is probably not how she intended, is that internet theorists really don't have a clue about what's happening on the internet. I mean if you're going to reduce these questions to "this isn't an Internet problem. This is a human problem" then why are we listening to you?
I have a lot of respect for the type of work that the Ethan Zuckermans, Clay Shirkys and danah boyds of the world are trying to do, but often there doesn't seem to be much real insight, just pop theories and anecdotes. (To be fair, I don't read Zuckerman's rather verbose blog so maybe I'm missing out.)
Ethan Zuckerman has some comments about his On The Media appearance on his blog: Talking homophily with Brooke Gladstone and On The Media.
* On search engine coverage and bias, see Web Dragons by Witten et al.
You are missing out on Zuckerman! :)
Here's my post summarizing some of his great stuff: http://unthinkingly.com/?p=211
Posted by: Chris Blow | Tuesday, May 06, 2008 at 03:22 PM