CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 375Ethics and Social Impacts of AISocial Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its Impacts

Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design

Open access
Bozdag, Engin, van den Hoven, Jeroen·2015·Ethics and Information Technology
DOI 10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It has been argued that the Internet and social media increase the number of available viewpoints, perspectives, ideas and opinions available, leading to a very diverse pool of information. However, critics have argued that algorithms used by search engines, social networking platforms and other large online intermediaries actually decrease information diversity by forming so-called “filter bubbles”. This may form a serious threat to our democracies. In response to this threat others have developed algorithms and digital tools to combat filter bubbles. This paper first provides examples of different software designs that try to break filter bubbles. Secondly, we show how norms required by two democracy models dominate the tools that are developed to fight the filter bubbles, while norms of other models are completely missing in the tools. The paper in conclusion argues that democracy itself is a contested concept and points to a variety of norms. Designers of diversity enhancing tools must thus be exposed to diverse conceptions of democracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Filter bubbles diminish information diversity and make discovering new perspectives more difficult, which is a problem for deliberative democracy.

    “earlier it has been argued already that filter bubbles diminish information diversity and that discovering new perspectives is more difficult; this is a problem for deliberative democracy (Bozdag and van den Hoven [10], 252).”

    From Democracy, epistemic agency, and AI: political epistemology in times of artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Bozdag and van den Hoven [10]

  • Software designs to break filter bubbles are often limited in the range of democracy models they use.

    “Bozdag and van den Hoven [10] offer some examples of software designs that try to ‘break’ filter bubbles, while noting that such tools are often limited in terms of the range of democracy models they use.”

    From Democracy, epistemic agency, and AI: political epistemology in times of artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Bozdag and van den Hoven [10]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. ¨m, K. (2012). Why deliberative democracy is (still) untenable. Public Affairs Quarterly, 26(3). http://philpapers.org/rec/AHLW DD-3.
  2. American Press Institute. (2014). The personal news cycle: How Americans choose to get their news. http://www.american pressinstitute.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. · DOI
  4. Bentham, J. (1780). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML. html. · DOI
  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. · DOI
  6. Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 209-227.
  7. 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.
  8. Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97(1), 26-38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381404.
  9. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  10. Cohen, J. (2009). Reflections on Deliberative Democracy. In T. Christiano & J. Christman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in political philosophy. West-Sussex: Blackwell.
  11. 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. · DOI
  12. Diakopoulos, N. (2014). Algorithmic accountability reporting: On the investigation of black boxes. Tow Center for Digital Journalism Brief, Columbia University. http://scholar.google.com/scho lar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:ALGORITHMIC?ACCOUNTA BILITY?REPORTING?:?ON?THE?INVESTIGATION?OF? BLACK?BOXES#0.
  13. 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. · DOI
  14. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  15. 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. · DOI
  16. 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.
  17. 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). Cam- bridge: The MIT Press. doi:10.1177/019145370102700505. · DOI
  18. 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.
  19. 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. · DOI
  20. 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. · DOI
  21. Garrison, J. (2008). Reconstructing democracy and recontextualizing Deweyan pragmatism. In J. Garrison (Ed.), Reconstructing democracy, recontextualizing Dewey: Pragmatism and interac- tive constructivism in the twenty-first century (pp. 1-17). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  22. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://www.amazon. com/Why-Deliberative-Democracy-Amy-Gutmann/dp/0691120 196.
  23. 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.
  24. Hardin, R. (2009). Deliberative Democracy. In T. Christiano & J. Christman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in political philosophy. West-Sussex: Blackwell.
  25. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  26. 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 sup- ported cooperative work-CSCW'12 (p. 265). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145249. · DOI
  27. 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.
  28. Landemore, H. (2012). Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collective intelligence in politics. In H. Landemore & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective wisdom: Principle and mechanisms. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. 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 confer- ence on human factors in computing systems. doi:10.1145/ 2470654.2481326. · DOI
  30. 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).
  31. The Federalist Papers, no. 10 (pp. 1-7). http://www.brucesabin.com/pdf_files/readings/Federalist_ 10.pdf.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. Meyer, R. (2015). Facebook as a Press Baron. The Atlantic.
  35. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745-758.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. Nagulendra, S., & Vassileva, J. (2014). Understanding and controlling the filter bubble through interactive visualization: A user study. In HT 14 (pp. 107-115).
  39. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.
  40. 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. · DOI
  41. 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.
  42. 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. · DOI
  43. Pettit, P. (1999). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and govern- ment. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
  44. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  45. 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.
  46. Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. First Edit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  47. Talisse, R. B. (2005). Deliberativist responses to activist challenges: A continuation of Young's dialectic. Philosophy & Social Criticism,. doi:10.1177/0191453705052978. · DOI
  48. 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.
  49. Witschge, T. (2008). Examining online public discourse in context: A mixed method approach. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 75-91.
  50. Yom-Tov, E., Dumais, S., & Guo, Q. (2013). Promoting civil discourse through search engine diversity. Social Science Computer Review. doi:10.1177/0894439313506838. · DOI
  51. Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy (Oxford political theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J.
Affiliations
Delft University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Bozdag, Engin
Venue
Ethics and Information Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-12
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
249-265
ISSN
  • 1388-1957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8439
DOI
10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y
OpenAlex
W2214169095
Cited by
375
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 1
FWCI
41.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ethics and Information Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
NWO Mozaiek (017.007.111)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
filter bubbles, algorithmic diversity, information diversity, democracy, social media algorithms, search engines, democratic norms, conceptions of democracy, design ethics, online intermediaries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review