Are We Trapped in Filter Bubbles?
Biz filtr pufaklari ichida qolib ketdikmi?
Sarlavha va pastdagi so‘zlarga qarang. Matn nima haqida bo‘lishi mumkin? Bir daqiqa o‘ylab ko‘ring — bu miyani o‘qishga tayyorlaydi.
Internet algoritmlari odamlarni turli fikrlardan ajratib qo‘yadimi — dalillar nima deydi?
Kalit so‘zlar
Bu so‘zlar matnda uchraydi va matnda ajratib ko‘rsatiladi. Bosing — talaffuzini eshitasiz.
⏱ O‘qish boshlanganda vaqt o‘lchanadi — oxirida tezligingizni ko‘rasiz.
👆 Istalgan so‘zni bosing — tarjimasi yoki lug‘atga havola chiqadi.
In 2011, the internet activist Eli Pariser introduced a phrase that quickly entered everyday language: the “filter bubble”. As search engines and social media platforms increasingly personalise what each user sees, Pariser warned, we risk being enclosed in a comfortable bubble of information that confirms what we already believe and hides whatever might challenge us. Unlike a newspaper reader, who can see what has been left out, the inhabitant of a filter bubble cannot see its walls.
2011-yilda internet faoli Eli Parayzer tezda kundalik tilga kirib kelgan iborani taqdim etdi: “filtr pufagi”. Parayzerning ogohlantirishicha, qidiruv tizimlari va ijtimoiy tarmoq platformalari har bir foydalanuvchi ko‘radigan narsani tobora shaxsiylashtirar ekan, biz allaqachon ishonadigan narsamizni tasdiqlaydigan va bizga qarshi chiqishi mumkin bo‘lgan har qanday narsani yashiradigan qulay axborot pufagi ichida qamalib qolish xavfiga duch kelamiz. Nima tushirib qoldirilganini ko‘ra oladigan gazeta o‘quvchisidan farqli o‘laroq, filtr pufagi aholisi uning devorlarini ko‘ra olmaydi.
The idea is intuitively compelling, and it seems to offer an explanation for the growing political polarisation observed in many countries. If people on different sides of a debate are fed entirely different information by algorithms optimised for engagement, it would hardly be surprising if they came to inhabit different realities and to regard one another with incomprehension and hostility.
Bu g‘oya intuitiv jihatdan ishonarli va ko‘plab mamlakatlarda kuzatilayotgan siyosiy qutblanishning kuchayishini tushuntirib beradigandek tuyuladi. Agar bahsning turli tomonlaridagi odamlar faollikka moslashtirilgan algoritmlar tomonidan butunlay boshqa-boshqa ma’lumotlar bilan oziqlantirilsa, ular turli reallikda yashay boshlab, bir-biriga tushunmovchilik va adovat bilan qarashi ajablanarli bo‘lmasdi.
Yet when researchers have tried to measure filter bubbles, the evidence has turned out to be considerably weaker than the metaphor suggests. Several large studies have found that most internet users encounter a reasonably diverse range of news sources, often more diverse than the sources consumed by people who rely on a single newspaper or television channel. A widely cited study of Facebook users found that the platform’s algorithm did reduce exposure to opposing views somewhat, but that the users’ own choices about what to click on reduced it far more. The bubble, in other words, may be built less by machines than by ourselves.
Biroq tadqiqotchilar filtr pufaklarini o‘lchashga harakat qilganlarida, dalillar metafora ko‘rsatganidan ancha zaifroq bo‘lib chiqdi. Bir nechta yirik tadqiqotlar internet foydalanuvchilarining aksariyati yangiliklar manbalarining ancha xilma-xil doirasiga duch kelishini, ko‘pincha bitta gazeta yoki telekanalga tayanadigan odamlar iste’mol qiladigan manbalardan ham xilma-xilroq ekanini aniqladi. Facebook foydalanuvchilari haqidagi keng iqtibos keltiriladigan tadqiqot platforma algoritmi qarama-qarshi qarashlarga duch kelishni biroz kamaytirganini, lekin foydalanuvchilarning nimani bosish haqidagi o‘z tanlovlari uni ancha ko‘proq kamaytirganini aniqladi. Boshqacha aytganda, pufakni mashinalardan ko‘ra o‘zimiz quramiz.
Researchers have also distinguished between the majority of users, whose news consumption is relatively varied and often quite limited, and a smaller group of highly engaged partisans who actively seek out one-sided sources. It is this minority, the evidence suggests, who are most likely to inhabit genuine “echo chambers”, and they are also disproportionately influential, because they post, share and comment far more than everyone else.
Tadqiqotchilar, shuningdek, yangiliklar iste’moli nisbatan xilma-xil va ko‘pincha ancha cheklangan bo‘lgan foydalanuvchilarning ko‘pchiligini bir tomonlama manbalarni faol izlaydigan juda faol tarafdorlarning kichikroq guruhidan ajratishgan. Dalillarga ko‘ra, aynan shu ozchilik haqiqiy “aks-sado xonalari”da yashash ehtimoli eng yuqori bo‘lganlardir va ular nomutanosib darajada ta’sirli ham, chunki ular boshqalarga qaraganda ancha ko‘p post joylaydi, ulashadi va izoh qoldiradi.
Perhaps more surprisingly, some research suggests that exposure to opposing views does not always reduce polarisation and can sometimes increase it. In one experiment, people who were paid to follow social media accounts that regularly shared opinions from the other side of the political spectrum became, on average, more entrenched in their own views rather than less. Encountering the most provocative voices of the other side, it seems, can confirm our worst assumptions about them.
Ehtimol bundan ham ajablanarlisi, ba’zi tadqiqotlar qarama-qarshi qarashlarga duch kelish har doim ham qutblanishni kamaytirmasligini va ba’zan uni oshirishi mumkinligini ko‘rsatadi. Bir tajribada siyosiy spektrning boshqa tomonidagi fikrlarni muntazam ulashadigan ijtimoiy tarmoq sahifalarini kuzatish uchun pul to‘langan odamlar o‘rtacha hisobda o‘z qarashlarida kamroq emas, balki ko‘proq qat’iylashgan. Ko‘rinishidan, boshqa tomonning eng provokatsion ovozlariga duch kelish ular haqidagi eng yomon taxminlarimizni tasdiqlashi mumkin.
None of this means that the design of digital platforms is irrelevant. Algorithms that reward outrage and sensationalism may distort public debate even if they do not trap individuals in sealed bubbles; the problem may be less that we never see the other side than that we see only its most extreme representatives. Nor does it mean that personalisation is harmless in other respects, such as the targeting of political advertising.
Bularning hech biri raqamli platformalar dizayni ahamiyatsiz degani emas. G‘azab va shov-shuvni rag‘batlantiradigan algoritmlar odamlarni yopiq pufaklarga qamab qo‘ymasa ham, jamoatchilik muhokamasini buzishi mumkin; muammo biz boshqa tomonni hech qachon ko‘rmasligimizdan ko‘ra, uning faqat eng ekstremal vakillarini ko‘rishimizda bo‘lishi mumkin. Bu shaxsiylashtirish boshqa jihatlarda, masalan, siyosiy reklamani nishonga olishda zararsiz degani ham emas.
But the research does suggest that the filter bubble, as popularly imagined, is more myth than reality, and that blaming algorithms may allow us to avoid an uncomfortable truth. The tendency to seek out information that confirms our beliefs is an ancient human trait. Technology can amplify it or counteract it, but the responsibility for reading widely, and for listening generously to those with whom we disagree, remains, in the end, our own.
Lekin tadqiqotlar ommaviy tasavvur qilinganidek filtr pufagi haqiqatdan ko‘ra ko‘proq afsona ekanini va algoritmlarni ayblash bizga noxush haqiqatdan qochish imkonini berishi mumkinligini ko‘rsatadi. E’tiqodlarimizni tasdiqlaydigan ma’lumotlarni izlash moyilligi qadimiy insoniy xususiyatdir. Texnologiya uni kuchaytirishi yoki unga qarshi ishlashi mumkin, lekin keng o‘qish va biz rozi bo‘lmaganlarni saxiylik bilan tinglash mas’uliyati oxir-oqibat o‘zimizda qoladi.
Tushundingizmi?
Javob topa olmasangiz, «O‘qish» bosqichiga qaytib, matnga qarang — bu ham mashq.
-
Asosiy g‘oya
1 What is the writer’s main argument?
-
2 What did Eli Pariser warn about?
-
3 What did the Facebook study find?
-
4 Who is most likely to live in real echo chambers?
-
5 What happened in the experiment where people followed accounts from the other side?
True / False / Not Given
True — matnda aynan shunday deyilgan. False — matn aksini aytadi. Not Given — matnda bu haqda ma’lumot yo‘q.
-
1 Seeking information that confirms our beliefs is described as an ancient human trait.
-
2 The writer believes platform design does not matter at all.
-
3 The writer claims that exposure to opposing views always reduces polarisation.
-
4 Highly engaged partisans post and share much more than other users.
-
5 The writer avoids using social media.
-
6 The Facebook study was conducted by independent researchers outside the company.
-
7 The writer suggests algorithms may promote the most extreme voices.
-
8 Participants in one experiment were paid to follow accounts.
-
9 The experiment was carried out in several countries at once.
-
10 The writer says newspaper readers cannot see what has been left out.
-
11 Pariser introduced the term “filter bubble” in 2011.
-
12 Many internet users see a more diverse range of news than people relying on one newspaper.
So‘zni ma’nosi bilan juftlang
Chapdan so‘zni, o‘ngdan uning ma’nosini tanlang. Hammasi juftlansa, natija chiqadi.
Natijangiz
- Tushunish
- —
- So‘zlar
- —
- Tezlik
- —