Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contemporary Communications
Link for report website
https://s3747991.wixsite.com/mysite
1
1. Executive Summary
NO BiaS is a first of its kind website that will provide users with a comparison between their
personal filtered searches and a completely unfiltered search. In partnership with media
juggernaut VICE, we will effectively engage our target audience and provide VICE with
ground breaking content on this issue, ahead of the 2019 Australian Federal election and
the 2020 U.S.A. Presidential Election. Both landmark events that could potentially be
affected by filter bubbles.
A filter bubble is an algorithmic bias that skews or limits the information an individual user
sees on the Internet. The bias is caused by weighted algorithms that search engines, social
media sites and marketers use to personalise user experience (Rouse, M. n.d.). Filter
Bubbles pose a potential threat to politics and society by isolating users in a personalised
bubble. The ‘bubble’ is often hard to penetrate, as the more we connect and input our
personal data into the net, the more the bubble is magnified.
There is no definitive research into how this affects society, socially or politically, in the long
term. With this lack of long-term empirical data, our goal is to communicate what filter
bubbles are and to give web users a tool to see how their searches are filtered. Through
our research, we have decided to target politically engaged youth between the ages of
18-29. Research shows that this audience is more active and politically engaged online than
any other demographic.
Being more politically active online allows filter bubbles to amplify, echoing user’s ‘likes’ and
interest back at them via filtered content. This demographic will benefit the most from our
proposed communication solution, and will be the most receptive to it online.
2
Mostafa M. El-Bermawy
3
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………….. P 2
4
Huw Ward - Research manager, report writing duties and website design
Sarita Knight - Public relations and pitch, research duties and report Manager
5
Research insights
The NO BiaS team conducted extensive research into the filter bubbles problem, the
context of the issue and the engagement of potential target audiences. A fully descriptive
annotated bibliography is available to read (see appendix A) f or background.
To sum our research regarding the social and political issue of ‘Filter Bubbles’, we have
found that the term ‘filter bubble’, coined by Eli Praiser, is 7 years old. However, concerns
about the bubble effect date back to Negroponte in 1995, who said that the World Wide
Web would produce a “kind of newspaper, printed in an edition of one” (Negroponte, 1996:
153)
Research into the influence of social media, namely Facebook, on our lives suggests that
Facebook can impact opinion and influence real life behaviour. B ond, R.M. et
al. (2012),
launched a study on the 2010 US elections, in which they released a call to vote to 61
million Facebook users. The results s uggest that the Facebook social message increased
turnout directly by about 60,000 voters and indirectly through social contagion by another
280,000 voters, for a total of 340,000 additional votes. That represents about 0.14% of the
voting age population of about 236 million in 2010. This study is just one example that
shows how targeted Facebook messaging can directly influence real-life behaviour. The
findings from this research can be directly applied to filter bubbles. With social media feeds
becoming filtered and biased, the potential effects of this content on real life behaviour
becomes concerning.
Other studies into search personalisation by Hannak, A., et al. (2013), found that when
concerning Google Web Search, on average, 11.7% of results show differences due to
personalisation.
Additionally, Flaxman, et al. (2016) looked for filter bubbles in news flowing through social
media. They started by analysing the web-browsing behaviour of 1.2 million US-located
users for the 3-month period, concluding that ‘news articles found via social media or
web-search engines are indeed associated with higher ideological segregation than those
an individual reads by directly visiting news sites’ (Flaxman et al., 2016: 318).
These findings, among with a large collection of other research we discovered and
conducted, found in appendix A, act as the groundwork for establishing our
communication problem.
In terms of researching potential target audiences, we look at reports from the Pew
Research Centre (2015) which found that 60% of millennials use Facebook as their primary
6
news source, whereas, only 39% of baby boomers find news on their Facebook feed. Nearly
a quarter (24%) of Millennials who use Facebook say that at least half of the posts they see
on the site are related to government and politics, higher than both Gen Xers (18%) and
Baby Boomers (16%). With the biggest filter bubble concerns relating to politics and the
effects of bias information, millennials are most susceptible to being caught in a bubble.
More time online and more interaction with politically charged content ultimately means
that bubbles will be magnified. These findings were key in deciding on a target audience
and creating profiles for our targeted advertising.
Key Terms
Filter Bubble - a term coined by Internet activist Eli Pariser – is a state of intellectual
isolation that allegedly can result from personalized searches when a website
algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on
information about the user, such as location, past click-behavior
Algorithm - a
process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving
operations, especially by a computer.
Millennials - also known as Generation Y or the Net Generation, are the demographic
cohort that directly follows Generation X. The term Millennials is usually considered to
apply to individuals who reached adulthood around the turn of the 21st century.
Contact hypothesis - I n psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis
suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce
prejudice between majority and minority group members.
7
POI - Eli Pariser - Eli Pariser is the chief executive of Upworthy, a website for "meaningful"
viral content. He is a left-wing political and internet activist, the board president of. Author
of the book ‘The filter bubble and what the internet is hiding from you.’
Communication problem
Internet users typically know filter bubbles exist, however there is a lack of awareness with
regards to how they work and how they affect us. Current communication and research
around filter bubbles is aimed at a mature demographic and misses our target audience of
politically minded youth between the ages of 18-29.
Eli Praiser’s preliminary ‘Filter Bubbles’ TED talk was targeted at industry professionals; he
panders to Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and other creators of Google and the Internet. His
goal was to create change at the source, however lacked any direction towards general
public and our target audience.
8
NO BiaS is a unique first of its kind website, giving users a platform to see a side-by-side
comparison of their filtered feed and an unfiltered feed.
Based on our research our target audience are the most politically engaged online
compared to any other audience with their primary news sources being sites such as
Facebook. By creating an interactive website this will be something our target audience will
be able to actively engage in rather than just read about filter bubbles, which is almost all
that is offered at this point. By enabling a real side-by-side comparison it will educate and
inform users of the filter bubble effect, showing how it is affecting their personal feeds,
while allowing them to explore and learn more as they progress through the site.
Through our research we found that some filters were extremely useful, for example
location was a major one. NO BiaS will also allow users to have the choice to customise
their own filters. Unlike other websites and search engines NO BiaS’ users will have the
option to activate a filter. They will be able to choose what they want filtered in or out,
based on things such as gender, interests, preferred political parties and many more.
9
NO BiaS’ goal
Hoping to partner with VICE, NO BiaS is a first of its kind website. It aims to increase
awareness of Filter Bubbles in politically minded people between the ages of 18-29. NO
BiaS will offer a unique platform for information with a goal of creating a site that fosters
the growth of informed and well-rounded members of society. Ultimately, NO BiaS will
increase Contact Hypothesis in our users, allowing them to be more sympathetic, aware
and unbiased in their social, political and personal lives.
10
Proposed solution
9a. Partnering with VICE and the mutual benefits
The target audience of NO BiaS was identified to be the same demographic as that
of VICE. Our ethos aligns with their emphasis on ‘empowerment’, ‘opposing apathy’
and ‘embracing disruption’ (Suroosh Alvi). The partnership between VICE and NO
BiaS will bring traction to both accounts. As a new website starting out, running the
campaign through VICE’s platforms will allow NO BiaS to establish its own presence.
NO BiaS will be the only website users can go to see both their usual feed as well as
an unfiltered and also have the option of customising their own filters. VICE will be
the first major company to support NO BiaS, promoting the relevant and
contentious topic of filter bubbles.
Our research highlighted the effects filter bubbles have on politics, with specific
reference to the 2016 U.S election. Filter bubbles isolate users, feeding them
tailored and often biased information such as political pages and news articles,
which overall can hinder their views. The outcome of the Trump election shocked
many citizens. For example democrats had seen an overwhelmingly positive
response through their social media and therefore felt no pressure or urgency to
vote, believing Hillary Clinton would win by a landslide. However, in reality they were
only seeing the information inside their filtered bubble and reality was quite
different.
In partnership with NO BiaS, VICE will contribute to promoting a healthy balance of
news and increase contact hypothesis from a platform that gives well-rounded
unbiased views from all sides of the web.
11
NO BiaS was chosen to be a website as the target audience identified are the most
prominent web users. Their primary news sources being Facebook and other
algorithmic sites, therefore making a website the most beneficial and accessible
platform.
NO BiaS finds its origins in what we identified as our communication problem. It
does not aim to completely dismantle the filter bubble framework, however the
website will bring awareness to the issue and gives users a platform as well as the
tools they need to break out of their ‘filter bubble’.
In addition to the unbiased feed, which is our primary goal, we discovered that not
all filters are negative. For example geographical filters allow your feed to be more
relevant to your location. End-users had interests in other pre-selected filters that
rely on gender, age, interests or political beliefs. This led us to adding in a
customisable filter option. Users can customise the unfiltered feed based on a set of
filters that adjust results.
Target audience
With our extensive research into which demographics are more active online, and most
engaged with politics online in mind, we conducted a targeted market survey*, of audiences
18-29. This survey returned results that confirmed our concerns. Out of 42 respondents,
75% did not know what a Filter Bubble was. When the term was explained to them, 98%
believe they exist, and further, 80% believe filter bubbles are a potential problem to society.
Of course, this data cannot be generalised as the sample is relatively small, but it gives us a
good insight into the minds of our Target Audience.
In addition to reports that confirm 18-29 year olds are most active online, and more
engaged with politics online, we found that news outlets that currently host programs that
try to give users a tool to see past their bubbles, potentially miss our target audience. The
12
Guardian and Wall Street Journal are two sites which have functions that provide content
direct to audience that may be in opposition to their political beliefs and values. The Wall
Street Journal’s primary audience is aged 30-49 years (Statista, 2018), and further, these
two sites are not in the top 10 most popular media websites for millenials (Wibbitz, 2018).
* Appendix B
In saying this, No BiaS wants the advertising campaign to work well, so have narrowed
down to a smaller target market and then narrowed again and chosen three particular
profiles to aim the advertising at.
Target Market
No BiaS’ market is 18-29 year old Australians who are educated and politically engaged.
They are high users of social media and tend to get most of their news from Facebook. Our
target audience also aligns with or proposed stakeholders main demographic.
The three profiles of NO BiaS’ target audience are listed below under the advertising
campaign, next to the adverts that are directed at them.
13
14
User’s have the opportunity to search absolutely anything through NO BiaS. A search for
‘Kim Kardashian’ for example may be negatively biased based on a user’s previous click
history, however an unbiased feed may provide more comprehensive information about
the celebrity’s recent charity efforts, for example.
NO BiaS is also a useful tool for political searches. Political results are often filtered, based
on user’s previous activity online. NO BiaS allows users to see beyond their bubble, which is
extremely helpful to forming a well-rounded and educated political opinion.
Finally, to arm our users with informational about the issue at hand, we have a drop down
menu, clickable on the top left of the screen. Links from this menu provide information
about NO BiaS and the partnership with VICE, give users the opportunity to explore the
issue of filter bubbles further, and educate themselves and also included are a selection of
VICE links that further engage and
educate our audience.
15
Lastly, the terms and conditions of the website are available in full via this menu.
NO BiaS has chosen Instagram and Facebook for advertising platforms because from
extensive research, (see appendix A) the target audience of 19 - 29’s interact with social
media and the ad’s will reach the desired demographic with NO BiaS’ targeted advertising
campaign. The third platform, VICE’s website has a significantly larger target market for the
campaign to reach so the advertising will have to take a broader approach.
No Bias is our brand name and should be noted No B.S, is part of our advertising campaign
as a way of engaging our target demographic.
16
Ad idea one: The scare tactic - targeted at our first profile
Target Audience
Profile one:
17
Profile two:
18
interact. She likes to stay on trend, and since the being sustainable is becoming popular will
benefit from seeing an unbiased result.
The idea is to have a ‘takeover’ of VICE’s instagram
to raise awareness to the campaign and to have
more people stop and pay attention. This sort of
advertising breaks convention, and if released
over a day won’t disrupt their feed too much. It
ties in with the scare tactic mentioned in profile
one and will hopefully gain traction and
interested into the story and the NO BiaS website.
19
VICE Website
Idea one: Feature article about filter bubbles - targeted at our 3rd profile
Profile three:
20-year-old male who is at University, studying an arts degree. Enjoys going out and works
in a cafe on the weekends. He lives in a share house and is environmentally conscious,
teaching his housemates about the importance of sustainability, which he learnt about
from his parents and from all the pages he follows online such as ‘Sea Shepherd’ and ‘Eco
Warriors’. He votes for the Greens, and follows them exclusively. He gets his news on
Facebook from ABC and SBS pages. What he is aware of is what he has been exposed to
through his demographic and filters. Hasn’t attempted to Google different political views
and is very much stuck in his bubble.
This profile would benefit from using the No BS website, because it will allow him to see
other parties and news that he has deemed unworthy, in an unbiased light as his filters
have warped his search results and newsfeed. Would be more likely to click on an article
that explains how filters work/affect him rather than click bait type ad.
20
Conclusion
Overall, the constructive feedback we received from Ella and our peers was pivotal in
further developing our project. Specifically when introducing our target market of young
people ages 18-29 we were advised either narrow this audience or justify why our target
audience was so broad. Furthermore, instead of looking at how our target market interacts
with the internet we limited it to media platforms which are most commonly used by
millenials for example VICE. To give our research credibility we conducted a survey which
ensured we weren't just assuming that “millenials aren't aware of filter bubbles” which was
supported by our survey.
Class Feedback
From the pitch, the feedback received from the class is outlined below.
Overall
What are the best 2 aspects of the project and presentation?
1. Coding style of the presentation, quite engaging
2. well timed, informative and good interactivity with the audience in such a short
space of time
21
As the site is not live, as it will need a dedicated website designer for full functionality ( this
is a tech solution whereas NO BiaS is a communication problem) there has been no solid
concrete end user feedback.
What has been gained is talking to people from the target audience and showing them the
website prototype. They all loved the design, the idea, and the drive to burst peoples filters
and help drive change online.
22
Appendix
a) Research
A f ilter bubble is an algorithmic bias that skews or limits the information an individual user
sees on the internet. The bias is caused by the weighted algorithms that search engines,
social media sites and marketers use to personalise user experience. The term Filter Bubble
was coined by Eli Praiser, an internet activist, who in 2011, presented his ideas at a
landmark TED talk. Praiser went on to release a book about this issue titled, The Filter
Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. In this book, Praiser write “Democracy requires
citizens to see things from one another’s point of view, but instead we’re more and more
enclosed in our own bubbles. Democracy requires a reliance on shared facts; instead we’re being
offered parallel but separate universes. […] Personalization filters serve a kind of invisible
autopropaganda, indoctrinating us with our own ideas, amplifying our desire for things that are
familiar and leaving us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the unknown.”
This quote sums up the crux of the filter bubble issue well; the main dangers of the issue
are concerning damaging political infrastructure, and bias ultimately reducing ‘Contact
Hypothesis.’
23
users for the 3-month period between March and May 2013, and eventually, they
focussed on 50,000 users who actively read the news.
They conclude, ‘news articles found via social media or web-search engines are
indeed associated with higher ideological segregation than those an individual reads
by directly visiting news sites’ (Flaxman et al., 2016: 318).
Flaxman SR, Geol S and Rao JM (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news
consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 298–320.
- Dantenspende BTW17: People at A lgorithm Watch (Germany) rana crowdsourcing
project on the filter bubbles issue called Datenspende BTW17. The project is
supported by six “Landesmedienanstalten”, the regulatory authorities for new
media in the German federal states of Bavaria (BLM), Berlin-Brandenburg (mabb),
Hesse (LPR Hessen), Rhineland-Palatinate (LMK), Saarland (LMS), Saxony (SLM), as
well as the University of Kaiserslautern. Through a browser plugin, users donate
their search results to the project. The plugin does not collect actual s earches of
users, but automatically conducts searches for a fixed list of 16 terms. The results
are then sent back to AW’s servers. This approach creates a high degree of
comparability. If two users with similar browser settings and location search for the
same phrase (say “Angela Merkel”) at the same time, shouldn’t they receive identical
(or at least very similar) results?
On the Google search engine, when searching politicians on average only one or two
links differed. The search results for parties are less overlapping with an average of
three to four different links. Since the vast majority of participants received the
same links, according to the authors of the study Eli Pariser's much-discussed theory
of filter-bubbles could not be supported by the results of this study.
Media Policy Lab 2018, ‘#Data donation Project: Event on the Study of Prof. Dr. med.
Katharina Zweig and AlgorithmWatch’, blog post, 1st of March
<https://mediapolicylab.de/blog/news-details/projekt-datenspende-event-zur-studie-von-pr
of-dr-zweig-und-algorithmwatch.html>
Puschmann, C. 2017, ‘How significant is algorithmic personalization in searches for political
parties and candidates?’ blog post, 2nd of August
<https://aps.hans-bredow-institut.de/personalization-google/>
- This study involves a randomized controlled trial of political mobilization messages
delivered to 61 million Facebook users during the 2010 US congressional elections.
The study displayed political messages to Facebook users, uring them to vote in the
2010 elections. The results suggest that the Facebook social message increased
turnout directly by about 60,000 voters and indirectly through social contagion by
another 280,000 voters, for a total of 340,000 additional votes. That represents
about 0.14% of the voting age population of about 236 million in 2010.
24
25
only better able to provide reasons for their own political choices; they also have a
better understanding of what motivates the perspective of others.
Price, V, Cappella, JC. Nir, L. 2002 ‘Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative
Opinion?’, Political Communication, 19:1, 95-112,
- A study conducted by Facebook in response to Eli Praiser’s TED talk. Facebook
claims to have found that the filter bubble effect is smaller than we have come to
think (and smaller than Eli Praiser had guessed.) On average, you’re about 6% less
likely to see content that the other political side favors. Who you’re friends with
matters a good deal more than the algorithm. T he relative effect of the algorithm in
filtering news is stronger for liberals than conservatives. For liberals, the effect of
what you click is about 6%, whereas the algorithmic effect is 8%. For conservatives,
the filter bubble effect is about 5% and the click effect is about 17%.
Bakshy, E. Messing, S. Adamic, LA 2015, ‘Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion
on Facebook,’ Science Express, vol. 348 issue 6239
- Interestingly, filter bubbles do not just occur on the internet. Jacob N. Shapiro
provides an example from a decade ago of TV shifting the results of elections: A
2007 study by DellaVigna and Kaplan found, for example, that whenever the
conservative-leaning Fox television network moved into a new market in the United
States, conservative votes increased, a phenomenon they labeled the ‘Fox News
Effect’. These researchers estimated that biased coverage by Fox News was
sufficient to shift 10,757 votes in Florida during the 2000 US Presidential election:
more than enough to flip the deciding state in the election, which was carried by the
Republican presidential candidate by only 537 votes.
Farnam Street, n.d. ‘How Filter Bubbles Distort Reality: Everything You Need to Know,’ blog
post, n.d.
<https://fs.blog/2017/07/filter-bubbles/>
- “We have minimal concrete evidence of exactly what information search engines
and social platforms collect. Even SEO (search engine optimization) experts do not
know for certain how search rankings are organized. We also don’t know if sites
collect information from users who do not have accounts.”
Farnam Street, n.d. ‘How Filter Bubbles Distort Reality: Everything You Need to Know,’ blog
post, n.d.
<https://fs.blog/2017/07/filter-bubbles/>
26
-Pew Research Centre found, in a millenial news study that, Among Millennials,
Facebook is far and away the most common source for news about government and
politics. When asked whether they got political and government news from each of
42 sources in the previous week (36 specific news outlets, local TV generally and 5
social networking sites), about six-in-ten Web-using Millennials (61%) reported
getting political news on Facebook. That is 17 points higher than the next most
consumed source for Millennials (CNN at 44%).
Millennials’ reliance on Facebook for political news is also almost exactly on par with
Baby Boomers’ reliance on local TV (60%). In fact, Baby Boomers and Millennials
demonstrate nearly inverse habits when it comes to local TV and Facebook. Among
Millennials, 61% got political news on Facebook and 37% from local TV. Among Baby
Boomers, it’s 39% from Facebook and 60% from local TV. Gen Xers fall in the middle
for both, with 51% getting political news on Facebook and 46% doing so from local
TV. Millennials are also more reliant than other generations on Google News. A third
(33%) get political news there.
Mitchell, A. Gottfried, J. Matsa, KE. 2015, ‘Facebook Top Source for Political News Among
Millennials’, Pew Research Centre, 1st of June
- In another study, Pew Research Centre investigated technology use across
generations. More than nine-in-ten Millennials (92%) own smartphones, compared
with 85% of Gen Xers (those who turn ages 38 to 53 this year), 67% of Baby Boomers
(ages 54 to 72) and 30% of the Silent Generation (ages 73 to 90), according to a new
analysis of Pew Research Center data. Similarly, the vast majority of Millennials
(85%) say they use social media. For instance, significantly larger shares of
Millennials have adopted relatively new platforms such as Instagram (52%) and
Snapchat (47%) than older generations have.
Nearly a quarter (24%) of Millennials who use Facebook say that at least half of the
posts they see on the site are related to government and politics, higher than both
Gen Xers (18%) and Baby Boomers (16%).
Jiang, J. 2018, ‘Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generations also
embrace digital life’, P ew Research Centre Fact Tank, 2nd of May,
<http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/02/millennials-stand-out-for-their-technol
ogy-use-but-older-generations-also-embrace-digital-life/>
- Pew Research Centre conducted a study into news broadcast and consumption via
social media in 2017. For the first time in the Center’s surveys, more than half (55%)
of Americans ages 50 or older report getting news on social media sites. That is 10
percentage points higher than the 45% who said so in 2016. On YouTube, about a
third of users now get news there (32%), up from 21% in 2016. And news use among
Snapchat’s user base increased 12 percentage points to 29% in August 2017, up
from 17% in early 2016.
27
Overall, Facebook outstrips all other social media sites as a source of news; YouTube
now reaches second highest percentage. Specifically, about two-thirds of Americans
(66%) use Facebook, and a majority of those users get news on the site, (45/66%)
Shearer, E. Gottfried, J. 2017, ‘News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017’, Pew Research
Centre, 7th of September
B) Survey Results
Q: A 'Filter Bubble' is when a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based
on information about the user, such as location, past click-behavior and search history. Do you believe Filter Bubbles
exist?
28
Book review: ‘Your computer is like a one way mirror reflecting your own interests while
algorithmic observers watch your every click’
This is a fascinating book about when our ‘personalised’ google searches started (2009) and
what that meant for our society. It starts off with a very startling example of the Deep
Water horizon BP oil spill of 2010. The author asked two people with a similar background
to google BP, one got Ad’s for investment, while the other got news on the disaster. They
even received different numbers of page results.
At the beginning of the internet, Pariser reflects, felt that there was an opportunity to
redemocatise society and governments would be held accountable, but now with the
personalisation of the internet search this has become less so. The author also explains
how seeing less of what his conservative friends were sharing meant that his views
becoming more streamlined and less open-minded.
- Notes, do we want our project to be politically/environmentally/socially minded?
- Is personalisation making us dumb?
- Immigration
- Rampant hate speech a problem - cuz thats all they see their friends doing??
29
I feel that it was a tool designed to help us, but what its done is closed us off things that
might profoundly change the way we see the world.
The links given are very politically driven, maybe we should explore how it affects us
socially, as consumers? Yes we get personalised ad’s now, but is that making us buy into a
stereotype because thats all we see? Subconscious brainwashing….
*create a website that is like google but with no filter??
c) Pitch
This is the script for what was in the slides that were presented for the pitch to vice. (Most
images on the slides are seen already through this report) The slides we decided not to add
in this report as it would compromise the readability as there were so many of them.
“The global village that was once the Internet, has been replaced by digital islands of
isolation that are drifting further apart each day.
The internet that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008, is different from the internet that led
to Brexit and the election of Donald Trump”
In 2018, your internet use is tracked, collated and regurgitated via algorithms and metrics,
that ultimately decide w hat you see and w
hen you see it. Most people are unaware that
the information they are seeing online is tailored and often bias. The effect of this bias
information is called a f ilter bubble.
30
31
We owe it to ourselves to be more informed and live in a time where there is no excuse not
to be, we have too much to lose. So don’t buy into the BS and check NO BiaS.
Minutes
22nd of November
- Established topic
- Figured out research
- Narrowed in on idea
- Answered slide questions
Tuesday 27th of November
- Discussed research from over the weekend
- Decided points for Thursdays presentation
1. Research on topic and demographics
2. Survey
3. Target audience/ stakeholders: 18-29 year olds- most prominent web users,
61% source their news from facebook/ social media platforms. We want to keep it
broad to have a range of different views/opinions etc, if it were to be too narrow
we would risk creating a filter bubble within our website.The more people we have
the better it is.
4. What our communication problem is- Filter bubbles exist, but no one knows
to what extent and how they work.
5. USP- Show people the extent and side by side comparison
6. Story and advertising ideas- interactive website
* Research guardian and wall st journal demographic
- Discuss ideas with Ella: end user testing- have a chat to end user and what they
want/think
- Think about making a statement eg our research shows there is a lack of
awareness… we aim to show…
- 18-29 year olds is a target market not target audience, need to narrow down to a
T/A
32
- Targeting our audience specifically within our demographic: 3 specific ‘profiles’, who
are interested in our campaign/product.
Thursday 29th of November
Bounce off potential presidential election 2020: Based off last time, do not you want to see
an unfiltered search?
Plug-in?
Educational tool?
Brainstorm Names for website:
Words to play with; Balance Clarity Compare Gamut scope Expand Omni Sans
Tag line? You filter your photos, why filter your feed?
Algorithm based pun?
Algorithm Assassin
UnFiltered “UnFilter your Feed
NOBS – no bias
We could partner with RMIT and education (research who)
Educate first year Uni students about how filters can affect their searches and create
biased research for assignment. Download with canvas so that you can fact check your
work ‘on the go’.
For the pitch ideas: Pitching to RMIT University (Research Innovation and
Entrepreneurship) WHO DO WE WANT AS A STAKEHOLDER?? Could we maybe partner
with google themselves??
Maybe start with anecdote of when my partner and I had an argument, (OR uni students
debating a topic ) went to google for the answer and realised we had different search
outcomes. This turned into research about algorithms and what exactly filter bubbles were
and then about how as uni students we might get different/filtered results which could
create bias. - this is how NOBS was born. We want to create and app that you can custom
filters so you can learn more and gain perspective. We want to open minds and help create
a less biased world. Engage, inform, advertise.
33
What resistance/challenges might your audience have to your idea?
How can this be integrated into our courses? Academically helpful?
How does it benefit RMIT as a university/corporation?
What’s the long term? How does this effect RMIT ethos?
That its a non-problem; Lack of understanding
Political issues?
Who are we?
NO BS is a product not an organisation :(
A socially conscious team who are concerned with the effects of the next gen being close
minded and bias.
Eli Praiser fans <3
Elevator Pitch
When we google things we believe what we’re being shown is correct? Right?
Wrong.
In 2018, your internet use is tracked, collated and regurgitated via algorithms and metrics,
that ultimately decide what you see and when you see it. Most people are unaware that the
information they are seeing online is often biased.
NO BiaS. is a website that shows users both sides to a search. Our user can see their
filtered, bias searches against a NO B.S. search, for the same query.
Decide:
Who we are pitching to VICELAND - they share our target audience
Setting up context: frame story
Complete the loop: Clearly tie creative solution back into the clients’.
What is your communication problem? Awareness about filter bubbles
Who is your target audience? Young - 18 - 29 - politically minded, educated engaged.
What is your communication solution? Create a site to show side by side filters
What is your USP?
Who are you pitching to?
VICE
1 in 3 18-35 year olds visit VICE.
70% aged 18 to 34
60/40 male to female ratio
78% has a higher education degree
55% works full-time
34
35
Thursday 6th of December
- Pitch rehearsal 10am-11am
- Edit slides
- Discuss report, edit sections and decide on our template
- Assign sections of report
- Go over all project, what we need/ have done/ need to do
Team charter
Group members:
Hannah Seddon
● s3747991@student.rmit.edu.au
Sarita Knight
● s37475822@student.rmit.edu.au
Huw Ward
● s3724065@student.rmit.edu.au
Zarina Borland
● s3579321@student.rmit.edu.au
36
2. Team Purpose
Our topic is about the filters that are placed on our newsfeeds, and Internet searches. There is
no real research into how this affects us socially, politically and what it means for the choices we
make. Are we unconsciously consuming ideas that are turning us into less aware people. Our
‘bubble’ can be sometimes hard to penetrate, as the more we connect and input our
personal data into the web/net, it creates a network that only is useful to us individually.
We want to communicate and ramp up awareness to a certain target audience that we have
found through research that interacts with the internet most, but also has voting power ergo; are
politically engaged youth (18-29). With the filter bubble reflecting our likes more than our
dislikes, that who we follow politically will only be shown, meaning that our views and opinions
are very one-sided.
37
- Finalise websites x 2
- Agree on advertising ideas
- Make sure we are all on the same page
4.Team Values
- Communication techniques and responsibilities
For now our group we will be meeting at our tutorial time and place of on Tuesdays and
Thursdays and another time outside of this may need to be added. We will communicate
via group messaging on Facebook outside of our allocated times so that we keep
connected while working on the project.
- Meeting procedure
To keep a track of everything we will take minutes during class. Possible use of a google
doc to be accessible for everyone. Maybe rotate this duty throughout the project. This
way as a team we can keep track of our brainstorming sessions and ideas.
- No idea is a bad idea
Our ideas are put forth the the group with no judgment, and to explore ideas.
38
References
39
Pariser, E., 2011. T he filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.
Price, V, Cappella, JC. Nir, L. 2002 ‘Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative
Opinion?’, Political Communication, 19:1, 95-112,
Statista, 2018, ‘Share of readers of the Wall Street Journal in the past 2 weeks in the United
States in 2018, by age’, Statista
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/229986/readers-of-the-wall-street-journal-daily-edition
/>
Stroud, NJ. 2010, ‘Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure’, Journal of
Communication,Volume 60, Issue 3, Pg 556-576
Shearer, E. Gottfried, J. 2017, ‘News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017’, Pew Research
Centre, 7th of September
Wibbitz, 2018, ‘Top 10 millennial media companies… for now’, Wibbitz
<https://www.wibbitz.com/blog/top-10-millennial-media-companies-for-now/>
40