Infographic. Image credit: Unsplash
Beijing News (reporter Wang Chunrui) algorithm-centered intelligent technology has played a great role in promoting the interaction between science and technology and society and human survival, but at the same time, it has also exposed some deep contradictions between technology and human beings, science and technology and humanities.
To this end, on June 18, the Intellectual Media Research Center of the School of Journalism and Communication of Tsinghua University and the Xinjing Think Tank jointly held an online high-end forum on "Algorithms Make Good Use of Intelligent Humanities: Multidisciplinary Integration of Intelligent Information", and the participating experts discussed the positive significance of algorithms and other technologies for value creation, benefiting mankind and social development.
At the meeting, Chen Changfeng, professor and executive vice dean of the School of Journalism and Communication of Tsinghua University and director of the Intellectual Media Research Center, said that the American scholar Cass R. Sunstein proposed the concept of "information cocoon" in a political context, and in the pre-algorithmic era, "information cocoon" already existed. Currently, "information cocoons" are conceptualized, misinterpreted, and abused.
The "information cocoon" is proposed in the Western political context
Chen Changfeng said that Sunstein's "information cocoon" is actually a metaphor and is proposed in the special political context of the West. However, the problem has set off a widespread research boom around the world, with political science, communication studies, law, computer science and psychology being widely concerned. In our country, the "information cocoon" is directly regarded as an already negative existence and accepted, and it is being criticized by all sides here.
Chen Changfeng believes that the problem of "information cocoon" has been generalized to too many areas, and the problems discussed in it have existed in the "pre-algorithm era". For example, the norm for human beings to obtain information is to choose the content that they most agree with in their aesthetics and concepts. Even without algorithmic technology, this is the norm. People's initiative to choose which content to reach is not new, as shown at least in a study of voter choice by Lazarsfeld and his colleagues.
In the 1970s, Western scholars proposed "confirmation bias", that is, people absorb new information to confirm their views on the world. This "confirmation bias" is not directly related to the use of useless algorithmic techniques.
Yu Guoming, former executive dean of the School of Journalism and Communication of Beijing Normal University, once pointed out that the "information cocoon" has been misunderstood and abused. In the era of massive information, using a technology to help us choose information is an inevitable result, and it is also a good way to use technology to help human beings obtain information more effectively. At the same time, human beings need to carry out more complex and systematic innovation and optimization. This is something that needs to be constantly pushed forward.
Chen Changfeng said that as the division of labor in human society becomes more and more detailed, information becomes more and more generalized, more and more massive, to improve efficiency, human beings need the help of technology. Therefore, algorithm technology is an effective strategy in the era of massive information, helping users solve the problem of information overload. The use of technology to help human beings is exactly what human beings have done in the course of their history. Humanity has always used new technologies to drive development.
There is no information environment that forms an "information cocoon"
So, can the context of "information cocoon" be generalized? Chen Changfeng believes that the existence of the "information cocoon" itself is a problem, and many scholars around the world have questioned its reality in an empirical way. However, at present, society has taken it as a concept, and it is judged in a literal and simplistic manner. From an empirical point of view, "information cocoons" have been studied in both positive and negative aspects, but in the existing Western literature, only a small number of "information cocoons" may exist by using experimental models; on the contrary, from the United States to Spain, the Netherlands and other European countries, there are research results to prove that "information cocoons" do not exist at present. The empirical study of six scholars of law and information science at the University of Amsterdam concluded that there is currently little empirical evidence to support concerns about information cocoons.
Chen Changfeng said that the current information environment is a paradox formed by the "information cocoon". The formation of the "information cocoon" should be in a pure environment, where individuals can only obtain one type of information, such as only obtaining homogeneous information pushed by the algorithm, thus bringing biased cognition. But in fact, the information environment of the era we live in is diverse and rich, and the information dissemination characteristics of the web 2.0 era are linkable, interactive and shareable, and it is a networked era where multiple nodes and multiple information sources coexist. In such an era, it is impossible for man to survive in a pure environment of homogeneous information pushed only by algorithms. At least for now, it's impossible for people to live in a real information cocoon, because it's hard to avoid inconsistent content entirely.
The "information cocoon" is just a concern
Chen Changfeng further said that the research results published in important journals show that the "information cocoon" is only a concern, not a reality, and it is difficult to prove. And even a concern is at its core at the political level. But even so, the "information cocoon" has been criticized at the political level, arguing that Sunstein's "information cocoon" is inaccurate language, an American, extreme assertion.
So, is the "information cocoon" harmful? Chen Changfeng said that some studies have explored the relevant achievements of the past 25 years and found that the "information cocoon" is not necessarily harmful; and the Internet is not an inevitable complicity in its formation. The "information cocoon" we draw is only conceptual, some superficial things, and lacks a core understanding of more deep things, including empirical things. The survey found that algorithms actually give the public more access and participation, such as increasing the likelihood of discussions with dissidents.
Chen Changfeng said that web 2.0 technology is multi-faceted. These multi-faceted technologies are being used at the same time, and in the process of use, they are optimizing and dissolving each other. Therefore, we still need to use technology fully and actively, and look at new technologies from the perspective of development.
Chen Changfeng stressed that the "information cocoon" is proposed in the context of two-party politics in the United States. When it strips away the context of the United States and Chinese, as well as the context of the two-party struggle, and is generalized, the "information cocoon" is actually lacking empirical evidence. Moreover, at present, the "information cocoon" has been conceptualized and stereotyped, and there are cases of misinterpretation and abuse. It is necessary to identify the inner meaning and context of the "information cocoon" and warn of its long-term effects, rather than simplistically knocking it to the ground.
Chen Changfeng believes that we should not be so worried, but should use a positive attitude to use new technologies to serve human beings and bring welfare to mankind, rather than simply and rudely hitting it to the bottom and blaming the original sin on the algorithm. Technology gives people more information rights, so that they can more easily choose their favorite content, to achieve "consumer sovereignty", such rights not only to meet people's preferences, but also to give people the opportunity to be in full information, a wide range of different aspects of the choice, to pursue their own preferences, to get more communication.
Chen Changfeng pointed out that there are three aspects to the current response to possible negative "information cocoons". First, algorithmic technology is constantly being optimized, such as news applications can strengthen people's "reading across differences", and optimizing the technical model of algorithms can enhance information diversity. Second, the information aggregation platform provides conditions for individuals to obtain richer information, which is equivalent to a type of market for information and opinions, and the information after collaborative filtering by many people also creates more positive value. Information aggregation has the significance of open source, as long as there are enough users and co-participants, all kinds of problems will be discovered in a very short period of time, and can be easily solved. Third, since the birth of Web 2.0 technology, users are more likely to have subjective initiative and become the makers of real meaning, so they are more likely to become "active audiences", which also prevents the possibility of negative "information cocoons". In this sense, MIL education remains an important tool.
Reporter: Wang Chunrui Editor: Zhang Xiaoyuan Proofreader: Zhao Lin