The last months, I was so busy with all kind of stuff – teaching, publishing some papers based on my research, and giving some talks and interviews – which unfortunately made me a bit sloppy in putting all of what was happening on my website. But by now, everything should be updated. Have a look around!
These weeks, I was co-teaching with Stevan Rudinac the two-week case “Political Communication” as part of the Course “Fundamentals of Data Science”, which is the first course of the new master Data Science at the UvA. The students were analyzing tweets about the US election campaign. A very nice example of interdisciplinary co-operation!
Natali Helberger, with whom I work on the Personalised Communication project, and I wrote a blog post for the LSE Media Policy Project blog: ‘Facebook is a news editor: the real issues to be concerned about‘. We argue that of course, Facebook employs human editors to curate the news feeds, but that this– while it should not come as surprise at all – has serious legal consequences.[full post]
This seems to be the week of publications on selective exposure, as also a literature review I co-authored was published. The abstract:
Some fear that personalised communication can lead to information cocoons or filter bubbles. For instance, a personalised news website could give more prominence to conservative or liberal media items, based on the (assumed) political interests of the user. As a result, users may encounter only a limited range of political ideas. We synthesise empirical research on the extent and effects of self-selected personalisation, where people actively choose which content they receive, and pre-selected personalisation, where algorithms personalise content for users without any deliberate user choice. We conclude that at present there is little empirical evidence that warrants any worries about filter bubbles.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C. H., & Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles ? Internet Policy Review, 5(1). doi:10.14763/2016.1.401 [Full text]