Introduced by tech entrepreneur and activist Eli Pariser in 2011, the ‘filter bubble’ is a persistent concept which suggests that search engines and social media, together with their recommendation and personalisation algorithms, are centrally culpable for the societal and ideological polarisation experienced in many countries: we no longer encounter a balanced and healthy information diet, but only see information that targets our established interests and reinforces our existing worldviews. Filter bubbles are seen as critical enablers of Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, and other populist political phenomena, and search and social media companies have been criticised for failing to prevent their development. Yet, there is scant empirical evidence for their existence, or for the related concept of ‘echo chambers’: indeed, search and social media users generally appear to encounter a highly centrist media diet that is, if anything, more diverse than that of non-users. However, the persistent use of these concepts in mainstream media and political debates has now created its own discursive reality that continues to impact materially on societal institutions, media and communication platforms, and ordinary users themselves. This article provides a critical review of the ‘filter bubble’ idea, and concludes that its persistence has served only to redirect scholarly attention from far more critical areas of enquiry.

中文翻译：

---

滤泡

“过滤器泡沫”由技术企业家和激进主义者Eli Pariser于2011年提出，它是一个持续存在的概念，它表明搜索引擎和社交媒体以及其推荐和个性化算法，可为许多国家所经历的社会和意识形态两极化集中化：我们不再遇到平衡而健康的信息饮食，而只会看到针对我们既定利益并强化我们现有世界观的信息。过滤器泡沫被视为英国退欧，特朗普，博尔索纳罗和其他民粹主义政治现象的关键推动因素，搜索和社交媒体公司因未能阻止其发展而受到批评。然而，关于它们的存在或“回声室”相关概念的经验证据很少：实际上，搜索和社交媒体用户通常会遇到高度中间派的媒体饮食，如果有的话，这种饮食比非用户饮食更多样化。但是，这些概念在主流媒体和政治辩论中的持续使用现在已经形成了自己的话语现实，继续对社会机构，媒体和传播平台以及普通用户本身产生重大影响。本文对“过滤器泡沫”的想法进行了批判性审查，并得出结论认为，其持久性仅能将学术注意力从更关键的研究领域转移出去。这些概念在主流媒体和政治辩论中的持续使用现已创造了自己的话语现实，继续对社会机构，媒体和传播平台以及普通用户本身产生重大影响。本文对“过滤器泡沫”的想法进行了批判性审查，并得出结论认为，其持久性仅能将学术注意力从更关键的研究领域转移出去。这些概念在主流媒体和政治辩论中的持续使用现已创造了自己的话语现实，继续对社会机构，媒体和传播平台以及普通用户本身产生重大影响。本文对“过滤器泡沫”的想法进行了批判性审查，并得出结论认为，其持久性仅能将学术注意力从更关键的研究领域转移出去。