# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This post is a part of "The future of media" series. Don't forget to check the rest of them:

Looking at the shift in media consumption, we see millennials don't consume newspapers, or their time spent reading newspapers and magazines is irrelevant. What will happen with print media in the future, if new consumers don't read it? Is there a future for newspapers?

The days when people used daily newspapers to read the news are over. Maybe not for "older" generations, who got used to it, and won't change their habits easily. However, younger generations never got used to it; they don't have a habit of reading a newspaper early in the morning. Moreover, they will never start reading it. They have the internet where they can find all the news they need.

This infographics from Ross Dawson summarizes everything:

Advertising revenue is becoming a huge problem because it's been declining since 2000.

Daily newspapers with news about something that happened will die. In some countries, they've been dead (or soon to be dead) for quite a while. Daily newspapers can't compete with the speed of the internet. Younger generations never got used to them, so they won't be buying them for sure. But, newspapers still have something to offer, and I see two scenarios on what publishers need to do to thrive in the future.

Digital newspapers/websites

Every newspaper now has its own website. Their revenue from digital advertising as % of their total revenue is growing year after year, which suggests their business model might become digital. And if it becomes digital, do we call it "print" anymore? 🙂

They need to focus on the subscription-based model, as The Economist did:

This + brilliant pricing enabled The Economist to survive and thrive.

Quality content

Newspapers can't compete with the internet when it comes to news. Their future can't depend on publishing stories like "Donald Trump won!". We already knew about that on the internet. What they can deliver is a deep background analysis on why he won, what's he planning to do next, what it means to all of us... That's something that adds real value to any conversation. I believe weekly, bi-weekly or monthly newspapers (even in their print form) can thrive if they provide real content and real value to their users. Good reporters won't lose their jobs; they will become even more important. Reporters who can only write about the facts will become obsolete because there are so many others who can do the same. But, good reporters who write really useful background stories about those events, together with really smart pricing and subscription models of their publishers, will save the print and good content.

I believe there is a future for newspapers. But not in its current form. Daily printed newspapers will die, and that's been happening already. They need to become digital and provide truly quality content in order to attract users.

This will have a huge influence on marketing and print advertising. With the change in the newspaper industry, this will have to change as well. Newspaper advertising will become digital advertising, where media buying agencies and publishers will have to find another model of cooperation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The future of media - Are newspapers going to die? - Kontra agency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post is a part of "The future of media" series. Don't forget to check the rest of them: Looking at the shift in media consumption, we see millennials don't consume newspapers, or their time spent reading newspapers and magazines is irrelevant. What will happen with print media in the future, if new consumers don't read it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everyone that grew up in the 80's and 90's will remember spending hours waiting in front of the television, with the remote in your hand, ready to record your favorite video once it got played on MTV. And once you got it, you played it over and over again, only dreaming of ever being a rockstar yourself.

Nowadays young music lovers have all music content at their disposal. They watch their favorite (music) video's on demand on YouTube. And with the mobile app Musical.ly, recently rebranded to TikTok, they can easily shoot their own music videos and become true popstars, with millions of fans. German 15-year old twins Lisa and Lena, for example, started making their lip-sync music videos on Musical.ly on December 10th, 2015. And now have over 30 million fans on TikTok and 13.5 million followers on Instagram. They have become the new billboard for several advertisers and fashion brands and their net worth is estimated to be around $175,000.

The story of Lisa and Lena shows how the internet and mobile technology has changed the way we consume and receive content and how content platforms like TikTok create entirely new marketplaces and new exchange of value.

Pipeline to platform

Traditionally content was created by publishers that used their content to engage audiences through their media channels, like television, radio, magazines and newspapers. The better the content, the bigger the audience and the more valuable the advertisement space. The traditional media business was a pipeline business model, with the publisher being the pipeline (and curator) for the advertiser to reach the consumer.

With the internet, media became social and it evoked the rise of the digital platforms. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Instagram shifted the old pipeline model to platform business models and became the new media giants. The essence of these platform models lies in connecting supply and demand and the core interaction between them that the platform facilitates. The building blocks that drive the (quality of the) core interaction are the participants, the value unit, filters and the network effect.
Participants
In (social) media platforms the supply side are the content producers and the demand side the content consumers. Often, they are accompanied by a third customer segment: advertisers (which can be seen as content producer by the way).
The value unit
The value propositions of platforms business models aren't based on ownership of any physical products or services. YouTube doesn't create and own any content, and neither does TikTok, Facebook or Instagram. In platform models (also outside the media industry) the value proposition for the demand side is the information provided by the supply side. On YouTube and TikTok this information-based value unit is the video's created by the producers. The value proposition for the supply side is easy and direct access to the demand side. In the case of YouTube and TikTok; a (potentially huge) audience.

Next to the value unit the value delivered by platforms is created by the user experience. Performance, speed, usability and seamless cross device interaction are all important factors to create a valuable user experience. However, they increasingly become hygiene factors than discriminating elements of the value proposition.

Filters help to deepen the value proposition based on type, time, specific needs, etc. On social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok the main filters are the people and channels you follow. They are the curators for the content you value. By following them, you don't need to search for the right content every time. You trust them to provide the content you want. This is why Youtubers and vloggers are so massively popular. They provide instant entertainment and get the best out of your spare time. The same goes for YouTube's 'Up Next' feature, which can be seen as a 'curator algorithm'.
Network effects
The network effect is the positive effect that an additional user of a good or service has on the value of that product to others. For platform models this seems quite logical as supply and demand are connected and the larger the supply and demand sides the faster, easier the right connection is made. This leads to repeatable, sustainable interactions and the network becomes self-reinforcing.

And the network effects go even beyond that. As more people start using the platform, the more data is collected. This data gives deeper insights in how the users use the platform, which transactions are established, and what value they seek. This way new segments (niches) are found and new value propositions for these segments are developed. YouTube, for example, developed YouTube Music, YouTube Gaming and recently released new tools for parents and content for older kids in the YouTube Kids app.
The platform mechanics described above also account for non-media platforms (i.e. Uber, Airbnb, Waze). Use these mechanics to shift your own business model to a platform model!
What is next?

So, the platform business model is the new dominant business model in the media industry. But what will the future look like? To answer that question, we need to ask ourselves: where is value created next?

The answer to this question starts by understanding the customer, their job-to-be-done and their behavior. Did you know that millennials check their phones 150 times a day? For what? For new (social) content. We love to be triggered by new social, entertaining and informative content. We 'hire' new content snacks for our job-to-be-done of being up to date and preferably be the first to see something new that is interesting to share with friends.

Toutiao

The Chinese news aggregator Toutiao (owned by tech company Bytedance) understood this very well. With over 120 M daily users, spending 74 minutes a day (compared to 50min on Facebook!), Toutiao is one of the most used content platforms in the world. It serves its users content snacks aggregated from its 4000 content partners. All this content is collected, labeled and provided to the user by AI Technology. Toutiao uses machine learning algorithms to measure and analyze the engagement of the content. What do people watch, how long, when, what do they share, watch next, how often, etc. Based on this data, Toutiao personalizes the content offered. So, the more often you use the platform, the more personalized and there more valuable it gets.

With big data, machine learning and personalization Toutiao continuously enriches their user profiles and is able to tell which person is most likely to convert for a certain add at a certain time. Of course, this is of huge value for advertisers. A shift from mass media to targeting the right person at the right time with the right content. A great value proposition for advertisers.

Toutiao is always in need of new content fast. The remarkable thing is that Toutiao not only increases the number of content partners but that they use bots (artificial intelligence) to create new content. During the 2016 Olympics, a Toutiao bot wrote and published news about the sports event more quickly than traditional media. The articles written by the bot had similar read rates as the articles produced by human writers, but at a higher speed and lower cost on average.

The Toutiao bots not only create content but also read the content. This way Toutiao develops an ever enhancing and automated eco-system of continuous profiling and personalized content creation.

Cross-platform ecosystems

So, back to where this article stated, Musical.ly. Musical.ly was bought by Bytedance in 2017 for $1 billion and added to Bytedance's portfolio of content platforms, of which Toutiao is the biggest. Other platforms in the portfolio are TopBuzz, Huoshan, Xigua Video, Duanzi and News Republic. The AI technology of Bytedance works across all these platforms. This way Bytedance not only builds a profile of Toutiao users, but much broader user profiles of users within its cross-platform ecosystem. Its building the future of content discovery and creation. A future where all content you value is provided to you automatically. The Bytedance bots know you (even better than your friends and family!) and serve you. This way ByteDance wants to wipe away the concept of search.

So, in the nearby future, you might watch the newest music video of your favorite, artificial Bot band. Far-fetched? This article about Hatsune Miku might change your mind.

Do you want to know more about Exponential Business Models? Join our workshop in Amsterdam - November 29.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The future of media: from platforms to AI driven ecosystems! - Business Models Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone that grew up in the 80's and 90's will remember spending hours waiting in front of the television, with the remote in your hand, ready to record your favorite video once it got played on MTV. And once you got it, you played it over and over again, only dreaming of ever being a ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica, stated his former company held an "arsenal of weapons," for which Facebook user data was the uranium. Lawmakers in the US and UK have begun investigating Cambridge Analytica and the SCL Group for exploiting the designs of Facebook's database of personal information. This is only the latest instance in which our digital troves of identity have been used to activate fear and sow division.

As recent elections around the world have shown, information warfare is very effective. Our data and personal information has long been a product sold by tech giants, much before psychographic data could be compiled to tilt elections.

The problem? Our digital identity is not our own. As a result, we are vulnerable to the machinations of the owners. To move forward with a fix, we must first ask the question: How did we get here?

Looking back to the 1990s, the World Wide Web was a place where we took our books, our research, and our lives online for easy retrieval: encyclopedias, medical records, and entire libraries. Slowly, Internet browsers improved, and we transitioned from the "Read Web" to the "Read-Write Web."

First blogging exploded, then social networks. Posting, upvoting, hearting, pinning, tweeting, liking, commenting, Instagramming, and clapping all joined the lexicon of Internet interaction. Facebook became a hallmark company of this 'read-write' Internet, called Web 2.0, where users became creators of trillions of rows of data by literally telling the company what they 'liked." Quietly - almost imperceptibly - as the read-write web grew, users lost control of their digital identity.

Ethereum inventor Vitalik Buterin said it best when asked about the relationships between users and free online platforms. "You are not the customer...therefore, you are the product."

Regulators in the US and the EU (through GDPR) are implementing legislative action to protect consumers from exploitative data vaults, as the blockchain industry aims to evolve the paradigm of the legacy, intermediated Web. Blockchain networks hypothesise a solution to data vulnerability through realignment of incentives of users and platforms. Advances in decentralised software, cryptography, and new incentivisation systems are ushering in a new vision for the Internet: Web 3.0.

Also known as the 'unmediated Read-Write web,' Web 3.0 represents a new way of organising Internet data. On blockchain networks like Ethereum, user data is owned by users and permissioned to platforms who hope to provide value. The new paradigm employs a decentralised computer network as the backend to applications, the figurative engine underneath the hood. No single entity controls your access to the information. The Ethereum blockchain is being used for decentralised application logic today, and other protocols are burgeoning for decentralised storage, bandwidth and heavy computing.

Decentralised applications (dApps), like Gitcoin and Bounties Network, are built on top of Ethereum's infrastructure. These applications build platforms with a symbiotic user relationship. Identity ownership remains with the user, primarily via their MetaMask account. In some instances, tokens are issued to users to formally align their incentives with the platform.

The 'smart contracts' between dApps and their participants are transparent - enforced on the Ethereum blockchain in open source code. In this new paradigm, a self-sovereign identity system can give you access to your entire digital identity. "Pushing" your data to trusted sources could become the norm, instead of "pulling" your information from the platforms who own it today.

Many Web 2.0 platforms began with good intentions and continue to serve a large public good. But the latest Facebook scandal has made us all more aware of our Faustian bargain with these networks: our data for your free platform. The way Internet is currently designed, Cambridge Analytica won't be the last instance where our data can be used against us. As wise investor Charlie Munger once said, "Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome."

It's naive to assume "information militarisation" will not continue to be a part of our lives. However, as the protocols of Web 3.0 continue to be built, we are given a choice for a new Internet framework that gives creators of information more power over those who seek to influence us.
Contributed article by Andrew Keys, Co-founder of ConsenSys Capital

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Web 3.0 Will Protect Our Online Identity - CryptoNewsReview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica, stated his former company held an "arsenal of weapons," for which Facebook user data was the uranium. Lawmakers in the US and UK have begun investigating Cambridge Analytica and the SCL Group for exploiting the designs of Facebook's database of personal information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
pwc global entertainment and media outlook; pwc global entertainment and media outlook 2017-2021; entertainment and media insights; entertainment and media data; pwc outlook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2018-2022 - Trending now: convergence, connections and trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PwC's Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2018-2022 offers insights on trends and consumer, advertising spend data by segment and territory.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/17/facebook-encrypted-network-gives-criminals-privacy-they-crave-john-naughton

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/25/cyberstalking-victim-urges-social-media-firms-tackle-problem-jessica-nordquist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study has confirmed something many news readers have long suspected: A lot of online commenters are more interested in brandishing their opinions in the comment section than reading the articles themselves.

More than half of the people who leave comments on news stories spend as much or more time on the comments as with the actual story, according to the study, from the Engaging News Project at the University of Texas at Austin. Almost 20% cop to spending more time on the comment section than on the story.

The results are part of an extensive examination of the people who comment on news organizations' websites, social media pages, apps, and in other forums. Talia Stroud, the study's lead author and an associate professor of communications at Austin, presented her report at a SXSW panel this week looking at news organizations' vexed relationship with user comments.

At their best, comment sections are thriving examples of civil discourse. At their worst, they are troll-infested pits of cruelty, bigotry, and ignorance, where personal attacks and slurs count as dialogue. (Case in point, here's a real comment on a recent NBCNews.com story on the upcoming GOP convention: "sorry but I am not bat@!$%# crazy, people like you are why the usa is so screwed up")

Perhaps because of this tone, the study found that most internet users stay away from news site comments and do not read or post them. One in three (35%) will look at comments but never chime in. Just 14% of internet users who have ever commented anywhere-Facebook, a product review site or otherwise-have done so on a news site.

Those who comment at least once a week are more likely to be men (64%) and to have a high school education or less (53%) than those who only allow themselves an occasional peek. For many of these enthusiastic commenters, the comment section may be the whole point of their visit.

"You would think people spend the lion's share of their time on the article and the comments are an afterthought," said Stroud.

Not so. Commenters may in fact barely digest the facts of a story before jumping in with an opinion, Stroud said. Some may get no farther than the headline before opining, particularly on an organization's Facebook page. For many commenters, the article is beside the point. For these users, a news site is just a meeting point for a thriving community.

Frustrated by the unruliness, outlets from Reuters to Mic have scrapped comments altogether. The Engaging News Project is one of many places looking at ways to harness these discussions for good. In the same SXSW panel, the Coral Project-a collaboration of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Mozilla Corporation-introduced Trust, an app that helps news organizations keep track of their commenters and moderate discussions.

One strategy that some organizations have tried is sending a reporter into the comment section to engage directly with readers-which has been shown to reduce "comment instability" (in other words, the crazy stuff) by 15%, Stroud noted.

How that intervention takes place is important. Sixty percent of commenters said they'd welcome journalists clarifying factual questions, but only 26% wanted reporters to direct the conversation. Understanding how participants see these forums could help turn them into more civil spaces.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research confirms that for many online commenters, the article is beside the point

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study has confirmed something many news readers have long suspected: A lot of online commenters are more interested in brandishing their opinions in the comment section than reading the articles themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We find ourselves in a filter bubble any time we're only surrounded by views and opinions we agree with, while being sheltered from opposing perspectives. Filter bubbles distort our understanding of the world and hamper our ability to make balanced decisions. Here's how to pop the bubble.
***

The Basics

Read the headline, tap, scroll, tap, tap, scroll.

It is a typical day and you are browsing your usual news site. The New Yorker, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, BBC, The Globe and Mail, take your pick. As you skim through articles, you share the best ones with like-minded friends and followers. Perhaps you add a comment.

Few of us sit down and decide to inform ourselves on a particular topic. For the most part, we pick up our smartphones or open a new tab, scroll through a favored site and click on whatever looks interesting. Or we look at Facebook or Twitter feeds to see what people are sharing. Chances are high that we are not doing this intending to become educated on a certain topic. No, we are probably waiting in line, reading on the bus or at the gym, procrastinating, or grappling with insomnia, looking for some form of entertainment.

We all do this skimming and sharing and clicking, and it seems so innocent. But many of us are uninformed about or uninterested in the forces affecting what we see online and how content affects us in return - and that ignorance has consequences.

The term "filter bubble" refers to the results of the algorithms that dictate what we encounter online. According to Eli Pariser, those algorithms create "a unique universe of information for each of us ... which fundamentally alters the way we encounter ideas and information."

Many sites offer personalized content selections, based on our browsing history, age, gender, location, and other data. The result is a flood of articles and posts that support our current opinions and perspectives to ensure that we enjoy what we see. Even when a site is not offering specifically targeted content, we all tend to follow people whose views align with ours. When those people share a piece of content, we can be sure it will be something we are also interested in.

That might not sound so bad, but filter bubbles create echo chambers. We assume that everyone thinks like us, and we forget that other perspectives exist.

Filter bubbles transcend web surfing. In important ways, your social circle is a filter bubble; so is your neighborhood. If you're living in a gated community, for example, you might think that reality is only BMWs, Teslas, and Mercedes. Your work circle acts as a filter bubble, too, depending on whom you know and at what level you operate.

One of the great problems with filters is our human tendency to think that what we see is all there is, without realizing that what we see is being filtered.

Eli Pariser on Filter Bubbles

The concept of filter bubbles was first identified by Eli Pariser, executive of Upworthy, activist, and author. In his revolutionary book Filter Bubbles, Pariser explained how Google searches bring up vastly differing results depending on the history of the user. He cites an example in which two people searched for "BP" (British Petroleum). One user saw news related to investing in the company. The other user received information about a recent oil spill.

Pariser describes how the internet tends to give us what we want:

Your computer monitor is a kind of one-way mirror, reflecting your own interests while algorithmic observers watch what you click.

Pariser terms this reflection a filter bubble, a "personal ecosystem of information." It insulates us from any sort of cognitive dissonance by limiting what we see. At the same time, virtually everything we do online is being monitored - for someone else's benefit.

Each time we click, watch, share, or comment, search engines and social platforms harvest information. In particular, this information serves to generate targeted advertisements. Most of us have experienced the odd sensation of deja vu as a product we took a look at online suddenly appears everywhere we go online, as well as in our email inboxes. Often this advertising continues until we succumb and purchase the product.

Targeted advertisements can help us to find what we need with ease, but costs exist:

Personalization is based on a bargain. In exchange for the service of filtering, you hand large companies an enormous amount of data about your daily life - much of which you might not trust your friends with.

The internet has changed a great deal from the early days, when people worried about strangers finding out who they were. Anonymity was once king. Now, our privacy has been sacrificed for the sake of advertising revenue:

What was once an anonymous medium where anyone could be anyone-where, in the words of the famous New Yorker cartoon, nobody knows you're a dog-is now a tool for soliciting and analyzing our personal data. According to one Wall Street Journal study, the top fifty Internet sites, from CNN to Yahoo to MSN, install an average of 64 data-laden cookies and personal tracking beacons each. Search for a word like "depression" on Dictionary. com, and the site installs up to 223 tracking cookies and beacons on your computer so that other Web sites can target you with antidepressants. Share an article about cooking on ABC News, and you may be chased around the Web by ads for Teflon-coated pots. Open-even for an instant-a page listing signs that your spouse may be cheating and prepare to be haunted with DNA paternity-test ads. The new Internet doesn't just know you're a dog; it knows your breed and wants to sell you a bowl of premium kibble.

The sources of this information can be unexpected. Companies gather it from places we might not even consider:

When you read books on your Kindle, the data about which phrases you highlight, which pages you turn, and whether you read straight through or skip around are all fed back into Amazon's servers and can be used to indicate what books you might like next. When you log in after a day reading Kindle e-books at the beach, Amazon can subtly customize its site to appeal to what you've read: If you've spent a lot of time with the latest James Patterson, but only glanced at that new diet guide, you might see more commercial thrillers and fewer health books.

One fact is certain. The personalization process is not crude or random. It operates along defined guidelines which are being refined every day. Honing occurs both on the whole and for individuals:

Most personalized filters are based on a three-step model. First, you figure out who people are and what they like. Then, you provide them with content and services that best fit them. Finally, you tune to get the fit just right. Your identity shapes your media. There's just one flaw in this logic: Media also shape identity. And as a result, these services may end up creating a good fit between you and your media by changing ... you.

In The Shallows, Nicholas Carr also covers online information collection. Carr notes that the more time we spend online, the richer the information we provide:

The faster we surf across the surface of the Web-the more links we click and pages we view-the more opportunities Google gains to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Its advertising system, moreover, is explicitly designed to figure out which messages are most likely to grab our attention and then to place those messages in our field of view. Every click we make on the Web marks a break in our concentration, a bottom-up disruption of our attention-and it's in Google's economic interest to make sure we click as often as possible.

Every single person who has ever spent time on the web knows how addictive the flow of stimulating information can be. No matter how disciplined we otherwise are, we cannot resist clicking related articles or scrolling through newsfeeds. There is a reason for this, as Pariser writes:

Personalized filters play to the most compulsive parts of you, creating "compulsive media" to get you to click things more.

In an attention economy, filter bubbles assist search engines, websites, and platforms in their goal to command the maximum possible share of our online time.

The Impact of Filter Bubbles

Each new technology brings with it a whole host of costs and benefits. Many are realized only as time passes. The invention of books led people to worry that memory and oral tradition would erode. Paper caused panic as young people switched from slates to this newfangled medium. Typewriters led to discussions of morality as female typists entered the job force and "distracted" men. The internet has been no exception. If anything, the issues presented by it are unique only in their complex intensity.

In particular, the existence of filter bubbles has led to widespread concern. Pariser writes:

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.

Pariser quotes Jon Chait as saying:

Partisans are more likely to consume news sources that confirm their ideological beliefs. People with more education are more likely to follow political news. Therefore, people with more education can actually become mis-educated.

Many people have debated the impact of filter bubbles on the recent US election and the Brexit vote. In both cases, large numbers of people were shocked by the outcome. Even those within the political and journalistic worlds expected the inverse results.

"We become, neurologically, what we think."
- Nicholas Carr

In the case of the Brexit vote, a large percentage of those who voted to leave the European Union were older people who are less active online, meaning that their views are less visible. Those who voted to remain tended to be younger and more active online, meaning that they were in an echo chamber of similar attitudes.

Democracy requires everyone to be equally informed. Yet filter bubbles are distorting our ideas of the world. In a paper for Princeton University, Jacob N. Shapiro revealed the extent of the influence on our voting:

The results of these experiments demonstrate that (i) biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) search ranking bias can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation. We call this type of influence, which might be applicable to a variety of attitudes and beliefs, the search engine manipulation effect. Given that many elections are won by small margins, our results suggest that a search engine company has the power to influence the results of a substantial number of elections with impunity. The impact of such manipulations would be especially large in countries dominated by a single search engine company.

Filter bubbles do not just occur on the internet. Shapiro provides an example from a decade ago of TV shifting the results of elections:

It is already well established that biased media sources such as newspapers, political polls, and television sway voters. 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. The Fox News Effect was also found to be smaller in television markets that were more competitive.

However, Shapiro believes the internet has a more dramatic effect than other forms of media:

Search rankings are controlled in most countries today by a single company. If, with or without intervention by company employees, the algorithm that ranked election-related information favored one candidate over another, competing candidates would have no way of compensating for the bias. It would be as if Fox News were the only television network in the country. Biased search rankings would, in effect, be an entirely new type of social influence, and it would be occurring on an unprecedented scale. Massive experiments conducted recently by social media giant Facebook have already introduced other unprecedented types of influence made possible by the Internet. Notably, an experiment reported recently suggested that flashing "VOTE" advertisements to 61 million Facebook users caused more than 340,000 people to vote that day who otherwise would not have done so.

In the US election and the Brexit vote, filter bubbles caused people to become insulated from alternative views. Some critics have theorized that the widespread derision of Trump and Leave voters led them to be less vocal, keeping their opinions within smaller communities to avoid confrontation. Those who voted for Clinton or to Remain loudly expressed themselves within filtered communities. Everyone, it seemed, agreed with each other. Except, they didn't, and no one noticed until it was too late.

A further issue with filter bubbles is that they are something we can only opt out of, not something we consent to. As of March 2017, an estimated 1.94 billion people have a Facebook account, of which 1.28 billion log on every day. It is safe to assume that only a small percentage are informed about the algorithms. Considering that 40% of people regard Facebook as their main news source, this is worrying. As with cognitive biases, a lack of awareness amplifies the impact of 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.

Scandals are becoming increasingly common, as sites and services are found to be harvesting details without consent. For example, Evernote came under fire when documents revealed that staff members can access documents, and Unroll's nasty habit of selling details of user email habits led to criticism. Even when this information is listed in user agreements or disclaimers, it can be difficult for users to ascertain from the confusing jargon how their data are being used, by whom, and why.

In his farewell speech, President Obama aired his personal concerns:

[We] retreat into our own bubbles, ... especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. ... And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there.

Filter bubbles can cause cognitive biases and shortcuts to manifest, amplifying their negative impact on our ability to think in a logical and critical manner. A combination of social proof, availability bias, confirmation bias, and bias from disliking/liking is prevalent. As Pariser writes:

The filter bubble tends to dramatically amplify confirmation bias-in a way, it's designed to. Consuming information that conforms to our ideas of the world is easy and pleasurable; consuming information that challenges us to think in new ways or question our assumptions is frustrating and difficult. This is why partisans of one political stripe tend not to consume the media of another. As a result, an information environment built on click signals will favor content that supports our existing notions about the world over content that challenges them.

Pariser sums up the result of extensive filtration: "A world constructed from the familiar is the world in which there's nothing to learn."

Filter Bubbles and Group Psychology

We have an inherent desire to be around those who are like us and reinforce our worldview. Our online behavior is no different. People form tribes based on interests, location, employment, affiliation, and other details. These groups - subreddits, Tumblr fandoms, Facebook groups, Google+ circles, etc. - have their own rules, conventions, in-jokes, and even vocabulary. Within groups (even if members never meet each other), beliefs intensify. Anyone who disagrees may be ousted from the community. Sociologists call this behaviour "communal reinforcement" and stress that the ideas perpetuated can have no relation to reality or empirical evidence.

"When you're asked to fight a war that's over nothing, it's best to join the side that's going to win."
- Conor Oberst

Communal reinforcement can be positive. Groups geared towards people with mental health problems, chronic illnesses, addictions, and other issues are often supportive and assist many people who might not have another outlet.

However, when a group is encased within a filter bubble, it can lead to groupthink. This is a psychological phenomenon wherein groups of people experience a temporary loss of the ability to think in a rational, moral and realistic manner. When the members of a group are all exposed to the same confirmatory information, the results can be extreme. Symptoms include being excessively optimistic, taking risks, ignoring legal and social conventions, regarding those outside the group as enemies, censoring opposing ideas, and pressuring members to conform. As occurred with the US election and the Brexit vote, those experiencing groupthink within a filter bubble see themselves as in the right and struggle to consider alternative perspectives.

For example, imagine a Facebook group for Trump supporters in the months prior to the election. Members share pro-Trump news items, discuss policies and circulate cohesive information among themselves. Groupthink sets in, as the members selectively process information, fail to evaluate alternative viewpoints, fail to consider risks, haze any members who disagree, and even ignore the possibility of a negative outcome. From the outside, we can see the issues with a combination of filter bubbles and groupthink, but they can be hard to identify from the inside.

How Can We Avoid Filter Bubbles?

Thankfully, it is not difficult to pop the filter bubble if we make an effort to do so. Methods for doing this include:

Using ad-blocking browser extensions. These remove the majority of advertisements from websites we visit. The downside is that most sites rely on advertising revenue to support their work, and some (such as Forbes and Business Insider) insist on users' disabling ad blockers before viewing a page.

Reading news sites and blogs which aim to provide a wide range of perspectives. Pariser's own site, Upworthy, aims to do this. Others, including The Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, BBC, and AP news claim to offer a balanced view of the world. Regardless of the sources we frequent, a brief analysis of the front page will provide a good idea of any biases. In the wake of the US election, a number of newsletters, sites, apps, and podcasts are working to pop the filter bubble. An excellent example is Colin Wright's podcast, Let's Know Things (http://letsknowthings.com/), which examines a news story in context each week.

Switching our focus from entertainment to education. As Nicholas Carr writes in The Shallows: "The Net's interactivity gives us powerful new tools for finding information, expressing ourselves, and conversing with others. It also turns us into lab rats constantly pressing levers to get tiny pellets of social or intellectual nourishment."

Using Incognito browsing, deleting our search histories, and doing what we need to do online without logging into our accounts.

Deleting or blocking browser cookies. For the uninitiated, many websites plant "cookies" (small text files) each time we visit them; those cookies are then used to determine what content to show us. Cookies can be manually deleted, and browser extensions are available which remove them. In some instances, cookies are useful, so removal should be done with discretion.

Fish don't know they are in the water and we don't know we are in a filter bubble unless we take the effort to (as David Bowie put it) leave the capsule - if you dare.

In shaping what we see, filter bubbles show us a distorted map and not the terrain. In so doing, they trick our brains into thinking that this is the reality. As technology improves and the ability of someone like the NYT, say, to show the same story to 100 different people using 100 different ways, the filter bubble becomes deeper. We lose track of what's filtered and what's not as the news becomes tailored to cement our existing opinions. After all, everyone wants to read a newspaper that agrees with them.

Systems - be they people, cultures, or web browsing, to name a few examples - naturally have to filter information and thus they reduce options. Sometimes people make decisions, sometimes cultures make them, and increasingly algorithms make them. As the speed of information flowing through these systems increases, filters will play an even more important role.

Understanding that what we see is not all there is will help us realize that we're living in a distorted world and remind us to take off the glasses.

For more information on filter bubbles, consider reading Filter Bubbles by Eli Pariser, So, You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson, The Shallows by Nicholas Carr or The Net Delusion by Evgeny Morozov.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Filter Bubbles Distort Reality: Everything You Need to Know - Farnam Street

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We find ourselves in a filter bubble any time we're only surrounded by views and opinions we agree with, while being sheltered from opposing perspectives. Filter bubbles distort our understanding of the world and hamper our ability to make balanced decisions. Here's how to pop the bubble.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

A global Facebook executive in charge of the tech giant's policies governing the algorithms that choose the news and content its users see in its news feed believes the social media platform is helping to dismantle so-called "filter bubbles" rather than create them.

Facebook uses personalised algorithms to determine which posts from friends and liked groups shows up in a user's newsfeed, with constant changes being made on the basis of what posts people interact with and how they use the social media site.

Facebook does not believe its platform contributes to "filter bubbles". Credit:AAP

The use of algorithms to determine what posts are put in front of a user has become contentious in recent years, with critics saying it creates "echo chambers" or "filter bubbles" where people are shown only content that agrees with their opinions regardless of the accuracy of the information.

Facebook manager of algorithm policy Andy O'Connell, who is visiting Sydney, said the algorithms prioritise content that users find meaningful and not only "what engages you or keeps you there".

"As just a factual matter it seems like Facebook is potentially contributing to breaking down filter bubbles," he said, pointing to Reuters research in 2017 that suggested Facebook users were "twice as likely" to engage with content from the other side of a debate.

The Australian competition regulator is in the final months of investigating the impact of the digital platforms, including Facebook and Google, on traditional publishers and the public's media consumption and has warned of a "real risk" of consequences of filter bubbles.

As just a factual matter it seems like Facebook is potentially contributing to breaking down filter bubbles.
Facebook's Andy O'Connell

One of the suggestions is for a "badge" marking content that complies with a journalism code of practice.

Mr O'Connell is particularly wary of any government involvement in what can appear in newsfeeds and oversight of technology platforms' algorithms.

"I think that it's important that people be in control of their personal technology use and so I am concerned about the idea of a government body in particular telling people what they can and can't see on social media," he said.

"We strongly support efforts to promote high-quality journalism, identify best practices, give users more signals of the different types of quality of the content."

The ACCC's report said its proposals to reduce the risks of filter bubbles would "not interfere with how the algorithms select and display news and journalism, the news stories which consumers may choose to access ...or press freedom".

Facebook has internal data on which pages and publishers have promoted fake news as determined by fact-checkers. About 5 per cent of the content users interact with on the social media site is broadly considered news content and Facebook has recently rolled out some fact-checking units globally and additional context around some articles.

However, rather than deleting fake news articles, or stories that have been repeatedly debunked, Facebook "downranks" them so they are rarely seen.

"I think that people don't want Facebook to be the global arbiter of truth. We don't think that would be a good path to head down. The idea of deleting content or deleting peoples' expression because it's not true should give us all pause," he said.

The comments come as British politicians have described Facebook as a "digital gangster" that exploited market power, violates users' privacy to make a profit and resists government scrutiny in a report from the House of Common s.

The report said democracy was "at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation an personalised 'dark adverts' from unidentifiable sources" delivered through major social media platforms.

Jennifer Duke is a media and telecommunications journalist for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook says its algorithms help counter echo chamber

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Facebook executive in charge of the tech giant's policies governing the algorithms that choose the news and content its users see in its news feed believes the social media platform is helping to dismantle "filter bubbles" rather than create them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Safety rules ‘ends social media’s era of self-regulation’

# data[].attributes.subject
Safety rules ‘ends social media’s era of self-regulation’

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/safety-rules-ends-social-media-s-era-of-self-regulation-ltg2z7t8w

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Virtual reality (VR) has a great deal of potential for the betterment of society - whether it be inspiring social change or training surgeons for delicate medical procedures.

But as with all new technologies, we should also be aware of any potential ethical concerns that could emerge as social problems further down the line. Here I list just a few issues that should undoubtedly be considered before we forge ahead in optimism.

1) Sensory vulnerability

When we think of virtual reality, we automatically conjure images of clunky headsets covering the eyes - and often the ears - of users in order to create a fully immersive experience. There are also VR gloves and a growing range of other accessories and attachments. Though the resultant feel might be hyper-realistic, we should also be concerned for people using these in the home - especially alone. Having limited access to sense data leaves users vulnerable to accidents, home invasions, and any other misfortunes that can come of being totally distracted.

2) Social isolation

There's a lot of debate around whether VR is socially isolating. On the one hand, the whole experience takes place within a single user's field-of-vision, excluding others from physically participating alongside them. On the other hand, developers like Facebook have been busy inventing communal meeting places like Spaces, which help VR users meet and interact in a virtual social environment. Though, as argued, the latter could be helpfully utilized by the introverted and lonely (such as seniors), there's also a danger that it could become the lazy and dismissive way of dealing with these issues.

There is also the question of whether forums like Spaces may even end-up "detaching" users by leading them to neglect their real-world social connections. Studies have already demonstrated that our existing social media consumption is making many of us feel socially isolated, as well as guilty and depressed. There's also plenty of evidence to show that real face-to-face interactions are a crucial factor in maintaining good mental health. Substituting them with VR without further study would be ill-advised.

3) Desensitization

It is well-acknowledged that being thoroughly and regularly immersed in a virtual reality environment can lead some users to become desensitized in the real-world. Indeed, VR is already employed to as a tool to desensitize and emotionally harden individuals against phobias, and even military combat. However, outside of this supervised use, desensitization could become a danger, leaving users unaffected (or less affected) by - for example - the acts of violence found in some VR gameplay.

Last year, academic researchers in the U.S. released the results of a longitudinal study which found that repeatedly playing violent video games led to decreased emotional sensitivity and a lessened capacity for guilt among participants. Due to higher levels of immersion, we have some reason to suspect that these effects could be even more potent with virtual reality.

4) Overestimation of abilities

Akin to desensitization, is the problem of users overestimating their ability to perform virtual feats just as well in the real-world. This is especially applicable to children and young people who could take it that their expertise in tightrope walking, parkour, or car driving will transfer seamlessly over to nonvirtual environments.

Indeed, a recent study from Stanford University evidenced how children often fail to distinguish between their feats in real-life and in VR - from treating their avatars as though they are their real bodies, to watching their virtual reality doppelgangers swimming with orcas and then recalling it as a real-life memory.

5) Psychiatric

There could also be more profound and dangerous psychological effects on some users (although clearly there are currently a lot of unknowns). Experts in neuroscience and the human mind have spoken of "depersonalization", which can result in a user believing their own physical body is an avatar. There is also a pertinent worry that VR might be swift to expose psychiatric vulnerabilities in some users, and spark psychotic episodes. One investor has even warned that virtual reality gaming could cause real-life post-traumatic stress disorder.

Needless to say, we must identify the psychological risks and symptoms ahead of market saturation, if that is an inevitability.

6) Unpalatable fantasies

If there's any industry getting excited about virtual reality, it's the porn industry (predicted to be the third largest VR sector by 2025, after gaming and NFL-related content). The adult entertainment website Pornhub is already reporting that views of VR content are up 225 percent since it debuted in 2016. This obviously isn't an ethical problem in and of itself, but it does become problematic if/when "unpalatable" fantasies become immersive. We have to ask: should there be limitations on uber realistic representations of aggressive, borderline-pedophilic, or other more perverse types of VR erotica? Or outside of the realm of porn, to what extent is it OK to make a game out of the events of 9/11, as is the case with the 08.46 simulator?

7) Torture/virtual criminality

Philosopher Thomas Metzinger is one of a growing number that have expressed concern that VR headsets could be employed by the military as a kind of "ethical" alternative to regular interrogatory torture. Whether this is truth or speculation, it nevertheless establishes a critical need to understand the status of pain, damage, violence, and trauma inflicted by other users in a virtual environment - be it physical or psychological.

At what point does virtual behavior constitute a real-world criminal act?

8) Manipulation

Attempts at consumer manipulation via advertising trickery are not new, but up until now they've been 2-dimensional. As such, they've had to work hard compete with our distracted focus. Phones ringing, babies crying, traffic, conversations, music, noisy neighbors, interesting reads, and all the rest. With VR, commercial advertisers will have access to our entire surrounding environment ( which some psychologists argue has the power to control our behavior). This will ramp up revenue opportunities for developers, who now have (literally) whole new worlds of blank space upon which they can sell advertising.

Commentators are already warning that this could lead to new, covert tactics involving product placement, brand integration and subliminal advertising.

9) Appropriate roaming and re-creation

One of the most exciting selling points of VR is that it can let us roam the earth from the comfort of our own homes. This is obviously a laudable, liberating experience for those who are unable to travel. However, as with augmented reality, we probably need to have conversations about where it is appropriate to roam and/or re-create as a virtual experience. Is it fine for me to wander through a re-creation of my favorite celebrity's apartment (I can imagine many fans would adore the idea!)? Or peep through windows of homes and businesses in any given city street? The answers to some of these questions may seem obvious to us, but we cannot assume that the ethical parameters of this capability are clear to all who may use or develop.

10) Privacy and data

Last, but not least, the more we "merge" into a virtual world, the more of ourselves we are likely to give away. This might mean more and greater privacy worries. German researchers have raised the concern that if our online avatars mirror our real-world movements and gestures, these "motor intentions" and the "kinetic fingerprints" of our unique movement signatures can be tracked, read, and exploited by predatory entities. Again, it's clear that there needs to be an open and consultative dialogue with regards to what is collectable, and what should be off-limits in terms of our virtual activities.

This list is not exhaustive, and some of these concerns will be proven groundless in good time. Regardless, as non-technicians and future users, we are right to demand full and clear explanations as to how these tripwires will be averted or mitigated by VR companies.
Fiona J. McEvoy is a tech ethics researcher and founder of YouTheData.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 ethical concerns that will shape the VR industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guest Virtual reality (VR) has a great deal of potential for the betterment of society - whether it be inspiring social change or training surgeons for delicate medical procedures. But as with all new technologies, we should also be aware of any potential ethical concerns that could emerge as social problems further down the line.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not every new technology product hits the shelves.

Tech companies kill products and ideas all the time - sometimes it's because they don't work, sometimes there's no market.

Or maybe, it might be too dangerous.

Recently, the research firm OpenAI announced that it would not be releasing a version of a text generator they developed, because of fears that it could be misused to create fake news. The text generator was designed to improve dialogue and speech recognition in artificial intelligence technologies.

The organization's GPT-2 text generator can generate paragraphs of coherent, continuing text based off of a prompt from a human. For example, when inputted with the claim, "John F. Kennedy was just elected President of the United States after rising from the grave decades after his assassination," the generator spit out the transcript of "his acceptance speech" that read in part:

It is time once again. I believe this nation can do great things if the people make their voices heard. The men and women of America must once more summon our best elements, all our ingenuity, and find a way to turn such overwhelming tragedy into the opportunity for a greater good and the fulfillment of all our dreams.

Considering the serious issues around fake news and online propaganda that came to light during the 2016 elections, it's easy to see how this tool could be used for harm.

In fact, the 2016 election helped raise awareness of an issue that Flickr co-founder Caterina Fake has been talking about in Silicon Valley for years - the ethics of technology.

That conversation was furthered by OpenAI's decision to publicize the nonrelease of their new technology last month, Fake told NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro.

"Tech companies don't launch products all the time, but it's rare that they announce that they're not launching a product, which is what has happened here," Fake said. "The announcement of not launching this product is basically to involve people in the conversation around what is and what is not dangerous tech."

When evaluating potential new technology, Fake asks a fundamental question: should this exist?

It's a question she explores as host of the podcast Should This Exist?

In a recent episode, Fake investigates a product called Woebot, which is an artificial intelligence-driven robot therapist. NPR spoke with Fake about the ethics of this new technology - and technology as a whole.

Interview Highlights
On evaluating Woebot
As we know, depression has increased, which has followed very closely the introduction of technology into our lives.

My initial impulse was, "Gosh, should we use technology to cure the problems of technology? That seems misguided." But, by the end of thinking through some of the possibilities of this technology, I became convinced that in fact, this was probably a good solution for it.
On the changing approach of technology developers
When we had first started Flickr, we kind of understood that what we were building was online community. Online community is something where you show up - you are yourself, you have to participate and you have to negotiate the culture of the community in which you are participating.

In a social media platform, you are so-called "eyeballs." You are a product that is being sold to advertisers. It's a completely different dynamic. When things switched from being, very early on, thought of as "online community" to being thought of as "social media," the dynamics of the entire software changed.
On technology's potential for good or evil
I feel as if technology can always be used for good, right? It has neutral valence. It is the way that humans use it, how we approach it and how we think about it - that is the most important part of technology and technology in our lives.
On how to handle technology's potential to be misused
The important part of this is to acculturate people to asking these questions. As we all know, Millennials and Gen Z and the younger folk are much more thoughtful about: what are the values behind this product or this program? And what does it do to us?

NPR's Amanda Morris produced this story for digital. NPR's Mayowa Aina produced this story for broadcast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should This Exist? The Ethics Of New Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not every new technology product hits the shelves. Tech companies kill products and ideas all the time - sometimes it's because they don't work, sometimes there's no market. Or maybe, it might be too dangerous.

# data[].attributes.body
-Yan Cai

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2019/02/14/five-digital-marketing-trends-for-2019/#5e3b64f32a80

# data[].attributes.body
- Raluca Timar

# data[].attributes.body
- Cristina Tenorio

# data[].attributes.body
- Eva de Boer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by Tom Jenkins, CNN

In October 2015, Balmain creative director Olivier Rousteing joined CNN Style as guest editor. He commissioned a series of features on the theme of #diversity, exploring issues around fashion, politics, gender, family, race and culture.

Instagram's fifth birthday party had a guest list stretching to 400 million. That's how many monthly active users the photo-sharing app now has and almost half of them are under 25. In the triumvirate of social media (along with Facebook and Twitter), it's definitely the cool one.

Much of the platform's appeal lies in it simplicity, hence developers have changed very little since its inception. But with the introduction of sponsored posts it feel like Instagram is at something of a crossroads. Will it lose its idiosyncratic creative spirit or simply push on to the next level with a whole host of new features?

Only time will tell, but let's get serious for a minute and forget the filtering fun and unobtainable constructed reality, and examine how Instagram really is changing the world.

The best Instagram accounts are aspirational, but they also tell a story. The fashion world is starting to catch on to this.

Designers and brands are responding to a desire for storytelling, inviting their Instagram followers into a previously closed world. Show lighting and set design is planned with Instagram in mind and it's now the place where trends become reality and model's careers are made.

Olivier Rousteing recently previewed Balmain's SS16 ready-to-wear collection on his feed -- many of his 1.3 million followers may not be able to afford the clothes or lifestyle (yet), but they can be part of the conversation.

"It's democratising fashion," says Eva Chen, former editor-in-chief of Lucky Magazine and now Instagram's Head of Fashion Partnerships. "There's a greater connection to the customer now. Instagram enables brands to build a voice and speak more specifically to their audiences. Designers are not just thinking about the people at the shows. It humanises [designers] I think."

Art and fashion are gloriously intertwined currently, and Instagram is helping to open the former to a wider audience too.

Brett Gorvy, International Head of Post-War and Contemporary Art at Christie's is a fan and thinks it's "changing how people perceive artists." Internet artist Rafaël Rozendaal, who uses Instagram to preview artworks for his project websites, agrees: "I use it as an open studio to show the process of my work, and also my life, which is work too.

It opens up the artistic process to a broader audience; it demystifies the life of artists. At the same time it creates myths. Instagram is an extra organ, an extension of the body. I would like it if the likes and comments weren't there though. Just images, no hierarchy."

Instagram is broadening our horizons as we seek ever more photogenic locations, while travel brands are commissioning popular Instagram photographers as part of their marketing approach.

Eelco Roos, who has shot for Travel Alberta, as well as brands such as Samsung and Ducati, quit his job as an IT Consultant for IBM and is now one of the most popular photographers on Instagram. "For travel brands, Instagram is more measurable than traditional media in terms of finding out what an audience thinks. I haven't experienced hostility from 'traditional' photographers, but I do have to defend ways of photography other than the traditional ones sometimes."

Instagram is also opening Western eyes to more inaccessible places, Iran for example, where Facebook and Twitter are banned, and accounts such as @everydayafrica are challenging preconceptions. Taylor Pemberton, a designer and creative director, left his home in New York earlier this year to pursue a nomadic lifestyle as a photographer. He eventually found himself in North Korea: "I had this hope that even though the tourism experience is sanctioned, my camera could see past the façade and bring forth the everyday nuances that exist in human life. I think a platform like Instagram is giving people a glimpse into other worlds, cultures, and topics. Like other forms of media, some Instagram accounts create more education than controversy, more conviction than humour."

It's also making us more adventurous with what we eat.

Without Instagram, there would be no food porn.

As with fashion, this is where trends become reality and food writers such as Hemsley and Hemsley, whose super healthy dishes, with their rich and often bold colour palettes, seem almost tailor-made for the format, enjoy huge followings.

However, eating out (and in) has become such a documentable event that many people spend more time trying to get the perfect shot than enjoying the food. "Sometimes I wonder if guests are present at the table when they are obsessing about photographing everything they eat," says Massimo Bottura, chef patron of Osteria Francescan a, voted second best restaurant in the world. "One time a guest suggested I change the colour of the plates (from white to black) because he said the photographs would look better."

Instagram has the power to impart rapid fame and there are certainly personalities who seem to exist solely in the Instagram world -- back to that unobtainable constructed reality. But it's also possible for relative unknowns to gain sudden worldwide recognition for the quality of their work. Sam Yeldham's stunning photograph of a newly wed couple stood against a stormy Sydney Harbour recently went viral. "The attention has been positive. I think regardless of the era, all forms of impactful or engaging art will always find an audience," he says.

Online bullying and trolling is rife across all social media of course, but high-profile users, such as supermodel Gigi Hadid, are able to generate significant debate by highlighting their own experiences. "I think it [Instagram] has given celebrities more control over how their own lives are seen," says photographer Greg Williams, who captures the famous in candid moments for his #artofbehindthescenes project.

Social media by nature is a perfect campaigning tool and Instagram's youthful demographic are more active than most, whether on wider issues in society (#ifttheygunnedmedown), or contradictory rules governing social media itself (#freethenipple).

Brooklyn-based photojournalist and activist Ruddy Roye feels Instagram has allowed him to leapfrog media gatekeepers and get his voice heard: "Up until I started using it I was at the mercy of editors. Before, we depended on magazines and television and the Internet to a smaller degree to give us a window into faraway worlds, not so anymore. I use it mostly to highlight the ills of my community," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
untangling instagram's growing web of influence - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Untangling Instagram's growing web of influence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Written by Tom Jenkins, CNN In October 2015, Balmain creative director Olivier Rousteing joined CNN Style as guest editor. He commissioned a series of features on the theme of #diversity, exploring issues around fashion, politics, gender, family, race and culture. Instagram's fifth birthday party had a guest list stretching to 400 million.

# data[].attributes.body
- Stella Liemen