Anderson, J. (2016). Deceptive indoctrination: Censorship and the freedom to explore. Journal of Information Ethics, 25(2), 5-9.

Citation

Anderson, J. (2016). Deceptive indoctrination: Censorship and the freedom to explore. Journal of Information Ethics, 25(2), 5-9.

Annotation

Anderson's article shows the ways in which we as a society are unwittingly engaging in silent censorship and confirmation bias. It all starts with a simple search with which companies like Google or Yahoo tracking the information about what was searched for. Based on this search these search engines will then begin to tailor your search experience directly to you, by pre-filtering search results based on your past searches (p. 6). With this cycle soon our search results will only yield exactly what we are looking for, which is a good thing right? Anderson correctly asserts that this is not conducive to free thinking and does not allow people to see other points of view that could expand their thinking. The rest of this article focuses on the use of what Anderson refers to as "discovery software" but can also be called databases (p.7). In light of the fact that these vendors are looking to get the most value out of their investment, they often will not package smaller or lesser-known enterprises that might publish content against the current trends or viewpoints, meaning that while users think they are getting a well-rounded experience this is not the case. The "discovery software" these companies often pair with their "recommendation technology" is a reiteration of the same problem. The software will recommend additional articles based on a number of factors like references in other papers or what other people who have read the same article clicked on next. Additionally, this can also cross over into purchasing decisions in libraries. If one library has had great success with one particular vendor's product, another library might also want to purchase it leading to the libraries all providing the same information to their patrons, for better or worse (p. 8).

With all that being said, Anderson makes the information easy to understand and does so in a manner that is effective for a wide range of audiences. This article brings up excellent points in regards to the field of library and information science because it reminds us that even when we buy this packaged information for patrons, we are not always able to address all viewpoints. While it might be in the library's best interest to buy the same package as another library who has had success with it, professionals in the field must also remember that in doing so they are perpetuating the cycle of silent censorship and confirmation biases. It is important to remember not to be satisfied with one side of an argument or point of view but to explore other points of view. I think Anderson's article is well-rounded, straight to the point, and provides actual ways in which this issue can be rectified. We must take steps to return these products back into the research tools they were meant to be as opposed to the portals of "knowledge elite" they have become (p.9).

Areas / Topics / Keywords

Censorship, Confirmation Bias, Recommendation Technology