spec do believe june agitate chris matthews is. [laughter] of thank you very much. nice to meet you.

foundation. to find out more about anncoulter and her work, visit what anncoulter.com. anncoulter will be a booktv guest on in depth on august 7th for 3 hours beginning noon eastern she will take phone calls, e-mail questions and with tweets.

coming up next, booktv presents "after words," an hourlong program where we invite a guest hosts to interview authors. this week, eli pariser exposes internet secrets in his new book, "the filter bubble with the internet is hiding from you." in it the board president of moveon.org argues that internet search engines, social media and online companies are all minute to lanning content to fit users, personalizing information in a potentially detrimental way. he discusses his concerns and solutions for a loss of privacy with author and professor clay shirkey. >> host: great to be here with you to read let me start by asking the most basic question about the thesis. your book is titled "the filter

bubble with the internet is hiding from you." but the internet technology can't do anything on its own without someone choosing to make it do something so is it doing this hiding and what are we missing when things are hidden from us? >> guest: this is a short cut but certainly increase in a number of the top web sites and services and other applications editing experience of the web and a personalized way. what that means is essentially collecting data from us and using it to curate to prioritize pieces of data and show the things they think we are going to want to see at google this happens in the search results different people get different results for the same term based on with a click on in the past or what google knows about what kind of person they are on

yahoo! use it happens and the stories themselves this is spreading across being based into more and more services on line for a simple reason which is that it can provide this sort of the code word as relevant you keep people coming back and presumably provide a better experience for them but the danger here is because it's very hard to see how your internet differs from any one else is on what basis it's being edited or carried you don't know what's being left out, you don't know -- you're not seeing with the other people might be seeing and most don't have a sense that it is happening at all. >> host: the internet is turning into unknown unknowns, not even aware that it's out there again.

not knowing what can people we are using that as a way faltering searches >> guest: he google one engineer told me they collect 57 different variables about people who even if you are not logged in you take a new laptop and put it on the desk right here how you can tell what at opposite or software is it running howarth ulin during before you click on a link and all these things can be used to make guesses on what kind of person you are there is different people and small font

people and this allows you to make those gases that may not be a good portrait of view it almost certainly isn't at that point, but you don't need that much in order to be able to do this with an increase in optimization and i talked to the folks at how much, a personalization site and they say actually you need very little data to start to have a love predicted power, so five data points, five particular data points you can then get any other data point within 80% accuracy. >> host: datapoint sounds a little vague. what would they need to know about me to make these predictions? >> guest: the ceo of how much said, and i can remember about four of them, there's gender, introvert, extrovert tends to be

a signal come there's political orientation, which is a proxy for a lot of other lifestyle or maybe lifestyle things a proxy for that that turns out to be -- >> host: you use the word is this -- vespa. >> guest: and for your generation will taste if you like the health and or some sort of trendy hotel. >> generational case rather than a feige seóul hilton verses the w. as a hotel to place, is that a better predictor than knowing if someone's 25455? >> it's a proxy for age. they try to ask questions that don't ask the question they are trying to get at.

liberal or conservative or harley were vespa is more fun. >> host: people don't get weird about the answer in a way that would feel -- >> guest: no, it helps get the information out that you need. with the five data points, you can then predict out with 80% accuracy almost any other question when you are saying here are four or five things let's rank them on this person's taste and not only that but if you have to people answering those questions and you know they are friends with a third person and you don't know anything about a third person you can still predict that person with 80% accuracy having gathered these data points. >> it's the social networks we are all part of our exporting information even if i'm not. >> guest: it's one of these things i don't -- i think that

people who say privacy is over often have an interest in the same fast and i don't totally by debt, but there is a way in which known about us can increasingly be inferred by a what is known about our friends, and it's in their hands we've come outsourced. >> host: there was a paper written out of mit saying we can infer your sexual preference and figure out whether you are gay or not based on your social network. but you're saying that is a general principle, that kind of inference social network. >> guest: it is also there's a really -- you wouldn't want it to make a lot of particular -- you wouldn't want to use that to make important decisions for the simple reason which is that -- let me rephrase that if you're a business you might want to use it to make important decisions. if you're an individual we

really don't want that to be the way the decisions are made about us because it is guilt by association in the case of being gay obviously been the case of you can actually see six you can get someone's credit rating based on their friends. should banks not offer people loans because their friends have bad credit ratings? i don't think we want to get into that world but actually because there is so much of this data and its opaque what is done with that we are more in that world than we think we are. >> host: we have a scandal in new york about 15 or 20 years ago where banks would net line certain districts and would not give loans to businesses in harlem because that became the essentially the metric by which rather than looking at individuals. what you're saying in a way is each of us is potentially in a

kind of district and our own and each of us could be redlined for things true of our network but not of ourselves. >> guest: that's right and there's a great book but my great sword that details how geographically there's this self sorting happening we live in neighborhoods that are homogenous. my neighborhood from brooklyn has people like me that that's true across-the-board and you would hold at least when you go on-line and would be stepping outside that. people in my neighborhood don't like me but here i'm going to be exposed to the broad world increasingly we are seeing that kind of situation where the information we are supposed to get solved sorted as well beast on what people like us would like. >> host: you say that you would hope and that is a normative judgments about what

should be the case, and yet people are moving into neighborhoods of people like them out of choice. this is not now forced segregation. it's the ghettoization. >> the interesting thing is the big sword is have about affluent people moving to where people like them live and who gets left behind where basically people -- teacher late or the rust belt city where the people who can't afford to self sort to some neighborhood in chicago or new york people like them because they can't move. >> host: it sounds like the danger you're focusing on here is somewhat to the individual you don't want people to make

judgments about us based on guilt by association but it's the society as a whole if we understand you the dillinger of this is really about what happens to the larger social group. >> what if we get better and better at relevance. >> guest: one is just the very basic thing of being able to empathize with, understand what's going on and someone else's life for what a different perspective might look like. and if you are exposed to lots of different flavors kind of pieces of information, if you are seeing stories that really to not that relevant but other people calls your attention to certain problems. the thing i think about a lot as homelessness, it's very easy to

pretend that problem doesn't exist at all. if you live in certain neighborhoods, you can imagine nobody's ever homeless. that's not a very good situation and at a sort of conference from well-off entrepreneurs and venture capital people and and decided there was a crisis lots of people didn't have jobs in america that wasn't the crisis for them because they don't know anyone who doesn't have jobs, and frankly i don't know of that many people out of work because of this recession. we know they are out there -- there's a lot of them. but it's just a statistic. >> 5% of people that i know personally and that is a

dangerous -- that is what was concerning because, you know, you want to have some ability to track at a societal level here are the things that matter overall even if they are not relevant to my own particular thing. and zuckerberg, i'm fond of this quote from mark zuckerberg where he says the thing that the news peace, what's great is a squirrel in your front yard -- the facebook news feed is a squirrel dhaka being in your front yard may be more relevant to your interest right now and people dying in africa. he's saying let's show people the squirrel, and this sort of points to the problem which is it wouldn't be good if we were just looking at our front yard. >> host: you are going back and forth between a statement like that it wouldn't be good if people are only looking at the front door and saying you want to be in a situation where you

are more aware of what other people say. but i think for a lot of fuss we don't want to be in that situation. we actually prefer having relevance given to us. how do you get a round of the eat your peas feel to the argument? >> guest: people to eat peas or you have an obesity -- the challenge here is a question of want and the teacher says why shouldn't people get what they want? and what i am saying is we want a lot of different things. we want to eat cake and be thin and healthy. we want a lot. >> host: watch 40 hours of tv and be fit. >> guest: and we want to be entertained and and we want to

be informed citizens and know about the world. there are few people who are not calling to check that on a survey yes i want to be informed citizen and i want to know what's going on in the world. to them the question is given the internal tension how to the media institutions -- how do these things serve different wants? - what's going on here is because you can easily track the more short-term kind of compulsive wants, i'm going to click fess, you get the body is in that direction and a kind of compulsive media and this is a lot of what facebook is. it's very rare that i or anyone i talked to walks away from facebook saying i had the most relevant to the experience of

facebook. i learned about the world, it was a rich experience, that's not what happens, and it's not built to do that, it's built to give you kind of a little compulsive tidbits that give you a little flash of dopamine or feel good but it doesn't actually -- it doesn't change the way you look at the world, and it is almost as if next to the like but in you want -- it was a hard slug at first but then it changed my life. [laughter] >> host: the writing icon in the essay world there is now an attempt to do that. i would now like to say that i'm going to read that leader. there's an application called news got me that started results

saying in the past you said you want to read this leaders said they are trying to stretch the time commitment >> guest: that's where you can -- to be clear, i'm not nostalgic for the good old days when there were editors who just knew their stuff. >> host: i would not accuse you. >> guest: but i do think there are things those media knew or learned how to do that have not yet made it into a lot of the elder riss mix that currently happened. >> host: that is certainly true given i spent a lot of time that the media environment a lot of what we contribute to the companies is the scarcity that was around them, they could be a uncertain because they were not under quite the same competitive pressure. i remember when walter cronkite

dhaka and the emotion in part and we were bearing the world. you can't have someone that can say that's the way it is every night without contradiction on the internet. >> host: but here i think comes the tension a round of this harnessing of the media entity for civic and goods and just a commercial actor in the competitive mind so you tell the story of going on to facebook and branding people much more conservative than you and facebook not showing you what they were saying and not surfacing their activities in your news feed because facebook observed, the elder rett mix observe you were not interacting with those people but isn't it also possible from facebook point of view if you try to see what someone is doing without interacting that you are spying on them and facebook is not in the business of showing you what

other people are doing because you're not having the kind of real connection? >> guest: it gets to the question of revealed verses expressed preferences. so, this is one thing should i trust when you say you're one or your behavior indicates you want. the preference is saying -- in this case i said i want to hear from these people on facebook says yes, but you're not beating as if you did is we are not going to show it to you and this is one of the interesting power struggles or in this kind of media netflix those the same thing now it used to be about expressed preferences and clicking on the five stars and netflix will know i like these movies and what they found was that that didn't work that well because people gave schindler's list five stars. how could you not? it is a great movie and now that

they have the streaming on netflix they can say yes we watched five minutes of that but then you click over to fast and furious that's what you prefer and a way this gets me back to the of what is the preference and should you trust me when i say that i prefer something more my behavior, do you want even though people don't believe in the way that they say that they will but there's a lot of value in taking them at their word and giving them that kind of agency debt just as a general principle you want people to make decisions about what they do. you don't want to have to behave in a certain way that then leads to business. >> host: businesses want people to get. the tension between the sort of commercial and civic dalia

especially when you say you have to trust me when i say something you point to the idea there's two different meats to the commanding. there is to meet its reduced of the next five minutes and the need that is going to distance the next five years and i commit to wanting a wider sense of the world in five years. businesses that serve me five seconds at a time are undermining this longer-term. >> guest: this goes back to the useful in biology i want to be thin and healthy person but a boy that burger king burger looks awfully good that's the sort of tension. you can say it's people's choice. they can choose to have burger king or not but actually to change the behavior you need better signaling a from i would argue you need the companies to say here's how healthy this is for you so you have a guidepost

on which to know this, and then encourage people to use the options as well. those are three things you might do to come from that problem. here you don't have any sense of what the options are necessarily. you don't necessarily know what else is on the menu, and part of what this is about, i think, sort of trying to make this more passive of the media that -- >> host: make online a more passive media? >> guest: yes, so he essentially what i certainly love about the internet is that it's an interactive thing. steve jobsites said -- said you have to be leaning forward, and at the same time that's not

actually, if what you're trying to do is deliver ads for media that has ads or whatever doesn't necessarily what you want because people are going to click over to some other site so how do you provide a stream of things that keep you there watching youtube instead of quitting over to facebook or whatever and when you talk about a competitive environment, that is what people have realized is the way you do that, how do you do enough of the leg work that people stick with you finding the next thing. >> host: everybody in america has grown up in an environment where an advertiser can get so much information coded to our zip code. famously if you tell me your zip code i can tell you what you drink and what toothpaste you

use. we nevertheless lived in that world and were relatively satisfied. we may have preferred it to away world in which advertisers knew nothing about because of the myth. how is it different than that, the so-called prez encoding, grouping people why is it code how is it different from that and is this a bigger threat than that and if so, how much bigger? >> guest: obviously it's different in that the grouping can be much more desperate so if i am an owls lawyer in my zip code you have the geographical self-serving and the order, personalities of sorting flipping a part. they are not happening in the same important consequences because there are some values to being actually plug into

whatever is going on. the broadway that it's different i think one important way that it's different is, you know, not a shared experience with the of the people right around you so if you turn on your local tv news, then you are all in the same stories and narratives for better or worse. and you can live in a different universe than the person right next door. but the bigger problem is again, that you can't see the contour of the -- you don't know that it's local news even if it is local news in a way. because you know, you know,

local news is news for people that live near you and we are all increasingly getting local news for people like us and your us in a different sense, but it doesn't say that it's that. it doesn't reveal that it's that. >> host: when i do a google search it's not like living in a locality of want. >> guest: the same way of google news, you don't get a sense of how -- have any standard deviations and on the on from other people in my area that the average -- you don't get a sense of how different your experience is, and that's important because the process of figuring out what is going on, what is true or real is this

process of triangulation a lot of the time where you are comparing the study about liberals listening to rush limbaugh, and it doesn't make them change their mind and come to that. they don't all of a sudden realize that he was right. they do start to realize that a lot of the believe they held strongly aren't supported buy very much information or arguments they have. it calls attention to the limits of the understanding of the topic actually and that's really valuable and what is happening in the world you want to have your attention called to where are the places i know i know this and what are the places i think i know but i may not.

the known and unknown parameter and you don't want unknown unknown -- >> host: i didn't know people think different -- in the phrase earlier, you said you called the part of the company's a code word. is this what it's a code word for? >> guest: i guess again it gets to the -- i think there's a simplistic idea of what relevance is. i got into this argument with google and i said okay you say that you want to provide relevant, but if i am a 9/11 conspiracy theorists and on google 9/11 as the most relevant result the 19 the most likely to clich which is how you are defining the personal relevance or is it the popular mechanics article that debunks that.

>> host: relevant but not that you like -- >> guest: relevant but uncomfortable and being a puerto rico guy you're sort of like i will get back to you. it wasn't -- they didn't have an answer with that is a hard question. >> host: have you posed that question to the search engineers? >> guest: i did have a question with a search engineer and he said we try to bring some diversity into the mix but when you hear of larry schmidt or larry page say what we want google to do is provide one search result, the right one it doesn't make any sense in a way for certain kinds of ways people are using this. there's no right one for 9/11.

>> host: what's take a break and then come back and talk about what we do with all of this. >> host: in the stories you tell about google and facebook and the filterable, you talk about the political limitation of what we can see about the world and for most who think about the internet are interested in what is happening that thesis affect the political conversation and cason steen's book republic dhaka, cannot and there was a 2.0 version of it introduced the idea of the echo chamber itself selecting enclaves on the internet just as

a general concern. how would you present your thesis next to sunstein on republic.com? >> guest: especially in the first round people are most familiar with talking about the sort of explicit self selection. i am a neo-nazi who is going to the news online and even getting indoctrinated, amping myself up and i can exclude the whole rest of the world the first thing that's different about this is that its fourth pass of experience people don't have to know they are shaping to see what they see increasingly they visit websites and it needs to be relevant or interesting you

see the editing and that is important because of understanding with the editorial sensitivity is important. if you are trying to see what the world is, knowing yes i'm looking at this firm fox news not about obama i should make sure i'm not looking at is that msnbc, so that part about selecting the filters through which you see the world, he has that as people are going to go out and do this you don't even get to that. when you hear people talk about

the future of tv. the future of tv show after show someone like que will white. i often think that because of the nature the way the algorithms are instructed this is where it departs more from sunstein's world in a way there are things that fallout sources as unintended consequences of doing that. so, again, to go in the future of tv, presumably the news comes on very rarely for people in that future, or certainly a half-hour block of news and whatever, that's just not built in. >> host: and is already gone to celebrity news and much less of its original.

>> guest: there's a political scientist marcus prior who does interesting littleness and track but world versus the cable will versus the internet world of political knowledge and basically says there's good reason to believe in the old world of three each news channels and if you want to watch tv at six you have to watch the news you had a bell curve essentially most people group in the middle and what they learned about politics and the house to increase the trees to get a power curve that no amazingly much. >> host: we are in heaven right now. >> guest: the average moves downward on the curve because on

balance peopled necessarily preferred should i watch the news now for another episode of -- >> host: housewives. >> guest: yeah. so again it's a challenge of if you're going to look at the world through these algorithms that are trying to figure out relevance or would you like how do you balance those conflicting impulses and get it to do what i would argue the media of the 21st century has done yes the new yorker has articles and cartoons and most magazines are like that. it's entertaining you will read the long stories. >> host: not all magazines are like that. he >> guest: a lot of pop

nonsense and good music reporting and whoever's doing this expos same on the political world is a nice format for having people know what the world and as you get bundling and all the different pieces available, without having to see what pieces they are grouped with you lose that and it requires the algorithms building that back in. >> host: you are simultaneously saying that the large size chunks of media, whether it was we only have three networks and the news for an hour every night and magazines that had a lot of it for everybody in order to get everybody to be willing to support the subscription everybody had to subsidize of devotee else a little bit.

i'm struck by how that is in engineering terms absolutely inefficient. more efficient on engineering is unbelievably much better and yet we use the subsidy. >> guest: the question is how do you define a efficiency? >> host: specifically engineering terms. >> guest: a five-star moving on netflix is worth we more than four because actually what you want is not only to have people have a good time on netflix but to have movies that stay with them for 20 years. this is where these come. >> here's the question. engineering almost never reverses. we never get to the point we say we missed the horses. we think this car thing is overrated we won the internal combustion engine back. so we got this explosively efficient network now that is

casually unbundling and destroying the engineer in efficiencies that made the media in the 20th century work the way that it did, and you are not installed just, so we can't use the old method to get the old value. but the old value of of exposure to lots of things and the idea in terms of lots of people come across subsidies are still important, so starting from here and moving forward rather than backwards, what do we do? >> guest: i think in the ways i am reporting to two different problems. one is personalization isn't very good right now. it's not very -- >> host: does it get better or worse -- >> guest: no, because it doesn't understand -- it doesn't

have a very good view of the nuances of what we want. host good of the five-year personalization. >> guest: right, and it's still very much you're interested in coming you know, computers and death software, so it's not the drawing of a larger emphasis you make because you can actually do very well sticking to these little narrow territories so you could use it to introduce people for more than they've been introduced to but because it's not very good. the second problem is yes, there are some places where you want to introduce things pulling in some other direction that are not going to be at least in the short term the most efficient solution, so you want to say i

suppose the market argument for that would be that that is actually what is satisfy in the discovery and i didn't think i would be interested in this but it turned out that i was. and i think it is why people stick with if you look at the media environment isn't all -- it wasn't as of the rise to as it could have been and magazines are for newspapers didn't just print what, they were told other things and part of it is because it reflects back to be an idea that you are learning about things that gives you that feeling of getting to know about the world and a broadening your heart by is and and people like that feeling, and the algorithms we have right now are pretty crude of providing that feeling and i would argue some of those

things it's going to be awhile before we can start to fully debate them. knowing that we can get more people to read this directly follows this piece about something else because they have some kind of intangible symmetry or they are somehow working together that is some of the art that needs to be built back into this stuff, so engineering doesn't go back but engineering can learn more from this we have cars now we are not going back to horses there are things we can learn from nature how to build better cars and so how do we learn from some of the service finer points that have made some of the best media good in the 20th century how do we take that and then figure out to new code this in? and the other piece is how do you provide people with better

-- how do you make this a multi dimensional kind of sorting system? so, to go to facebook for a moment, like is such a particular things people are easy to like and particular things harder to like, things easy to like move across facebook more rapidly and things harder to like there's no inherent reason that would be hard to say there's also an important button and a dislike, and in a way this is how -- we've learned so much in the folks on me tagging a kind of world on the different ways that you can sort the media, but we haven't -- it hasn't applied to the media. how do you say -- this comes up on facebook just in the sense of facebook doesn't really know who i naturally friends with and who raise my family, it would

presumably be a better service if you could figure out a way to do that that was on intrusive, partly i think we -- there are -- you can get a big game by doing the first step and getting it to your mail, we are going to show more stuff about gadgets or whatever. so, but to get to the place where it is actually good it may not deliver as much profit and it's harder. >> host: that doesn't sound like a winning book in the comics for business. >> guest: we love coming up with clever ways of making people spend more minutes on facebook. that's what we love to do and what you are asking us to do is mess around with these complicated social questions, you know, this is all kind of like we just want to do the fun

simple stuff where we figure out a clever -- we show people this and they will stay on facebook more. you know, i think the balance of that could be people start to understand how this is all working and there's some kind of a feed literacy that people say i want to be able to shift this a little bit differently or i want to have a bitter experience and they start to find people are taking them up because they have that desire. >> that's the supply side, and i'm struck when you are talking we should do this and we could do that with algorithms and tooting and so forth and it's pretty clear the weakness to leave the class of engineers who work on gathering signals and making predictive models, the people like netflix movie recommendations taken to some kind of level but most of us are

not silicon valley engineers so there's also the demand side so let's say i am a citizen who thinks i'm never going to be -- i never going to be a news junkie. i'm not going to see someone who nervously consumes anything on any subject hold up because that burba keep was from paradise but i do want to use the network to get more broad sense of the world than i am currently getting, and i can't go in and change of google search algorithm. what can an individual deutsch to say i want a more varied and media? >> guest: different platforms do this in different ways, so facebook does this a lot. twitter, at least until yesterday, hasn't done this very much, so i lost my conservative friends on facebook. i never see them anymore. i see them on the twitter and

that is because twitter has a very simple and transparent rule which is you follow them if you're logging on to twitter now and see their stuff. >> host: what happened yesterday? >> guest: what happened yesterday is twitter is starting to succumb to the same motivation for the same reasons so when you search for something on twitter now you get the most relevant to wait for you, not -- the most recent and that explains the conversations i had with people at twitter where i said it's so great that you are holding the line on this and they said jack it's really hard. it's a hard question. but at the moment any way, this is a tool that does at least allow you to say i want to hear from -- i follow karl rove and rachel pat-down and "the new

york times" and together i'm going to get a kind of sense of what is going on. >> host: the twitter stream, if i follow someone comment witter isn't affecting the austria but they are manipulating the search which is a lot of the way the people -- the phenomenon of google and climate change and maybe get results that are for people like me can now move to twitter bugling climate change and getting a tweet from people. >> host: there are no skeptics because i don't find --. it's useful to all of us to see that, to be reminded that and actually understand those arguments if we have a and i mean that button or some -- >> host: it sounds like my

expressed preferences i should actually be allowed to override my own personality with an expressed preference of i want to. it's let me turn on or off your behavioral rating of me. sometimes i just want to come home and veg out in front of the tv and you do your best to show me videos i think are going to be funny and i will keep watching as long as you do. that's fine but i want to be able to opt out of that some time and have it be a kind of explicit -- i want to know that that is what you're doing and part of the challenge of where we are right now is that a reason that this is not transparent is it creeps a lot of people out when it's done explicitly that a lot of the -- if you track the history of this

it started explicitly with microsoft and these little personal avatars and cartoon fever pletka they will go out and do things for you and it's annoying and creepy and very bad. it just doesn't work that well when you think of it as a person who knows you because they don't know you very well and is in that smart. if you put that underneath the surface of things and you're not saying to people you know, i'm doing this task you're just showing them stuff, then we will click on these links much more. the thought experiment is i am not sure if you had a tab at the top of google, the personalized regular google i think a lot of people would choose the regular. >> host: if they are bending things in a direction.

i'm struck by the story about mit the port on the personalization which is called the beginning and developed the window and you say what you like, and people heeded hearing when they made explicit choices they hated hearing the taste so predictable cause everybody likes to hear they have a collective. they would say if you like this you may like slater. how can you predict this? when the net perceptions came along it didn't because no one was ever asked into the system

and had the cognitive dissidence that people are willing to be shown in things they might like the they don't like being told. we are making sausage for you and this is how the sausages made if you don't like. >> guest: the argument would be with engineers they say people aren't really demanding this that you want or the algorithm to be changed in any particular way, how can you have consumer pressure about a product they don't know exists? you can't get hate mail on that. it doesn't exist. >> host: it would be like the cigarette companies singing the additives we're putting in no one is complaining about them. >> host: let me ask you this again in a really explicit way.

coast hugging who globally minded liberal, i want to see what a different slice of my own country in the world i am currently getting and using google and facebook and the standard media so i want to break out of this bubble that you have convinced me exists. i go home and open up a browser and then what? >> guest: i did say right now is the best and the simplest thing that you could do is go to twitter and put together the stream that includes the sources that give you out of this debt and the nice thing about twittered, one of the things a newspaper page does and you pointed this out is you're not

going to read all the stories as they exist, and you can skip over them exchanges from be known and unknown. it doesn't mean that i read all the stories but at least then i start to get a sense of this is what everybody's talking about. and i also follows of loggers in the middle of the country that are not a part of the coastal -- it is a fun exercise in a way to say what are the different places here i need to get a pretty good view of what's going on? of course you never get it because you know everything and this is the sort of naive realism trap which is in philosophical terms you believe what you see about the world and

we all do that to some extent as best we try to say i know things are being edited out, i'm going to pay attention to that. we are all susceptible to that, but if you are choosing and you want to get a good view of the world you can do a lot better than facebook or google work google news for gold or in doing that you can get a much better view. >> host: so you believe for you see but the awful feedback now increasingly through the search and personalization you have to make and infer your believe in the range that you see contracts. so i find people wonder who are in the kind of image i care about, but twitter is not yet a

news feed although it has some of those characteristics and i think about the sources of the personalization of google news, yahoo! news which are presumably doing this kind of faltering. if i want to change my news, what do i do? experimenting. >> guest: i don't know. i think twitter does -- it is a proxy for news and most news agencies now or on twitter and i think actually the google news wrestled with some of the problems more than other parts and they thought about this a bit and people think of it as a kind of machine news and the dirty secret is a totally won't work as soon as the newspaper editors go away.

it weighs with the newspaper editors judgments are very highly and even the placement on the page and what the font size is kamal of that is taken in. those are human judgments aggregating the judgment of the expert human journalist editors not doing some sort of your -- in a way i think they do some of these things that the google search for example i don't know if it's doing as much. i think -- the solution to this problem -- >> host: google search does judgment in the choice but what you're saying about news is it is consuming a judgment of a particular class of trained individuals, not just anybody that is looking to share -- >> if a newspaper front page editor are very disproportionately related and

as far as i understanding this would be dangerous i think for other people to look at the google news and say this is the future of the news because the future won't be dependent necessarily on that class of people who google news is unbundling and alienating. the thing i'm excited about in a way as i think the solution to this is doable but not yet done at an algorithm like level and i run into more and more people who are at journalism school or programmers who say we are working on that product. it's actually like