eldavojohn writes: Eli Pariser gave a talk at TED that posits that tailoring algorithms are creating 'filter bubbles' around each user that restricts the information that reaches you to be — unsurprisingly — only what you want to see. While you might be happy that your preferred liberal or conservative news hits you, you'll never get to see the converse. This is because Google, Facebook, newspaper sites and even Netflix filter what hits you before you get to see it. And since they give you what you want, you never see the opposing viewpoints or step outside your comfort zone. It amounts to a claim of censorship through personalization and now that every site does it, it's commingle a problem. Pariser calls for all sites implementing these algorithms to embed in the algorithms "some sense of public life" and also have transparency so you can understand why your Google search might look different than someone with opposing tastes. Is there even a way to opt for unfiltered searches on Amazon or unfiltered news feeds on Facebook? Pariser has been warning about this for at least a year.
generalepsilon writes: Researchers from the University of Washington have found a key reason why Starcraft is a popular spectator sport, especially in Korea. In a paper published last week, they theorize that Starcraft incorporates 'information asymmetry', where the players and spectators each have different pieces of information, which transforms into entertainment. Sometimes spectators know something the players don't: they watch in suspense as players walk their armies into traps or a dropship sneaks behind the mineral line. Other times, players know something the spectators yearn to find out, such as 'cheese' (spectacular build orders that attempt to outplay an opponent early in the game). Rather than giving as much information as possible to spectators, it may be more crucial for game designers to decide which information to give to spectators, and when to reveal this information.