In recent times, a significant debate has emerged regarding the phenomenon known as the "information cocoon," encompassing various aspects pertaining to the construction of mechanisms designed to prevent the dominance of this issue and enhance the diversity and richness of the content being disseminated.

Coined by Cass RSunstein, a Harvard professor, the term "information cocoon" embodies a specific environment—an appealing and comfortable haven where individuals are surrounded solely by content that aligns with their preferencesIn this secluded space, discussions regarding different viewpoints and topics often manifest as mere echoes of one’s own opinions.

The central mechanism at play here is the algorithms employed by various online platforms, which leverage user data such as clicks, browsing history, and searchesThese algorithms tailor a selective stream of information for users, effectively minimizing exposure to diverse perspectives and constructing a metaphorical "black box" where only curated narratives are visible.

This raises critical questions: How do we feel when confined within this "black box"? Are we aware of the implications?

In today's era defined by an avalanche of information, the challenge users face has shifted

Instead of merely seeking out knowledge, individuals must now ascertain the authenticity of the information presented to themThis environment of uncertainty presents a fertile ground for algorithms to flourish.

The construction of an "echo chamber" due to the information cocoon concept implies that, regardless of how niche one’s interests or peculiar one’s thoughts might be, the algorithms will always ensure that someone with similar viewpoints will be foundEvery piece of content that garners a user’s approval—be it images, videos, or articles—serves as reinforcement of their own perspectives.

Thus, consumers are shown only what they desire to see, creating a false sense of "freedom" and "happiness." However, this perceived liberty may merely represent an illusion crafted by algorithms operating like walls of a pen, containing and restricting users.

More alarmingly, algorithms are evolving

• Debt Costs Soar as Banks Reevaluate Deposit Strategies
• Crypto Surge Pushes Major Indices to New Highs
• Bitcoin Breaks $100,000 Barrier
• MCU: Struggles and Breakthroughs
• Oil Prices Expected to Fall to $65/Barrel Next Year

The initial version—Algorithm 1.0—depended on users actively choosing and gathering information, commonly utilizing collaborative filtering techniques to detect user preferences based on historical behavior and subsequently recommend productsMany are familiar with this from online shopping platforms' "You may also like" features.

As we progressed into Algorithm 2.0, big data became incorporated, diminishing the need for personal selection since machines directly pushed content attuned to user preferences.

Regardless of race, social status, or group affiliation, these algorithms ensure that individuals are confronted only with information that resonates with their inclinations, crafting a narrative that feels valid and justifiedUsers, convinced that their opinions represent the ultimate truth, find satisfaction in these affirmations.

Yet, Algorithm 2.0 seldom acknowledges the creation of an information cocoon

Instead, it touts its achievements as "customized outreach," "vertical recommendations," or "precise marketing," portraying these actions as legitimate commercial endeavors.

Take, for instance, the interest-based recommendations from platforms like TikTok and KuaishouWhile they appear neutral at first glance, the algorithm's impact on various groups can significantly differ.

For most "broad-interest" users, the recommended content might range from pets and travel to technology, with categories such as "attractive individuals" often overshadowing and outnumbering the more innocuous interests.

In contrast, those leading unvaried lives, prone to repetitive routines, may find that such algorithm-driven recommendations adversely affect their perspectivesThis demographic spans across broad categories—blue-collar workers, senior citizens, and even young schoolchildren.

Sustained under the relentless grip of algorithms, these groups may easily get lost in an all-consuming world centered around superficial content, responding to disparate information that may severely misalign with their lived realities.

Consider the elderly, engrossed in health and lifestyle short films, presuming that extravagant wealth can lead to attraction—like a wealthy individual falling for a cleaning lady

Blue-collar workers, after long, exhausting days, might be driven to engage in suggestive live-streams, albeit depleting their earnings in the pursuit of fleeting excitement.

Even younger students risk being exposed to inappropriate content far earlier than their age would suggest.

The convergence of these densely-packed populations, directed by algorithms that prioritize mere opinions over genuine nuance, poses severe societal ramifications.

If one could only exist in the bubble of their desires, many might argue this is acceptableAfter all, isn’t it just “entertainment”? Why not seize the opportunity to escape from the harshness of reality for a while?

But what if these algorithms start shaping your understanding?

The essence of one's "cognition" relies on an interplay of the volume of information consumed and the capacity to process it

The more information one assimilates, the sturdier the knowledge foundation supporting their cognition.

However, what if the information one consumes is rife with “misleading” elements? Picture this: you open TikTok or Kuaishou, scrolling through ten videosIf nine of them champion the LGBT movement, would you not presume that LGBT representation has become the societal norm? Would heteronormativity become a minority view?

Should this information shape your cognitive field, congratulations! You’ve now entered the second phase of the algorithmic loop: unless you refute these ideas, it means overturning an entire network of beliefs.

Ironically, a satire fits perfectly in summing up our current algorithm-driven realityImagine elementary school kids passionately discussing "Journey to the West," with most insisting that Tang Seng’s robe is blackOne child vehemently argues it's red, only to get beaten down by classmates

Later, that same girl brings her peers home, demonstrating that not every television is black and white, unveiling the existence of color TVs.

This illustrates an underlying problem—the moment you regard the "black robe" as truth, the "red robe" accrues connotation of heresy, inviting hostility against alternative voices and perspectives.

To enlighten these black-robed individuals, one must dismantle their entire cognition, penetrating the mental frosts binding their insight to reveal the true essence of reality.

Reflecting upon "The Matrix," one is faced with a choice: do you prefer to remain within the comforting grip of algorithmic predictability, or confront the unforgiving starkness of reality? Will you choose the blue pill or the red pill?

Most people are likely to lean toward the parallels of their customized digital world, regardless of how it dictates their encounters with information.

French economist Cédric Durand penned a thought-provoking text titled "Technological Feudalism," wherein he casts a rather bleak vision of algorithmic enterprises as the "landowners" and the users as mere "serfs."

Durand argues that the application of algorithms and digital technologies has transformed users into digital serfs

Algorithms that analyze user data to predict actions convert these behavioral patterns into profits for the companies behind themUsers become entrapped within this algorithmic dominion, losing their autonomy and subjecting themselves to the whims of an algorithmic logic they did not choose.

A quintessential example of the dynamic between "landowners and serfs" appears through gig economy workers—such as food delivery riders or rideshare drivers—believing they enjoy the freedom of self-determined schedules devoid of direct oversight from managementHowever, this sense of autonomy often masks the reality of their lives as they remain bound to the demands of algorithms and system protocols that govern routes and pricing.

Additionally, the narrative around social pressure is subtly redirected to present conflicts arising between customers and drivers, suggesting that none of the pricing or route decisions stem from independent algorithmic actions—evading accountability for systemic issues that lie beyond individual interactions.

This brings us full circle back to Durand’s main theme in "Technological Feudalism": every interaction we partake in generates data, which these algorithms then exploit for optimization and decision-making