See Inside
Ninety-nine percent of us live on the wrong side of a one-way mirror
Segregation and separation are on the rise. The fun of personalization has a dark side.
This article was originally published with the title A Tale of Two Internets.
Michael Fertik is founder and CEO of Reputation.com, which is a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Future of the Internet.
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ @SteveMirsky @jgold85 this conversation is making me hungry!
SteveMirsky @BoraZ @jgold85 Did some research on this years ago. Was under the impression that only the beaver tail was considered fish. Seriously!
erbrod Great post about Max Fisher's ridiculous WaPo global racism map http://t.co/SEoZ8tubU6 cc @susarm
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Rights & Permissions
44 Comments
Add CommentThe title and subtitle of this article is unfortunate. I agree to the details of the article but they are unrelated to the title. The targeting of consumers applies, in a good/bad way both for the rich and the poor. For example, it was reported that visitors of a site that uses Mac are served higher prices than PC users and the narrowing of the view also applies to all parts of society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only assume that the authors, or the editor, tried to push their political message and thought this was the most appropriate place, although it is not. It is odd to find such unscientific behavior in the same edition that brings an excellent article by Michael Shermer that demonstrates how tunnel vision applies to both extremes of the political map.
Unfortunately, Mr. Fertik clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Our online political lives are not being placed between blinders. On any political article I read, I find a mixture of conservative and liberal postings interspersed. This is true of Scientific American, Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post, and the National Review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis suggests that Mr. Fertik is confusing what might be theoretically possible from what is practically possible. Getting good strong clean signals out of background noise is hard enough when you get to define all the APIs and you control the complete software stack. Suggesting that you can control the signals in the messy world that is the internet with competing interests, overlapping areas of control, multiple accounts per person including incognito accounts, etc, is sheer fantasy.
Shades of “1984”! It looks like corporate “Big Brother” has arrived, as software algorithms molded by corporations rather than the Government. But is there actual research to back up these assertions? It would be interesting to study this effect definitively and quantitatively by sitting rich and poor imprinted PCs side by side and measuring differences in internet query responses for various search engines, corporations and products – including information products. Are results also dependent on geographical region? USA Vs Canada? Blue State Vs Red? Race? Language? Various users/“Big Data“ record sets could in effect be created by researchers by providing specific human responses and usage histories. The research opportunities are incredibly huge and rich. I would like to better determine how spooked-out and outraged I should be. I look forward to seeing the results of such research, if I am judged by the internet gods as worthy of viewing them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, both on-line and print version titles and the sub-tile (same in print and on-line versions) are 'over the top' but I suspect this is motivated primarily by the intent to garner reader attention rather than politics. The titles for other articles are similarly sensationalized. I am more bothered by the apparent lack of a research basis for the assertions made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's probably wide spread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe WSJ (yes that paper) published a researched piece on December 24
"Websites Vary Prices, Deals Based on Users' Information"
I hope this link will work
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323777204578189391813881534-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwODExNDgyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email
How can you read this article and not see that the title is precisely reflected in the facts contained in the body? When you get different ads than I do, and different PRICES than I do, how exactly that not a different internet for the rich and the poor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not news folks. This has been reality for a long time. The issue is not remotely whether or not you agree... it IS happening. The only issue remaining is how far will we allow it to go?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This is not news folks. This has been reality for a long time. The issue is not remotely whether or not you agree... it IS happening. The only issue remaining is how far will we allow it to go?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat right do we have in determining how far we will let it go?
If the folks who have more money chooses to spend their money to get a better internet experience, what business is it of ours?
How does this fit within the "patient as consumer" in accessing and receiving healthcare? Does "consumer driven" healthcare and "personalized" healthcare also reflect invisible and silent discrimination? Are people suffering, being harmed and dying as a result?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis "article" is not "scientific" or "American", or "Scientific American" quality, just sensationalism, with a strong dose of "class warfare". It strongly implies that "the rich" are credit worthy and "the poor" have no credit worthiness. It also states that "1 percent manipulates our experiences", like that is a terrible injustice. Governments have been doing that for some time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's say you are the manager of a Maserati dealership. Would you spend YOUR advertising money in downtown Detroit or Hollywood?? Come on now, think real hard.
So that's why I get buy-here pay-here ads and my boss listens to "La Vie en rose".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnybody knows an app or website which checks these options and offers me the best discount? Like price comparison website, but with personalization options. With prices differing by 10%, there is money to be made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as I get less advertising pop ups and better offers than the next guy I will not complain. Older people less ready to part with a buck online than younger people are probably spared the worst.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI took this as a provocative op-ed piece, not as some bit of primary research on the matter. The article was designed to make you think, coax you to do your own research. I enjoyed it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some things I do:
1) Use a pop-up blocker (Adblock on Chrome or Firefox for example). Why in the world do people still view ads online anyway? I have used this free service so long that I forget there are even things such as internet ads. Even if I am on a machine that does not block them, I certainly never click on the stupid things.
2) Surf incognito. If you want to see if your collection of cookies, your login information, or your other data is crafting a different internet experience, then open a separate browser in "private browsing" mode and compare side by side. I doubt you find much difference. Or step it up and use a proxy to make yourself more anonymous if you get really paranoid.
3) Be boring. Analyze my data all you want, I'll bet I am not that much different than 80,000 other guys my age in my "habits". Data is a useful predictor in aggregate, but is seldom as useful on the individual level.
4) Let your kids surf (and watch Netflix streaming) on your account. Holy cow, if anyone thought they knew me well enough to target my behaviors, now they are completely confused. My two kiddos took care of that!
Lol, so the current distribution of wealth is somehow perfectly legit? Who would fall for that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMight one suggest that post-financial-crisis (if indeed it can even be called 'post') we should all be profoundly grateful that glamorous sounding credit is not being advertised to those who cannot afford it? Do we really want another sub-prime collapse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDemographically targeted advertising is about as new as the Industrial Revolution which made it necessary! Where once our consumer worthiness was judged by the papers and magazines we bought, then the television programs we watched, now it's determined by our Internet use? Big whoop!
Right on Michael Fertik ! The pricing divide is only an example of how our worlds are being manipulated. We are powerless to reverse the trend, but it will not take all of us down with our eyes shut.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI might add that it is not a maneuver orchestrated by power brokers to silence the masses. We are doing it to ourselves through sales and marketing practices that we all practice and promote. We are our own worst enemies.
It's difficult for me to imagine that anyone should pay any attention to whatever ads are being displayed, anyway. Personally, I only notice how much time my browser is delayed waiting for access to all the ad sites and access counters, etc. - especially on the sciam.com pages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do very little shopping online or otherwise, but it doesn't make much difference to me how personal the ads that get displayed might be - I'm ignoring them.
Now, what would be much more troubling is the extent to which web search results might be selectively filtered for me, potentially hiding content from me that others might privy to...
"Sports viewers see a different Internet than the rest of us do."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Those who take ocean cruises a lot see a different Internet than the rest of us do."
And so on, for a hundred different categories of things people do searches on, buy tickets for, and so on.
Where's the _science_ in this? It's yet another screed about classism, privilege, blah blah.
As for getting unwanted credit card applications, I try to avoid such worthless offers whenever possible. Frankly, the "poor" are well-served by not getting such offers. Ditto for search ads inviting them to try to the latest XYZ. (And if people are worried about Google tracking them, they can use DuckDuckGo, https://duckduckgo.com, or other anonymizers and proxies. And they can set their browsers to reveal less, to not accept cookies, and so on.
Again, no "science" in this article, which belongs in "Ramparts" or "Mother Jones," not the once-great "Scientific American."
As stated in many posts herein, this article is said to be ideological in nature. The fact is, this article is factual in nature and the facts are offending the readers' ideology. This offended perspective is clearly one of intellectual sanctimony where the ability to parse the influences of these types of search and ad placement technologies is considered the end user's responsibility and not to be examined in light of their effect on the tenets of a free market, where all players must by definition have access to the same information (much less the tenets of democracy itself).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed, it is precisely this article that works to include as many people as possible in that same perspective of responsibility by disseminating the hidden information (exploitative agenda) to everyone.
That so many herein cannot tolerate such dissemination outside of their own narrow ideological confines can only be attributed to their preference for hoarding of resources for a select group of insiders. It is therefore evident that the ideology conflict in question is between the Egalitarian perspective and Elitist's perspective.
In that Egalitarian perspectives are at the heart of the US Constitution and comprise the foundation of democracy, any ideology that is offended is likely to be somewhat anti-democratic in nature, wherein it is considered good practice to keep some citizens at an (informational) disadvantage. Thus any accusation by the reader of ideological intrusion is inherently mutual and structural and not simply the presumptive journalistic failings of the author and publishers. Hope this helps.
Whiny socialism marches on: How are the poor somehow deprived of the advantages of wealth, simply by the advertising of things they could not begin to afford? For example, when I searched for new hybrid cars, I was served new car ads in droves. Its called relevance. A poor car buyer has little use for these ads. Proof that the article is rubbish: If you somehow feel deprived of advertising for the rich, all anyone has to do, is search for an expensive object or art for sale, such as a Monet at a gallery. You will be bombarded with ads for things you could not possibly afford!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't get to see many ads these days thanks to the plugins I use but even if I did, I'd rather not have to wade through all those 1%er ads I'm now privileged to not qualify for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFind what you want, add it to your shopping cart and never finish the sale. Simply minimize the screen and wait it out to see what the eyes on the other side of your screen decide to do.
I find profiling entertaining, personally.
What nonsense, jim15936. Folks don't care that they are not seeing ads for products they can't afford. Even a free market ideologue like yourself would be upset at being shown a higher price for a product based on your propensity to buy it compared to the average consumer. The market is rigged against you based on personal habits. That's the problem with elevating ideology over the evidence at hand. You miss the point that is most central to your ideology due to the pursuit of other's departures from the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat sums it up nicely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Internet sadly is nothing like the biological neural network in 'Avatar' !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA sense of quietness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike a
young dove
in the breath
of a feeling,
with a tender
desire in the
light of a
dream....
Francesco Sinibaldi
And China sees a different Internet than America--one in which it can rob us blind and destroy our infrastructure at some future date.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are being trained like Pavlovian dogs to respond to certain headlines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assume only those who favor "rich-poor" articles received notice of this article.
This is the electronic version of "I've fallen and I cannot get up." If you are being victimized by your choices, change them. It should have been painfully obvious long before not that internet based services were not being provided for your well being. They were about a mass delusion of needing to be connected never mind those doing the connecting were bleeding you dry. The average family who claims they can not afford health insurance are spending on average $400 per month on data & entertainment services. That is the equivalent of an extra car!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs someone who values my online privacy very highly, I don't want to see any ads. This article hasn't convinced me I'm missing out on any information. I'm certain if I want a particular product or service I will be able to find it by searching. There are numerous engines and search options and the ability to search is shared by rich and poor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou would have been better to summarize your article with the notion that the internet selectively curates for the 'dumb' and the 'dumber'. You've missed the entirety of your point. That often happens when a collection of unrelated, weak ideas is assembled together with the objective of passing it off as a relevant piece of writing.
Duh,let's see. If I am rich and don't mind paying more for something,they up the prices. If I am poor and can't they drop them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomehow I don't think the author is screaming about this.
Look,all I recognize is if you look at Corvette ads you get more Corvette adds. How come I get so many refinance your home adds and weight loss product adds. Is it because I visit recipe websites?
"Scientific American" gets more like "Pop Psyche Today" each day. You have long since lost any credibility.
Who ever decides whats on the first page of a search,rules the world.Put that in google's pipe and smoke it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe little people pay for internet access. Currently we DO NOT pay for the tools we use. If we ever pay for our internet tools, then we can complain about the "rules".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been feeling quite *watched* for years, and more so-- recently. Many of us are malcontents about being manipulated--it's when our voices are muffled that it gets ugly. No kidding, Huxley was discussing this paranoia in detail in the 60's. *Ape and Essence* tells allegorically where it's headed. Facebook turned off several sharing features at the end of 2012. The Koch Bros. seem reptilian. Rupert Murdock even looks like a Nazi. Surprised that ethical behavior is out of $Fashion? I'm not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a little confused by some of the comments on this article. Perhaps that's because I only read the free part of the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the comments seem a little over the top if they are related to what I read. One poster referred to the practices alluded to in the article as rape. Another claimed that anyone that wasn't really upset about the process wasn't a true American.
Many of the posts seemed to assume that price _discrimination_ would result in companies raising their prices for people who have little money but lowering them for people who have lots. If their goal is to sell a lot of their products or services that strikes me a bad business model. I _discriminate_ all day long, every day, every time I make a choice. The more I discriminate the better the choices I make. This is true for my time on the internet as well.
It is clear to me that Google discriminates when presenting me with search data. More power to them. When I drill down into search results more than four or five pages what's presented to me is so irrelevant for what I want that I quickly conclude that there is no point in going through the next hundred thousand pages. Thanks for discriminating, Google. I'm glad you used an algorithm to bring that data up to the surface for me. Of course that algorithm used data resulting from all the other Google stuff I use. Keep up the good work.
Does Google charge me more to download a book because they believe I'm good for it? Maybe, but even if they do and even if I actually do agree to pay, it's still a third of what I use to pay for books. Do I use the discount store or do I go to the more expensive store across the street? It depends, sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on much I value what differences in service and choice they have to offer.
I'm currently learning a foreign language for free from three excellent online sources. Guess what? If you think that some of the web is being hidden from you by nefarious forces learn another language and see what's available. There are a hundred webs out there that you see nothing of because the whole internet, web, service provider, o.s., constellation doesn't even mention it to you unless you go to considerable trouble to have it displayed.
How's that for discrimination?
Funnily enough I had to log in with my personal details to comment on this story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would never buy anything based on Website adverts, and for the most part I use addons to block advertising. Any adds that do make it through I studiously ignore. Though I have noticed, after reading about the phenomenon, that adverts vary depending on what I have been looking at on Amazon. Also it's worth logging out of your Google account from time to time and repeating a search to see if it's different.
Any responding to offers of credit on the internet needs their head read.
The story seems to imply that this tailoring of ads is somehow more important than the content of the page. Not so. Especially if you use AdBlocker. Now if they start changing the content, then I might worry.
Good point regarding 'personalized' search results, except that to the extent that searches return what the searcher wants to find rather than what is reflected in the qualifying content, search sites may be reinforcing biases. For example, if a search site only returns right-wing results to a neo-Nazi's searches, he might understandably conclude that the universe agrees!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConversely, perhaps search sites bias results towards their own or others' ends (or will eventually), to subtly influence the conclusions of searchers...
Google really wants to know what you see on Internet. They want you to use special glasses so they can track you eye movements!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle seeking 'explorers' to buy and try $1,500 smart glasses http://tinyurl.com/bg65cbu
Must buy them so this would be for rich folks. ...
My suggestion is to let your parents, kids, and grandkids and gardener/housekeeper use them too!
You are absolutely so right and this has been a topic of many posts of mine, I used to program and develop so you see this stuff and scientists and mathematicians do too as we use the same tools that those do to deceive. I put together a few videos that are done by people smarter than me and call the group "Algo Duping" as that's what it is. Watch and you will understand better. There's also a link to my 50 some posts about "The Attack of the Killer Algorithms" I began over a year ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSearch: Algo Duping 101..I can't put links here.
Now on the data selling, oh this makes me nuts as we are all looking for money and banks, companies, social networks cash in big time, billions and billions in profits. Take old Walgreens in 2010 that made short of $800 million-SELLING DATA ONLY. Got an idea now on how big this pot is and why do you think companies have so much cash? Why build when one can hire a few geeks and go to town either mining current data in house or mining it. Risk is little, few laws cover it and you can get away with lying your fanny off. Sad but that is the reality. Below, flawed data used out of context hurts consumers, watch video too as even NASA says they don't know what they are doing. The gal from TMobile, is great, she said what they are doing with analytics is "silly".
Search: data used out of context Medical Quack
Now when the data is sold it gets queried with other data and the flaws roll. See what Ticket master did, they didn't care.
Search: Ticketmaster MedicalQuack
It is time to license and excise tax the data sellers, and there would be money for the NIH, FDA and more. Many of the companies in healthcare today got their start with an NIH grant, time to give back:) Algorithms move money and all the talk of late has done nothing to change that. Industry after industry finding out what tapped out consumers with no access to $1.8 Trillion in excess reserves means.
Search: Time has come to license & tax data sellers MedicalQuack
I recommend reading Siefe's book too, "Proofiness, the Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception"..started promoting it a couple years ago and he has a great video at the Algo Duping link above and also on the left hand side of my blog under the educational area.
Thank you very much for this article as the world has to wake up soon to reverse what is happening.
Look...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine that there was a high tech superstore in town that tracked its customers as they moved around the store. Assume that this store has sophisticated software that can process the customers movements and draw conclusions from that data, where and how long they linger, what they look at, what they purchase as they shop. If they have an electronic price display system like the supermarket I shop at, then they could adjust the prices so as to tailor them to that individual.
Such a store would have a comparative advantage over other stores. They could lower prices overall so as to draw more clients because of the improved profit on each transaction.
It's true that under that system some people would pay more than others. But that means some people are paying less than others.
I just don't see what the problem is. If I don't like being _manipulated_ I can simply go to the more expensive store that doesn't have that approach.
If the massive amounts of free content that is available online offends someone because the people providing it have an agenda then just don't go on the internet.
Of course I get bombarded with advertising and perhaps content that I dislike and maybe even find offensive. So what? No one is making me go on the web.
I have four superstores within four blocks. Each one has their own loyalty card that qualifies me for substantial discounts on selected items. By adroit use of these discount cards I buy the bulk of my food purchases for half price or less. I'm not talking about extreme coupon clipping. I just carry four cards in my wallet that magically entitle me to big discounts on different items in different stores. Of course, the cards are in my name and therefore the stores are well aware of what I purchase and use that information to provide me with what I want on a more informed basis.
Some of you seem deeply troubled by such a process. Good for you. I encourage you to stand up for your beliefs. Simply don't sign up for the card and pay double what I do.
But whatever you do don't make illegal, or at least hard to obtain, my ability to get all manner of things free or amazingly cheap.
If you are not paying for the service then you are the product they are selling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, which article did I get....the one for the rich or the one for the poor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think many of you are missing the point of the article. The FACT that these techniques are possible combined with their probable effectiveness makes it a certainty that these circumstances will all arise over time. Also, that they will be maintained regardless of perceived fairness or even to some degree utility as are so many technical assets available to business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You get more flies with honey" is a time honored standard in sales tactics and it applies well here. There are many times when telling someone what they want to hear may well increase your control over them. You don't have to believe a word of it, or even in it's possibilities. Simply go along to get along.
Sooner or later, we all will be living in our own little world of delusion reinforced solely by digitally influential "assets". This article belongs on the front page.
Stop putting all your goddamn information online and people, businesses and computer programs won't know everything about you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this