I think that sooner or later there has to be a debate on the moral value and social worth of targeted media.
In a very basic sense, it is very valuable. It means that you are fed stories that you are likely to enjoy, products you are likely to buy, the words of authority figures and celebrities you are likely to agree with, etc.
But when that goes too far you create echo chambers where people become uninformed, ignorant and eventually hostile towards people who don't agree with them. They don't understand the opposite viewpoint because the only chance they have to see it is the opinion of it from someone who opposes it.
I think that this combines extremely badly with a real lack of critical thinking in society today (especially among the youth). People see something someone has said and immediately take it at face value without stopping to consider it themselves. Recent examples (that I admit are biased towards my political persuasions - you'll find examples from the other side) include:
- Every household will lose £4,300 in the event of the UK leaving the EU - is it really sensible to suggest that the possible drop in GDP will only affect households and not also corporations, and is it reasonable to assume that each household would lose out equally?
- We can fund half of our manifesto by reversing the corporation tax rate cut - cutting the tax rate increased the tax take, so is it sensible to assume that reversing that cut will also drastically increase the tax take?
People are being fed stuff that they are likely to agree with and they are becoming increasingly incapable of questioning it.