Who decides what you see, what you believe, and what you never discover?

When was the last time you opened your phone and intentionally chose what information you wanted to consume?

Not what Instagram suggested. Not what Facebook decided was relevant. Not what Google’s algorithm determined you were most likely to click.

What you actually wanted to know.

Somewhere along the way, we quietly outsourced one of our most personal decisions: what deserves our attention.

And most of us never noticed.

The Algorithm Has an Agenda. Do You?

As an IT auditor, I’m accustomed to questioning systems.

What are their objectives? Who designed the controls? What risks weren’t considered? How do we know the system is operating as intended?

Now consider the algorithms that shape our daily information consumption.

We generally don’t know their underlying criteria. We don’t approve their objectives. We have limited visibility into how they prioritize information.

Yet we allow them to influence what we read, what we discuss, what concerns us, and potentially what we believe.

That’s a remarkable amount of influence to surrender without much oversight.

And here’s the uncomfortable question:

If you wouldn’t blindly trust an organization’s automated decision-making system, why would you blindly trust one with your own attention?

The Blind Spots We Don’t Know We Have

Algorithms are very good at learning what keeps us engaged.

But engagement and understanding aren’t the same thing.

A system optimized to keep us scrolling isn’t necessarily optimized to make us better informed.

If we consistently engage with one perspective, we’re likely to encounter more of it. Over time, repetition can begin to feel like consensus.

We may become increasingly confident in our understanding while encountering fewer ideas that challenge it.

That’s what makes blind spots dangerous.

We don’t know what we aren’t seeing.

And the problem isn’t exclusively technological.

Even without algorithms, humans gravitate toward information that reinforces existing beliefs. We follow familiar voices, trust comfortable sources, and sometimes dismiss conflicting evidence.

Left unchecked, our own preferences can create an echo chamber just as effectively as a recommendation engine.

Which raises another question:

If we take back control of our information, will we actually seek different perspectives—or simply build a more comfortable bubble?

Auditing Your Own Information Diet

In internal auditing, we don’t evaluate a control solely by whether it produces the expected outcome.

We also consider what might go wrong, what might be missing, and whether the control is appropriately designed.

What if we applied that same thinking to our information consumption?

Ask yourself:

• Source: Where is this information coming from?
• Objective: Is the content intended to inform, persuade, entertain, or provoke?
• Completeness: What perspectives or facts might be missing?
• Reliability: Can the claims be independently verified?
• Bias: Am I accepting this because it’s supported by evidence—or because I already agree with it?

These questions won’t eliminate bias, but they introduce something our passive scrolling habits often lack: intentional oversight.

An Old Technology With a Surprisingly Modern Purpose

One practical way to regain some control is through something that’s been around for decades: RSS.

RSS, or Really Simple Syndication, allows you to subscribe directly to updates from websites, blogs, and publications. Instead of relying entirely on a social media platform to determine which posts appear in your feed, you choose the sources you want to follow.

Think of it as building your own personal information dashboard.

You can include technology publications, independent journalists, research institutions, niche blogs, and voices whose perspectives differ from your own.

You decide what belongs there.

You decide when to check it.

And you don’t need to depend on a social media recommendation algorithm to surface every new article.

Of course, RSS isn’t a perfect solution. Your chosen sources still have editorial priorities and biases, and you can still create a narrow information environment.

The value isn’t that RSS guarantees objectivity.

It’s that it gives you more control over the inputs.

How to start

1. Pick a reader app, such as NetNewsWire, Feedly, or Inoreader.
2. Add five to ten sources, including at least one that sees things differently than you do.
3. Check it on your schedule, not when a notification tells you to.

If you’d like to start with this site, the feed is juliecella.com/feed.

Don’t Just Curate. Challenge.

There’s a difference between choosing what you consume and thoughtfully governing what influences you.

Being your own algorithm shouldn’t mean constructing a world where every source confirms what you already think.

It should mean deliberately including information that makes you pause.

Read an opposing argument from a credible source.

Follow an expert outside your usual interests.

Occasionally examine the strongest evidence against an opinion you hold confidently.

Be willing to discover that you were wrong.

After all, the objective of good governance isn’t to guarantee that every decision is correct.

It’s to establish a process that helps identify weaknesses, challenge assumptions, and improve decisions over time.

Our thinking deserves the same discipline.

Taking Back Your Orbit

I’ve been thinking lately about the idea of choosing what belongs in our orbit.

Our time, energy, and attention are finite. Every person, activity, and piece of information we allow into our lives occupies some portion of that space.

We can decide which voices deserve our attention, which subjects merit deeper exploration, and which distractions contribute little beyond keeping us occupied.

We can seek information intentionally rather than consuming whatever appears next.

We can choose curiosity over certainty.

And we can recognize that controlling what enters our field of view is only the beginning.

We also have to remain curious about what lies beyond it.

You don’t have to escape the algorithm. You just have to stop letting it think for you.

---

Part of an ongoing series on technology, risk, and governance. If you’re thinking about these questions too, I’d like to hear from you: get in touch.