One thing that I really liked about this week’s readings are how they managed to define algorithm in conversation with the social practices around it. I felt that the authors recognized the advantage of dissecting the digital in a more sociopolitical way. Bucher puts it perfectly in her introduction, by writing that we should “appreciate the question of how algorithms intersect with power and politics on a more philosophical and sociological scale” (20). After all, the digital space being analyzed wouldn’t be what it is if it weren’t for the technology-human interaction. This cycle of technology affecting us and us affecting technology is important to defining technology.
I particularly liked how Gillespie broke down the definition of algorithm in a way that displays our anxieties related to algorithm (and its objectivity) and the role it plays in our lives as well as how it constructs our algorithmic selves.
First, Gillespie builds on the idea of how digital trace and shared information between websites and companies work together to create a “digital dossier” or “algorithmic identity.” He talks about it more from the invisible side, where there is this database of binary information that constructs our identity based on our past and present digital ventures and entries. I this also transcends to the visible level – mostly with online content creators, who are constantly making an effort to make themselves “algorithmically recognizable” (18) by the platform in which they want to be featured at the top. These two sides of the algorithmic identity seem to complete a digital alter-ego, where there’s the combination of how the digital reads a person and how a person chooses to provide information about themselves to the database, choosing how their algorithmic identity will be shaped.
Going back to objectivity, I think Gillespie’s discussion on searches and how certain items become more relevant to be featured at the top of lists is a very important one. He writes about how each website has its different secret criteria for judging relevance and how it’s complicated to define this relevance, especially with the competition between websites and the coding that goes behind them. However, I do think that we deserve to have a better understanding on what exactly is relevance for each platform. How different is the “sort by relevance” on my Amazon account from yours? Or how different is that sort between different stores? Is something more relevant based on my preferences or on other people?
These platforms are designed to look and feel objective, but we should keep questioning the options we are given. I thought it was ironic when Gillespie brought up that “No provider has been more adamant about the neutrality of its algorithm than Google” given the many issues that YouTube has had with algorithm. Recently, several LGBTQIA+ YouTubers filed a lawsuit against YouTube for restricting their videos, while featuring similar content on the main trending page (hi James Charles). This made many creators question YouTube’s objectivity as it looked like they were prioritizing “A-list” creators and discriminating others. It’s an interesting case to look at. If you’re interested, here’s a link to a Forbes article on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/14/lgbtq-creators-sue-youtube-for-alleged-discrimination/#74407c80788e
No comments:
Post a Comment