###### tags: `CDA`
# Reading Responses (Set 2)

### 6th April - Algorithmic Discrimination

While people may normally think of racial bias occurring in human interactions, it appears that it can also occur in Google searches. An investigation by Buzzfeed News shows how, due to our society's biases and stereotypes, Google image searches tend to have a white bias, where searches of generic things like "hand" or "man" result images of white people even though the majority of the world is not. The investigation finds that this is not Google's fault, and was probably not intentional, yet these algorithms have biases and are an example of structural racism simply because biases within the internet that already exist. In my opinion, this is more worrying that Google simply being at fault. In this case, there are structures in the internet that make it more likely for algorithms to discriminate. This means that it would require more than just Google changing their algorithms to fix it; instead, the whole internet must be rid of its structures that enable discrimination.

### 9th April - Collapsed Context

Social media has an interesting ability: it can collapse the multiplicities and differences we experience in real conversations into one audience. The article 'I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience' by Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd explore the idea of context collapse. Context collapse is the idea that "social media collapse diverse social contexts into one, making it difficult for people to engage in the complex negotiations needed to vary iden- tity presentation, manage impressions, and save face".

The ultimate question is asking what it means to be authentic. Since social media contains "imagined audiences", social media users do not speak to specific people; instead, they rely on making guesses about the environment on social media and catering their posts, tweets or pictures to that environment. I think this makes it quite hard to be authentic online because users are making assumptions about the expectations and desires of their audience without actually knowing the truth about discrete viewers. The article even mentions that social media pages, especially from influencers, are "a carefully controlled performance through which self presentation is achieved under optimal conditions". Therefore, I doubt the ability for authenticity to appear in social media settings that are so artificial and rely on guessing.

### 13th April - Gendered Work

Who knew that a fake sponsorship could get you more credibility than a real one? Taylor Lorenz's article 'Rising Instagram Stars Are Posting Fake Sponsored Content' reveals how many Instagram influencers post 'sponcons', or fake sponsored posts. These brand deals are seen as a goal that influencers must attain in order to be deemed relevant, but also in order to share this idea that they are popular, regardless of whether they actually are. This reminds me of another [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/style/gender-reveal-parties-cursed.html) Taylor Lorenz wrote, where she mentions how gender reveals are "plagued by one-upmanship". Just like how people try to present themselves in a certain way through a gender reveal, they do the same with false brand deals. Having many sponsorships is seen as being successful, and gaining "street cred". However, there are numerous problems with it. Firstly, brands are forced to deal with influencers posting fake sponsorships of their products. This may lead brands to fear being associated with influencers with baggage or controversy, or fearing their products are advertised through mediocre posts. The ultimate consequence of this could be that brands' reputations could suffer due to those reasons. Although the Federal Trade Commission has ruled that real sponsorships must be disclosed, they have not ruled on fake sponsorships that seem like real ones. Whether or not this is moral is another question, but brands seem to have mixed feelings on whether it should continue to occur.

### 16th April - Bemused

Whether it is Anthony Weiner posting inappropriate pictures of himself on Twitter, or giving a 4-star review to a product that saved your child's life, people tend to make weird, surprising or embarassing comments online. Chapter 7 of *Reading the Comments* by Joseph Reagle explores this interesting content. Getting past the superficial, and often funny, content, there is a deeper issue that is exposed. The text mentions how "another consequence of the shortness and possible immediacy of online comment is that we reveal our prejudices in ways that we would not otherwise". By this, Reagle is writing that people have implicit cognitive biases - often tied to race - that are exposed due to how quick online content is produced. For example, when people in the United States take an implicit association test, they tend to associate words like "successful" with "white/rich" rather than "black/rich". This idea, combined with *preferential attachment*, or the concept that people tend to be attracted to content and pages that are already popular, means that the internet is filled with implicit biases people may not realize exist.

### 20th April - Pushback

Is online communication so awful? Is it possible to opt-out of digital communication?

You could be the subject of revenge porn, get doxxed, get scammed, and have your privacy ruined in one day online. Yet, I still believe online communication is not *that* awful. I might be whatever the online version of a hopeless romantic is, and one may describe what I believe the benefits of online communication are as a fairytale, yet I think online communication grants us so many benefits that any drawbacks it has are just the risks you take. Just like when you drive a car or eat raw seafood or get on an airplane, you are taking risks that you subconsciously acknwoledge but continue to do the activity anyway. That is how I view online communication too; it has risks, but every time you partake in it, those risks are just a part of the ride. Further, Chapter 8 of "Reading the Comments" by Joseph Reagle describes how there can be "nasty comments" in online communication, how anonymous apps can lead to "nasty, salacious" comments, and much, much more on how online communication is just awful to be part of. However, online communication gives every individual -- as long as you have access to a device with an internet connection -- the ability to: reach across cultures, discover new things, make friends, laugh at people, cry at videos, join communities that make you feel at home, and so much more. Is online communication awful? Maybe. But would I give it up for anything? Absolutely not.