owned this note
owned this note
Published
Linked with GitHub
# Reading Responses (Set 2)
Reading responses!
## Reading Responses
### Nov 13 -- Algorithmic Discrimination
Computers are purely mathematical machines. So how then could these machines have biases typically only associated with humans? Can computers even have biases in the first place? According to [this BuzzFeed article](https://www.buzzfeed.com/fionarutherford/heres-why-some-people-think-googles-results-are-racist), yes they can. The issue is not that biases emerge from the computers themseves, "the problem was with biases that exist within the media and on the internet, which the search engine's algorithm ends up reflecting" (Rutherford 2016). The computers are doing their jobs too well and picking up on the biases that exist in society. The best way to combat this form of algorithmic discrimination is to combat the biases that exist in todays media, not by attacking the algorithms that display these biases.
On the other side of discrimination is more practial use of the internet. Rather than looking up images of hands, booking a hotel can be more important as well as costly. That is why it is important that algorithmic discrimination does not have an effect on this. However according to a [Northeastern study](http://personalization.ccs.neu.edu/Projects/PriceDiscrimination/), it was found that "personalization on e-commerce sites may also be used to the user's disadvantage by manipulating the products shown (price steering) or by customizing the prices of products (price discrimination)" (Wilson 2014). One of the companies being analyzed, Orbitz, had some issues with the way this study portrayed them stating that one of their findings were based on an experiment. In a [letter](http://personalization.ccs.neu.edu/static/pdf/OWW%20to%20Christo%20Wilson.pdf) to the author of this study, the Vice President of Corporate affairs stated that "those experiments had little, if any, impact on the differences in the results that were returned" (Chiames 2014). This is important to note because although some websites may be participating in price discrimination, not all of them are and perhaps price discrimination may not be as big of a problem as initally thought. Of course more research must continue to keep these companies honest as without it, if the pressure eases up, many of these companies may resort to price discrimination.
### Nov 20 -- Haters
The first thing that came to mind when I thought about internet haters was [this TED talk](https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_what_happens_when_online_shaming_spirals_out_of_control/up-next) I watched a few years ago about Justine Sacco and how her life was ruined by internet haters. It is a good watch and I encourage you to listen to it if you have the time. The gist of the story is that Sacco made a tweet before taking off on her plane ride that she thought was a funny joke, however, it was not perceived as one and she became the number one trending topic on Twitter with thousands of people mocking and berating her online. The uniqueness of the human experience requires us all to have different experiences as we all have our biases and opinions. It is the nature of human existence. Is this a justification for the behavior described in Justine Sacco's case? If not, why does it happen anyway? One reason according to Joseph Reagle is that "because the media experience was not as rich as face-to-face interation, social cues could be lost, and people could have a deindividuated sense of themselves" (Reagle 2015 p.96). This disassociation between people and their online personas could be what is causing them to be more harsh and critical of others; they feel safer behind a wall of anonymity.
So what can be done about this? Twitter has taken steps to curb such "haters" on their platform with many crying that it violates their right to free-speech, as was the case with Milo Yiannopoulos. However it is important to note that websites like Twitter and Facebook are not public spaces. Despite the cries of their rights being violates, as Reagle stated in a [Q/A article](https://news.northeastern.edu/2016/07/25/3qs-how-to-tame-the-twitter-haters/), "people also have a right of association. If a platform provider or community decides that it doesn’t want to associate with jerks or tolerate certain behavior, they can refuse to do so" (Reagle 2016). And it is in the companies' best interests to do so as "It needs as many users as possible while being a palatable site for advertising." In short, because of the nature of the Internet--that everyone can remain anonymous to a degree--people are more likely to partake in hateful or bully-like behaviors because of a sense of security behind this anonymous wall. The best way to prevent this is to curate the interactions on a particular platform and to not be tolerant of such abusive behavior.
### Nov 27 -- Shaped
The vastness of the internet is seemingly infinite. No one person could ever hope to even take a glimpse at a fraction of all the information out there--this black hole of knowledge and data, cold and indifferent to our interpretations. When we stare into the void, does the void stare back? What effect does it have on ourselves? With the public nature of the interent, one might assume that everyone keeps their information on lock. However with social media, many feel the need or desire to share with the world who they are, and so, due to the publicity that the internet provides, we inevitably judge and get judged by others, often to the detriment to our self-esteem. Online bullying and haters are one way that our self-esteems may be harmed. With these associated risks why would anyone even attempt to share such information? A study about self-esteem may have the answer, stating that, "exposure to their own Facebook profiles enhanced participants' self-esteem, more so if they stayed on their profile rather than browsing elsewhere" (Reagle 2015 p.126). Putting ourselves out there actually increases self-esteem. And when you think about it, it makes sense. It's a risky move allowing yourself to be judged by others and can turn yourself into a social outcast if done incorrectly. However, when presenting yourself in the best way possible, as done in Facebook profiles, others can see the best bits of you and judge you for who you believe yourself to be rather than bits of information gathered about you independently.
In this way people can truly be authentic about themselves and present who they beleive themselves to be. While it may lead to higher levels of narcisism (Reagle 2015 p.139), presenting oneself online can be a game changer for an individual's own view of themself. Even if you do not want to associate your name with your online profile, creating an online persona can allow you to express your feelings and thoughts without judgement and make contributions.
### Nov 30 -- Collapsed Context
Have you ever had the dream to one day become internet famous? What would your life be like? Who would you talk to? How would you talk to them? The way in which we communicate with others is based on the context of our audience. You would speak differently in an interview or professional setting than with your friends or family. This works well when speaking with a small audience, but when the audience grows, the different contexts in which people listen grows as well. On social media platforms like Twitter, these contexs are often collapsed together to create an audience where you can't really control who is listening and whether they are the audience you seek. One strategy to combat this collapse is to create an imaginary audience to which you speak. In an [article](http://www.tiara.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Marwick_boyd_TweetHonestly.pdf) by Alice Marwick and dana boyd, they found that some people, "acknowledged their visibility but didn’t see their actual audience as their intended audience" (p.121), citing that they tweeted as if they were talking to friends. This can work well to create a consistent persona but doesn't accurately represent who is actually reading these messages.
The issue with collapsed context is that it doesn't allow controlled management of dialogue. It is useful to be able to communicate in different ways depending on the context of the situation and better convey intent while effectively employing contextual speaking. With this strategy removed as a whole, monitoring audience engagement and reaction is key and in fact it was found that those with a larger following (100,000+ followers) often "habitually monitor how people respond to them when presenting themselves" (Marwick and boyd 2010 p.123). This can be exhausting to individuals trying to present themselves in the most authentic light. Is it worth the hassle? Certainly it is to those who answered so, but it depends on the person. This is the nature of collapsed context in social media and unless the platform changes, it is something that users must overcome.
### Dec 4 -- Pushback
Gomez defines pushback as "a reaction against the overload of information and changing relationships brought about by communication technologies such as smart phones, tablets and computers connected to the Internet" (Gomez Morrison, 2014). The nature of this pushback comes from the ever increasing pervasiveness of technology. There used to be a time where having an email was a rarity. Nowadays many people have multiple emails accounts and multiple social media accounts. Is this even bad to begin with? Why do people engage in the pushback seen in blogs and popular news media? Particularly with the use of social media, many people find the use of technology to be addicting. Posting a picture of your dinner and watching the likes roll in on your phone can feel good. However the fact that anonymity provides people with a sense of security can lead people to say horrible things. For example Caroline Criado-Perez recieved, "as many as fifty [death and rape] threats per hour" (Reagle 2015) for campaigning for increased female representation on currency.
And this is why the pushback exists. the idea is that by separating oneself from the chaos that exists online, you can focus on what really matters to you, without all the junk. Personally, I think that this is overly idealized. Many modern functions of society depend on the usage of technology like email and social media. Name one large company that doesn't have both an email you can use to contact and a social media page somewhere. It is this necessity that makes truly opting out of technology usage impossible.