---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'Agnotology and Epistemological Fragmentation (April 26, 2019)'

---

Wiki Tutorial Reading
# Agnotology and Epistemological Fragmentation (April 26, 2019)
## Some Terms and Definitions from Danah Boyd ![](https://i.imgur.com/Mdud5uj.jpg)
 
1. [Epistomology](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/epistomology): "*how we know what we know*"
2. [Agnotology](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Agnotology): "*strategic and purposeful production of ignorance*"
3. [Data Voids](https://datasociety.net/output/data-voids/): "*areas within a search ecosystem where there is no relevant data; are purposefully exploited by those who want to manipulate media*"

## The Audience
This talk by Danah Boyd was presented at the Digital Public Library of America Conference in 2019. I was intrigued by the audience of this talk, as the [Digital Public Library of America](https://dp.la/) does provide a wide range of resources to the American Public. As a web user, you often forget about the fact that the information on the internet comes from somewhere, and doesn't just appear on google. The DPLA is an appropriate audience for this talk, as they work to provide open and free information to the public. The concept of agnotology goes against the purpose this public entity serves. 


## YouTube and Data Voids
![](https://i.imgur.com/Kc1j0R9.jpg)

It is a little frightening, although unsurprising, at how seemingly easy it is to give public access to information formed out of conspiracy or just plain wrong. Human beings with access to the internet have become predictable, and people know how to target media consumers. It is increasingly worrisome as viewers view a video online and take for granted how it got there and who is behind it. We have gotten so used to consuming media we don't stop to ask, as was the case with the Christchurch video. Once the purpose of the video was exposed it was too late to stop it from infiltrating social sites. 
In addition, as Boyd points out, those who desire to learn more about a topic may not end up with the best sources in their hands. Public entities like DPLA work to produce reliable information, but young researchers easily end up on sites like YouTube. I think it's extremely important to remember that a lot of the information that is filling the data voids come from individuals that are not monitored but are easily accessible. Everyone knows what youtube is, but not everyone can tell you what the DPLA does. Equally difficult is that YouTube can have reliable and useful information. There are videos that help students learn difficult math problems, show you how to build a volcano for your science project, or how to use the newest high tech camera you purchased. How are young minds expected to weed out the "good" and "bad" sources? As Boyd references, upon searching "social justice" in youtube, the second top result was this video from PragerU.  	
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rtBvQj2k6xo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


## What To Do Next?
One of my biggest concerns while reading this article is how to combat the floods of information into data voids. As an internet user, I barely understand the mechanics behind how things are created and shared, and can't coherently warn someone else against certain things. People are not going to shut down their media all together to combat this issue, so what do you do? How do you confirm that a source is worthwile? I want to know more about how much companies and social media sites can be accountable for their content, and how do we learn to be wary of these things, without being hypercritical? 