# Reading Response Set 2
April 6th - Algorithmic discrimination
The BuzzFeed reporters, Fiona Rutherford and Alan White reveal the reasons why people think that Google’s results are “racist” by giving specific examples of google image research. Starting with Johana Burai’s hand picture search findings, Rutherford and White claim that it turns out that the algorithm is more likely the cause that illustrates result bias and so-called “racism”.

After reading the examples including how google images show certain pictures with different keywords, I immediately relate to one of my experiences back to high school. I was doing a class project related to hiring percentage when it comes to different races. I went to google image search trying to find professional interview appearances for Chinese, Indian, American, and Black. I wrote down professional appearances for Indians, but the results mostly showed Indians wearing traditional Indian clothing, which was very different from suit and tie. I couldn’t really find a good one so I just put on the one with traditional clothing. I was called out by my Indian classmate because he thought my slide offended him since the picture for Indian appearance was different from the rest. I didn’t even think about the racial dicrimination at the time. I was worried that it was offensive but I had no other better options. Now, I understand that it might be caused by the algorithm as well. Maybe when people use the examples of professional looks, they tend to use white people more than other races. It was five years ago, but now google seems like improving such issues because now I could find the suit and tie pictures for Indians easily. Overall, it's important for us to figure out the causes for such results. Furthermore, are the results also reflecting people's bias and racism because the evolving algorithm calculates according to preference?

**April 9th - context collapse**

By investigating twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience, Marwick and Danah how participants guide their followers on Twitter. The audience management and communication techniques are various based on who the audiences are and the content authenticity. The research questions include what audiences Twitter producers write and what strategies they use to effectively engage the followers. The study results show that the regular people usually describe followers as their ‘friends’, and Twitter is more likely a personal space for them instead of promoting themselves. While the micro-celebrity group imagine their followers as their fans, and they manage this small community of followers with strategic communication. Furthermore, being authentic is important for both groups of users. Marwick and Danah also introduce different types of audiences and the factors of being a successful Twitter producer.
I agree with the statement that “Rather, the authentic is a localized, temporally situated social construct that varies widely based on community”. (page 11, Marwick and Danah, 2010) Everyone’s definition of authenticity is different, and sometimes it depends on if the audience has some bias towards the content producers. For example, I follow some of the fashion bloggers because I like their vibes. So even if their photos are photoshopped or quite different from the real situation, I would think they are authentic. But sometimes when I explore on social media and see the styles that I don’t like, I would probably tell my friends “This blogger is so pretentious and so fake”. I also see some emotional and heartbroken post late night, but it really depends on who the audience is. Some people might feel empathy for the writer, but for others it’s just too much. As a result, authenticity has no universal definition because it depends on personal opinions.

**April 13th - Gender and self-enterprise**
Duffy researches the role of gender in the digital age when it comes to self-enterprise. There are three elements she mentions including soft self-promotion, interactive intimacy, and compulsory visibility. The digital double bind makes female entrepreneurship seen as an inferior category compared to the traditional masculine entrepreneurship. In the interview, Pamela talked about the importance of putting oneself out there. She says “If you’re not on social media, people think you do not exist, and they’re a little skeptical of you”. It’s true in the digital world especially when it comes to the media arts industry. More and more entrepreneurs start to build their online profiles to attract a decent amount of followers and potential clients and sponsors. Once upon a time, I conducted an interview with a self-employed photographer, and she mentioned that now it’s different from the past. The clients would likely choose some “famous” photographers who post outstanding works and successfully promote themselves online. I wouldn’t say people would be skeptical of someone who’s not online, but presenting oneself online does increase one’s chance to get the collaboration and jobs. But I disagree with the claim that “gendered notions of modesty and commercialism mean that women, especially in creative industries, are reluctant to market themselves”(Scharff, 2015). What I have seen is females are taking advantage of their genders presenting themselves online. For example, many female photographers would dress up appearing fashionable and neat online as well. They do not only promote their own works but also post themselves. This is implying to the viewers that their aesthetic could be trusted because of their own presented image. As a result, I don’t think gender is a definite factor causing the hesitation of marketing oneself.

**April 16th**
Joseph Reagle uses an example of comments on KayBe to start the discussion of rating systems. People are bemused by some comments and rating systems in daily life. Reagle also introduces why the leading comments are “valuable” sometimes because they relate to some benefits such as free products and attention. Commenters also start making creative and funny comments on Amazon, but most of these are just parodies and not recognized as helpful. The content, timing, and context of a comment all become factors that will cause some reactions. People start to use excuses for their embarrassing comments or behavior online. Except for the examples discussed in the context of “I was hacked”, there are also many other famous examples. For example, after the director and designer of famous luxury brand Dolce & Gabbana insulted Chinese customers saying Chinese taste is so shitty on Instagram (he was using the poop emoji to replace the actual word), they claimed that his account was hacked. This is not a single case. When many brands or celebrities say something outraging, being hacked seems like the best excuse to make. However, people don’t buy it anymore. Some people even make fun of how the crisis is handled because viewers can sense if that’s fake or genuine. My Instagram account was hacked one time. I found that I was posting weird sunglasses advertisements after I logged in, and I had to explain later on my story that I was hacked. This was very embarrassing but my friends knew that it wasn’t me because I never posted such things. As a result, how people accept and treat the embarrassment really depends on the handling and past online activities. I do think comments are something we need to pay attention to because more and more commenters are become irrational posting irrelevant content to gain attention and create chaos.

**April 20th - Commenterrible**

Reagle metaphors reading online comments as watching TV game shows where family competition happens (Reagle, 2019). There are many aspects of comments included in the article such as examples of Boing Boing comments, comment restriction & new systems, online discussion environment, and vulgar content on Twitter, etc. Reagle argues that “Many people find it worthwhile to receive feedback on their creative endeavors, even though they might receive harsh criticism” (Reagle, 2019). Well, some criticism is worth listening, but some harsh criticism is due to ignorance. In the case of arts, not every audience understands what art is. Even within the art fields, there are different professionals. Admittedly, every individual has their own aesthetics. But there are still united standards and techniques. An amateur has no capability to criticize a professional work. I always believe that the criticism represents professional feedback instead of some sayings like “I don’t like it because it looks ugly”. It’s very disrespectful for the artist if someone just makes a frivolous comment to force that “critical thinking” pretentiously. An artist who knows his own piece can differentiate what feedback is valuable. Undeniably, some criticism, even the hard ones are high quality. No doubt, those genuine and effective feedbacks would improve one’s creative work. Of course, many artists exhibit their pieces in galleries to obtain more audiences. They want audiences to know or guess the intentions. But for the amateurs, I don’t think they get to say if the piece is “good” or “bad”, because they don’t have any knowledge of arts.