Guilt by Association
Whereas “friend” in the sociological sense signifies a voluntary relationship that serves a wide range of emotional and social aims, “friends” as seen from the perspective of the platform are highly valuable data carriers that can be utilized for a variety of reasons. One of the core principles underlying networked media is that information is derived as much from the edges (connections) as it is from the nodes (users, businesses, objects). This means that users do not just provide data about themselves when they fill out profiles, like things, or comment on posts; in doing so, they simultaneously reveal things about the people and things they are interacting with. If data are missing from a user’s personal profile or that user is not as engaged as the platforms would prefer, the best way to extract more information about the user is through his or her various connections. From a platform perspective, friends are in the data delivery business. This becomes particularly evident when looking at the patent documents by Facebook describing techniques related to advertising. For example, given the insuficient personal information provided by a particular member, ads are tailored and targeted based on friends. Facebook calls this “guilt by association” (Kendall & Zhou, 2010: 2). While the authors of the patent document acknowledge that they are “giving credence to an old adage,” the word “guilt” is worth pondering. Guilt evokes notions of responsibility, autonomy, and accountability. Who or what is responsible for the content shown on Facebook, and who might be held accountable? While it might be easier to understand how users’ own actions determine what content they see online, it seems more dificult to come to terms with the notion that users also play a crucial role in determining what their friends see on their feeds. Guilt by association, as Facebook uses the term, implies that users are made “complicit” in their friends’ ad targeting, which seems highly problematic. While it is now commonplace to say users are the product, not the media platforms they are using, the extent to which users are used to promote content and products—often, without their explicit knowledge—is unprecedented in the age of algorithmic media. If the classical notion of friendship is political in the sense that it assumes gendered hierarchy through the notion of brotherhood (Derrida, 2005), the politics of algorithms suggests hierarchies of a diferent sort— of what is “best,” “top,” “hot,” “relevant,” and “most interesting.”
12
I F . . . T H E N