When algorithmic systems “do wrong,” or are otherwise perceived as erroneous, questions frequently arise as to “who is to blame,” “who or what is responsible,” and “whose fault it was, the algorithm or the human.” While it might not be the most satisfactory of answers, at least not from a tabloid standpoint, this book has made clear how the answer must always remain partial. Even more important is the claim that, by framing questions as an opposition of terms, as it often done in the public discourse surrounding algorithms, the risk is to simply think of algorithms as purely technical, or mechanical entities devoid of any human agency. When the Microsoft bot Tay started to tweet obscene and misogynist statements, or when Google image search suggested “ape” as an appropriate tag for a person of darker skin color, “the algorithm did it” is only an acceptable response if by algorithm we mean the “sociotechnical assemblage that includes algorithm, model, target goal, data, training data, application, hardware—and connect it all to a broader social endeavor” (Gillespie, 2014). A core tenet of this book is therefore to think of algorithms not merely as “coded instructions telling the machine what to do,” but rather as emergent accomplishments or socio-material practices. How algorithms come to mater in contemporary society is not about trying to define what they are or at what points they act, but rather about questioning the ways in which they are enacted, and come together to make diferent versions of reality.
152
I F . . . T H E N