奎克的藏经阁 · 原书印刷页

If...Then Algorithmic Power and Politics · 第 41 页

PDF 物理页索引 51 · IF...THEN

书名
If...Then Algorithmic Power and Politics
作者
未记录
印刷页
41
PDF 物理页
51(从 0 开始)
章节
IF...THEN
UUID
1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053
来源类型
original_book
页面 SHA-256
b952dc1b4b8e7f702d6985c8a693ab80deac9199c4f76a6338015a386792afb6

Neither Black nor Box

(Un)knowing Algorithms

The power of algorithms can be felt in all spheres of society. Algorithms do not merely filter news or arrange people’s social media feeds, they also are routinely used to help law enforcement, financial institutions, and the health sector make decisions that may have a profound impact on individual lives (Pasquale, 2015). Yet algorithms are not the kinds of objective and neutral decision makers that they are frequently held out to be. Examples of bias in algorithmic decision-making now abound, and scholars and policymakers are trying to figure out the best ways to govern and make these systems more accountable. A major obstacle to holding algorithms accountable, however, is to know them in the first place. Many of the algorithms that we are most concerned with and interested in—for example, those that underlie popular media platforms—are often governed by trade-secret protection. The algorithms running Facebook and Google are the “secret sauces” that give shape to the information and data flowing online. Algorithms are made to be opaque—not just to protect businesses but due to the technical necessity of handling the complexity of the system. Knowing algorithms, then, is severely burdened by their often “black-box” nature. As Frank Pasquale writes, knowing what algorithms do maters because authority is increasingly expressed through them: “Decisions that used to be based on human reflection are now made automatically” by encoded rules that are “hidden within black boxes” (2015: 8). Algorithmic decision-making is often described as impenetrable and secretive, concealed behind a “veil of code” and trade law (Perel & Elkin-Koren,  2017). The story often goes that, if only we could make algorithms more transparent, we would stand a beter chance of governing the big corporations that make these automatic decisions on our behalf.

While “transparency is not just an end in itself,” transparency is still seen as a necessary condition for greater intelligibility (Pasquale, 2015: 8). As Barack Obama (2009) famously stated in the opening of a memorandum of the Freedom of Information Act: “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.” The question remains as to what exactly it is that should be made transparent and what transparency is believed to help reveal. In her review of

41