{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","title":"If...Then Algorithmic Power and Politics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2017054909","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","id":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","uuid":"1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","title":"If...Then Algorithmic Power and Politics","normalized_title":"ifthenalgorithmicpowerandpolitics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2017054909","isbns":["2017054909","9780190493042","9780190493059"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":211,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/If...Then%20Algorithmic%20Power%20and%20Politics","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1d3bd28e-c1ba-4af2-8580-60b32ef26053/search"},"page":{"printed_page":155,"pdf_page":165,"physical_index":165,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"29373abd99aead80a3f092296c70188af4f897fa224f014e207ea3b2606f5a13"},"chapter":"IF...THEN","content":"First, it needs to be pointed out that while agency, in theory, is symmetrically distributed, in practice this is not necessarily the case. Diferent entities do not hold agency or exercise power in the same way.4 When Foucault stated that “power is everywhere,” he did not suggest that everybody has equal access or opportunity to exercise power (1990: 93). Rather, power is “the moving substrate of force relations which, by virtue of their inequality, constantly engenders states of power, but the later are always local and unstable” (1990: 93). Because power is not something that one group, person, or thing holds, the analyst’s task is not about identifying who holds power or where the proper source of action is, but to understand “the efects of particular assemblages, and assessing the distributions, for beter and worse, that they engender” (Suchman, 2007: 11). In order to understand how algorithms exercise power and what it would mean to hold them accountable, we need to assess the distributions that algorithmic forms of operations help to engender. In chapter 4, the operative functioning of algorithms was examined with regard to the forms that “categorize the individual, marks him by his own individuality, atach him to his own identity [. . .] a form of power which makes individuals subjects” (Foucault, 1982: 212).\n\nIt maters how algorithmic systems position subjects. In going forward it is therefore crucial that we develop a beter understanding of how we are addressed and positioned as objects of algorithmic atention. What sorts of subjects become possible in the algorithmic landscape? The research presented in chapter  4 on the Facebook news feed suggests that the algorithms work to enact and support a form of participatory subjectivity that hinges on continued and ongoing engagement with the platform. Tellingly, a recent patent document filed by Facebook expresses this very sentiment: “Stories are frequently selected for inclusion in a newsfeed because they are likely to be of interest to the user viewing the newsfeed. This encourages the user viewing the newsfeed to continue using the social networking system” (Rubinstein et al., 2016). While the particular configurations of the Facebook algorithms have certainly changed since chapter 4 was writen, the basic factors guiding the ranking of the news feed remain. These are afinity (i.e., the strength and nature of interactions between friends), weight assigned to types of objects (i.e., status updates, videos, comments), and time. In general terms, algorithms do not control what users say or how they behave. Rather, algorithms shape how users come to speak and what actions are made possible to begin with.5 In the terms of Foucault, algorithms can be seen as instantiating a particular form of “government,” in terms of “the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed [. . .] To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others” (Foucault, 1982: 790).\n\nAlgorithmic Life\n\n155","previous_page":154,"next_page":156}