{"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":164,"pdf_page":174,"physical_index":174,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"0e1d5ecf5b4ba353b7aeb3dfe67ad50453ceef6ee988be2c12c13f6529b52455"},"chapter":"IF...THEN","content":"4. For one of the first discussions on black boxes within science and technology studies, see Callon and Latour (1981), where they conceptualize power as the ability to sit on top of black boxes. For a critical account of “opening up the black box,” see Winner (1993). A quick Google Scholar search revealed that over 18,000 articles have been published containing the phrase “opening the black box,” including the black boxes of finance, nanotechnology, soil microbial diversity, aid efectiveness, and media efects.\n\n5. Galison exemplifies his notion of antiepistemology by way of one of the most mythical examples of trade secrets, the Coca-Cola formula. As Galison writes, quoting security personal Quist: “the recipe for Coca-Cola Classic has been kept a secret for over one hundred years. It is said that only two Coca-Cola company executives know that recipe [which] is in a safe deposit box in Atlanta, which may be opened only by vote of the company’s board of directors . . . We probably would not know if a national security secret was as well-kept as the secret of Coca-Cola” (2004: 239).\n\n6. Legal debates over algorithmic regulation have largely centered on free speech jurisprudence under the First Amendment. Pasquale and Bracha (2008), for example, argue not only that search engines need to be regulated but, more specifically, their ability to structure search results needs to be regulated, and that the First Amendment does not encompass search engine results. Others disagree, seeing search engines as fully protected by the First Amendment (Volokh & Falk, 2011).\n\n7. Bataille’s notion of “non-savoir” has been translated as both unknowing (Bataille & Michelson, 1986) and nonknowledge (Bataille, 2004).\n\n8. At Twiter, they describe their mode of platform development in terms of a “culture of experimentation”: htps://blog.twiter.com/2015/the-what-and-why-of-product-experimentationat-twiter-0.\n\n9. There are many resources providing an overview of what a relational materialism entails, its key thinkers and core tenets—for example, Bennet, Cheah, Orlie, Grosz, Coole, & Frost (2010) for an overview on new materialism; Thrift (2007) for an introduction to many of the core issues at stake in a relational ontology; and Latour (2005) for an introduction to actornetwork theory. Scholarly debates about these issues also proliferate in special issues of academic journals and within specific academic disciplines (i.e., information systems, education, human geography) that seem to have adapted to a particular strand of relational materialism (i.e., agential realism, new materialism), often with regard to specific concepts (i.e., sociomateriality, material-discursive, assemblage) and thinkers (i.e., Barad, Whitehead, Latour).\n\n10. As Lemke (2015) notes, the term “more-than-human” was coined by Braun and Whatmore (2010: xx). Braun and Whatmore use it as the preferred term over “posthuman.” These approaches also emphasize terms such as practice, performance, movement, process, entanglement, relation, materiality and the nonhuman.\n\n11. Prehension is a key concept in Whitehead’s metaphysics and refers to the elements, including energies, emotion, purpose, causation, and valuation, that combine (or what Whitehead refers to as concrescence) to produce actual entities (Michael, 2004).\n\n12. For Whitehead, actual entities or occasions become concrete through a process he calls concrescence, that is, the “production of novel togetherness” (1978: 21). This insistence of the becoming or thickening of an actual entity from a multiplicity of possibilities (or potentiality) has had an enormous influence on Deleuze’s philosophy of the virtual.\n\n13. Lucy Suchman (2007: 283–286) addresses the methodological necessity of making arbitrary analytical cuts in the network. The boundaries drawn and cuts made are never just naturally occurring but constructed for analytical and political purposes.\n\n14. Derived from Austin’s (1975) account of the performative function of language as having the power to enact that which it merely seems to state, the notion of performativity has been widely used in critical theory (Butler, 2011), STS (Callon, 1998; Pickering, 1995), and the sociology of finance (MacKenzie, 2008) as a way to depict the world not as an already existing state of afairs but, rather, as a doing—“an incessant and repeated action of some sort” (Butler, 1990: 112). The notion of performativity has also played a central role in critical discussions of software, code and algorithms (see Galloway, 2006a; Hayles, 2005; Introna, 2016; Mackenzie, 2005; Mackenzie & Vurdubakis, 2011).\n\n164\n\nNOTES TO PAGES 43–50","previous_page":163,"next_page":165}