{"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":167,"pdf_page":177,"physical_index":177,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"e9b00390d76b7d7be7b6861d1233a7874fac9dd02f5195610662363c100e06a6"},"chapter":"IF...THEN","content":"6. Throughout the company’s history, Facebook has been accused of violating the privacy of its users. There is a rich existing body of literature concerning Facebook and privacy. See, for example, boyd (2008); Debatin, et al. (2009); Hargitai (2010); Tufekci (2008).\n\n7. In Gilles Deleuze’s (2006) reading of Foucault, the concept of diagram signifies the function or operationality of power. Deleuze suggests that Foucault is a new cartographer, someone intent on mapping out the relations between forces, to show how power produces new realities.\n\n8. The dimension of subjectivity is key in the writings of Foucault (especially in the later ones). Foucault used the concept of governmentality to analyze everything from the production of orderly and compliant “docile bodies” through pastoral guidance techniques (see Foucault, 1978) to the emergence of liberalism in which notions of freedom are produced so as to replace external regulation by inner production (Bröckling et al., 2011: 5).\n\n9. Many scholars have argued that Bentham’s Panopticon and Foucault’s adaptation of it in terms of disciplinary power provides a limited model for understanding contemporary forms of surveillance and power (e.g., Boyne, 2000; Green, 1999; Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). One of the more pervasive arguments used against the notion of disciplinary power is what we may call the Deleuzian turn in surveillance studies (Lyon, 2006). In a short piece called the Postscript on the Societies of Control, Deleuze argues that discipline has been superseded by something he calls “control.” Despite the brevity of Deleuze’s essay (only a few pages), the fact that he explicitly connects control to code, automation and networked technology, probably accounts for the main reason scholars find the notion of control to be more useful. However, as Mark G.E. Kelly (2015) points out, much of the arguments voiced against Foucault’s notion of discipline have failed to recognize that “discipline is control.” It is not the case, as Deleuze suggested, “we are in the midst of a general breakdown of all confinements” (1992: 178). Prisons and schools still persist. Nor is it the case that discipline means confinement in the way that Foucault introduced the notion. As Kelly (2015) suggests, networked technologies such as CCTV and GPS are not evidence that discipline has been surpassed by control, but rather complete the idea of disciplinary power as discipline is essentially about the infinite management of bodies. Others have in turn argued that Foucault moved away from notions of discipline in his later work, focusing instead on notions of biopower, security, and governmentality. Yet, in Security, Territory, Population Foucault makes sure to not posit a historical break between discipline and mechanisms of security when he writes: “So, there is not a series of successive elements, the appearance of the new causing the earlier ones to disappear. There is not the legal age, the disciplinary age, and then the age of security. Mechanisms of security do not replace disciplinary mechanisms, which would have replaced juridico-legal mechanisms” (2007: 22). While I can certainly understand the appeal of moving away from a notion of discipline toward a more fluid understanding of control as proposed by Deleuze or the notion of an expansive power indicative of Foucault’s security apparatuses, I don’t think we have to choose. It is not an either/or; not discipline or control; not discipline or security. I concur with Foucault when he says that discipline and security are not opposites but part of the same atempts at managing and organizing social spaces. For these reasons I still think the notion of disciplinary power holds great merit for an understanding of the ordering mechanisms of algorithms.\n\n10. htps://newsroom.fb.com/news/2013/08/announcing-news-feed-fyi-a-series-of-blogs-onnews-feed-ranking.\n\n11. For more information on the news feed disclosure, see the video broadcasts of the technical sessions of the 2010 Facebook developers conference, especially the session called “Focus on the feed” in which Facebook engineers Ari Steinberg and Ruchi Sanghvi talk about the details of EdgeRank: htp://www.livestream.com/f8techniques/video?clipId=pla\\_5219ce25- 53c6-402d-8ef-f3f8f7a5b510\n\n12. While the term “Facebook algorithm” may be somewhat misleading in terms of giving the impression that there is one single Facebook algorithm as opposed to many diferent algorithms accomplishing diferent tasks and working in tandem, my reference to the algorithm in this singular way should be read as an act of convenience on my part. Facebook algorithm is shorter and more commonly used in everyday discourse than EdgeRank or the longer and more precise “news feed ranking algorithm.”\n\nNOTES TO PAGES 71–77\n\n167","previous_page":166,"next_page":168}