{"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":52,"pdf_page":62,"physical_index":62,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"d555e14856692741ef7944b0def10ba1494d403c41c81e331a040464af60b558"},"chapter":"IF...THEN","content":"What remained puzzling throughout the ordeal was the apparent lack of vocabulary available to talk about what it is that algorithms do or are even capable of doing, as exemplified in the repeated atribution of bias either to the algorithm or to the humans involved. Words such as bias, neutrality, manipulation, and subjectivity abound, making the controversy one of locating agency in the right place. The prevailing sense in the discourse surrounding the event seemed to be that Facebook should not claim to use algorithms to make decisions when, in fact, humans make the decisions. Of course, what was being slightly overlooked in all of this was the fact that algorithms are always already made, maintained, and sustained by humans. Yet, if only the responsible people could be held accountable, the story went, it would make it easier to control or regulate such “manipulations” and “subjective orderings” in the future. From a relational perspective, however, determining the origin of action as if it belonged to one source only would be misleading. After all, as Latour puts it, “to use the word ‘actor’ means that it’s never clear who and what is acting when we act since an actor on stage is never alone in acting” (2005: 46). The stage in this case was clearly composed of a myriad of participants, including journalism graduates, professional culture, political beliefs, work guidelines, the trending product team, Facebook executives and management, algorithms, users, news agencies, and so on.\n\nSo, then, what about the supposed bias of algorithmic processes? As John Naughton, professor of the public understanding of technology, writes in an op-ed in the Guardian, bias or, human values, is embedded in algorithms right from the beginning simply because engineers are humans:\n\nAny algorithm that has to make choices has criteria that are specified by its designers. And those criteria are expressions of human values. Engineers may think they are ‘neutral’, but long experience has shown us they are babes in the woods of politics, economics and ideology. (Naughton, 2016)\n\n52\n\nI F . . . T H E N","previous_page":51,"next_page":53}