While reading Safiya Umoja Noble’s book Algorithms Of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, I took note specifically of her thesis and desired outcome through her writing. She articulates that “algorithmically driven data failures that are specific to people of color and women...are fundamental to what [she has] coined algorithmic oppression” (4). She then discusses as one aspect of her thesis for the book being to investigate the corporate structures and “willful neglect...profit...that makes money from racism and sexism” (5). While Noble dives deeper into the racist structures of Google search engine and coding structures, she utilizes the text as a platform to discuss and peel away the layers that make up the hegemonic structures of online content and culture.
In Chapter One, A Society, Searching - Noble reveals that the public masses that use the internet need “algorithmic literacy” - they must be able to critique computer coding programs and have a tool box for understanding how they work. She also argues for users to be critical of results that pop up on search engines since misrepresentation is bound to happen online. In Chapter One Noble touches upon topics of A.I and the lack of human agency, sexualized key words (which is expanded upon later in the book), and problematic search results that aid a racist anti-black agenda. She also moves into aspects of the monopoly of Google and advertisements that dominate search engines.
In Chapter Two, Searching For Black Girls, Noble begins to dissect the question as to who is responsible for the hateful and racist search results in Google. She articulates the question, “If Google software engineers are not responsible for the design of their algorithms, then who is?” (66). Her notion that a search of “black girls” brings up searches for “sex” and “porn” drives her study to reveal that people of color are underemployed at the tech giants: “Not only are African Americans underemployed at Google, Facebook, Snapchat...but jobs that could employ the expertise of people who understand the ramifications of racist and sexist stereotyping and misrepresentation...are nonexistent” (70). Noble looks into the stereotyping of women in online search engines and reveals the bias and racist notions that fuel online search content. She displays the male gaze of online content with the “understanding” that the top search results are of public opinion.
In Chapter Three, Searching for People and Communities, Noble looks to the 2015 attack of Dylann Roof on unsuspecting African American Christian Worshipers at a Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. She uses this attack to reveal the bias that Roof discovered online about “black on white crime” and how biased the news was that he discovered. Noble reveals that more accessibility to accurate news should have depicted that “white on white crime as well as black on black crime” was more prevalent then what he found.
Chapter Four, Searching for Protections From Search Engines, Noble reveals the immortality of content and searches on the internet. She makes the notion that revenge porn as well as blackmail content destructively prohibits women from furthering their careers if private content is released online. Noble asks the question “What does it mean that one’s past is always determining one’s future because the internet never forgets?” She reveals that the public is more concerned with taking down information than celebrity or public figures. A startling statistic that she produces mentions that “less than 5%...of 220,000 requests made to Google to remove links to online information concern....high profile public figures...95% of requests come from everyday members of public” (130). She incorporates this argument into digitization and contextualization awareness to promote a future of privacy and equality.
Chapters Five and Six, The Future of Knowledge in the Public, and The Future of Information Culture - Noble looks at “problems in classifying people” through an occurrence at Dartmouth/ She maintains that the public needs “search engine alternatives, united with public-interest journalism...to ensure the public has access to the highest quality of information…” (152). In Chapter Six, public policy is utilized to showcase how algorithms may change in the future, especially as demographic of the Silicon Valley do not change in any type of diverse ways.
The two chapters that I find most poignant are Chapters 1 and 2 -Noble creates the crux of her argument in the stance that if Google can do nothing to fix the racist culture in it’s search engines (42), then who will? Who will redirect the searches to portray socially conscious results that are not click bait? She also asks the question “cui bono” - meaning “who benefits”? If the internet is a tool for advancement and technology, who holds the power to shape it?
My Question: (From Chapters 1 and 2)
What does society do when the hegemonic “powers that be” are the code writers of our algorithms? How do we combat a digital racist agenda that promotes bigotry and hate speech?
While students are the digital natives using technology and creating content as they see fit, they are also the ones who are going to be passing down their “expertise” to the next generation of coders. As Noble describes, search engines are the equivalent to the wild wild west - no barriers or structures exist. Since Google has constructed itself as a monopoly, we must entrust coders who are able to fight against the destructive culture that shapes online communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment