A \u2018Symptom\u2019 of Technology<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\nClark and Kaptanian grounded the discussion by characterizing algorithms as a \u2018symptom\u2019 of routine technology use. Like a cough to a cold, algorithms can be the less than desirable phenomena that shadows the data generated from our daily computer-mediated transactions. However seemingly inexplicable, algorithms have real consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To illustrate this point, Clark recounted how online platforms amplified the incorrect online identification<\/a> of the Las Vegas shooter in 2017 by pushing 4chan reddit users conspiracy theories in the online search results following the mass shooting. Within hours, an innocent man faced online harassment and blacklisting, an ordeal to which Google and Facebook simply responded \u2018the algorithm did it,’ begging the question: what’s behind an algorithm? (Figure 1.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/studentwork.prattsi.org\/foundations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/12\/Picture1.png\")
Figure 1. Wakabayshi, Daisuke (@daiwaka). October 2, 2017, 10:32 AM, Tweet.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Clark defines algorithms as the \u201ccomputational processes embedded into our software\u201d that in turn \u201cpredict, recommend, and speculate about our interests\u201d in our all digital interactions. This is to considerable effect and risk as Gillespie warns in \u201cThe Relevance of Algorithms,\u201d \u201cas we have embraced computational tools as our primary media of expression, and have made not just mathematics but all information digital, we are subjecting human discourse and knowledge to these procedural logics that undergird all computation.\u201d (Gillespie, 2014, p. 168) Clark then asks what if the \u201cghost in the machine\u201d was understood by technology users and an \u201cinterrogation of algorithms\u201d was a fundamental element of the digital environment? (p. 169)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Open Data and Algorithmic Awareness<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Clark grounds this call to action in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)<\/a> \u201cright to explanation\u201d or \u201cmeaningful information about the logic involved\u201d in an algorithmic decision. Clark posits GDPR is an international opportunity to demand algorithmic transparency and therefore positions digital literacy as a form of activism. <\/p>\n\n\n\nClark and Kaptanian led\na series of \u201calgorithmic awareness\u201d exercises that they piloted with MSU\nundergraduate students. First, they broke down the core functions of an\nalgorithm including searching, filtering, ranking, and parsing information through\nillustrating the \u201cweighted graph\u201d of how Facebook ranks your connections online\nwhich in turn shapes your Facebook feed, a theoretical concept which is readily\nunderstandable to a user of social media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the next exercise, Clark and Kaptanian aim to demystify the technical aspects of the algorithm by utilizing \u2018pseudocode\u2019 through which participants are asked \u2018program the library\u2019 or code different goals with the possible actions within a library to reach those goals. For example, the goal of \u2018research\u2019 could be achieved by the possible actions: \u2018reference desk\u2019 and \u2018computer lab.\u2019 They also introduced \u2018methods\u2019 as an added layer for achieving the task, like \u2018emailing a librarian,\u2019 as a tangible approach to the if, and, or logic underlying all code (Figure 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/studentwork.prattsi.org\/foundations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2019\/12\/Picture2.png\")
Figure 2. Clark, Jason, 2019, Github algorithmic awareness pseudocode template. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nDespite the moderator\u2019s best efforts to explain the technical structure of code through the tangible and familiar spaces of the university library, the exercise in practice proved difficult for the participants, requiring double the time to complete than the suggest 5-7 minutes. However, it was the follow-up questions to the exercise that proved the most valuable in understanding the limitations or code. Kapitanian asked the group who we envisioned as our audience in generating our code and we all answered differently. Some participants envisioned students, other\u2019s faculty, staff or even an outside visitor. Collectively we came to discuss, however bound by brackets and formulaic syntax, our \u2018code\u2019 was still limited by our embodied experience enacted within social structures. Therefore, despite their neutral appearance, algorithms and the information they retrieve are subjective (Bates, 2006, p. 11-12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The presentation concluded with a brief discussion of data profiling, and the steps users can take to understand what personal data is stored in platforms like Facebook and Google by walking participants through how to view and download their digital profiles. For many in the discussion, this exercise was nothing new and limited because their Ad Personalization feature in Google was already turned off. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Pedagogy for an Algorithm\u2019 <\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Moreover, the discussion \u201cOpen Data Activism in Search of Algorithmic Transparency: Algorithmic Awareness in Practice,\u201d both highlighted the urgent need to build algorithms awareness into digital literacy efforts and while offering tools for educators and students to build that competences and ultimately framing that as activism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The survey circulated at the close of the event, further emphasized these points. The survey solicited the level of resources and education around algorithm awareness at my current institution as well as asked at what grade level I thought it appropriate to introduce digital literacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
My response: elementary school, or as soon as students begin to start to seriously engage with the internet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
At a moment when society is attempting to take a step back to fully understand the \u2018ghost in the machine,\u2019 it is important to see the opportunity in building digital literacy as a safeguard against current risks and advocate for change or open data in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Works Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nBates, M. J. (2006). \u201cFundamental forms of information.\u201d Journal of the American Society for Information and Technology 57(8): 1033\u20131045. https:\/\/pages.gseis.ucla.edu\/faculty\/bates\/articles\/NatRep_info_11m_050514.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nGillespie T. (2014), \u201cThe relevance of algorithms\u201d in Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, eds. T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, and K. Foot. Cambridge: MIT Press, 167\u2013194. https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/Gillespie_2014_The-Relevance-of-Algorithms.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nFigure<\/strong>s Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nFigure 1. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wakabayshi, Daisuke (@daiwaka). “Google statement on how 4chan thread identifying the wrong man as the shooter showed up “in the news.” October 2, 2017, 10:32 AM, Tweet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Figure 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Clark defines algorithms as the \u201ccomputational processes embedded into our software\u201d that in turn \u201cpredict, recommend, and speculate about our interests\u201d in our all digital interactions. This is to considerable effect and risk as Gillespie warns in \u201cThe Relevance of Algorithms,\u201d \u201cas we have embraced computational tools as our primary media of expression, and have made not just mathematics but all information digital, we are subjecting human discourse and knowledge to these procedural logics that undergird all computation.\u201d (Gillespie, 2014, p. 168) Clark then asks what if the \u201cghost in the machine\u201d was understood by technology users and an \u201cinterrogation of algorithms\u201d was a fundamental element of the digital environment? (p. 169)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Open Data and Algorithmic Awareness<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Clark grounds this call to action in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)<\/a> \u201cright to explanation\u201d or \u201cmeaningful information about the logic involved\u201d in an algorithmic decision. Clark posits GDPR is an international opportunity to demand algorithmic transparency and therefore positions digital literacy as a form of activism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Clark and Kaptanian led\na series of \u201calgorithmic awareness\u201d exercises that they piloted with MSU\nundergraduate students. First, they broke down the core functions of an\nalgorithm including searching, filtering, ranking, and parsing information through\nillustrating the \u201cweighted graph\u201d of how Facebook ranks your connections online\nwhich in turn shapes your Facebook feed, a theoretical concept which is readily\nunderstandable to a user of social media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the next exercise, Clark and Kaptanian aim to demystify the technical aspects of the algorithm by utilizing \u2018pseudocode\u2019 through which participants are asked \u2018program the library\u2019 or code different goals with the possible actions within a library to reach those goals. For example, the goal of \u2018research\u2019 could be achieved by the possible actions: \u2018reference desk\u2019 and \u2018computer lab.\u2019 They also introduced \u2018methods\u2019 as an added layer for achieving the task, like \u2018emailing a librarian,\u2019 as a tangible approach to the if, and, or logic underlying all code (Figure 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the moderator\u2019s best efforts to explain the technical structure of code through the tangible and familiar spaces of the university library, the exercise in practice proved difficult for the participants, requiring double the time to complete than the suggest 5-7 minutes. However, it was the follow-up questions to the exercise that proved the most valuable in understanding the limitations or code. Kapitanian asked the group who we envisioned as our audience in generating our code and we all answered differently. Some participants envisioned students, other\u2019s faculty, staff or even an outside visitor. Collectively we came to discuss, however bound by brackets and formulaic syntax, our \u2018code\u2019 was still limited by our embodied experience enacted within social structures. Therefore, despite their neutral appearance, algorithms and the information they retrieve are subjective (Bates, 2006, p. 11-12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The presentation concluded with a brief discussion of data profiling, and the steps users can take to understand what personal data is stored in platforms like Facebook and Google by walking participants through how to view and download their digital profiles. For many in the discussion, this exercise was nothing new and limited because their Ad Personalization feature in Google was already turned off. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, the discussion \u201cOpen Data Activism in Search of Algorithmic Transparency: Algorithmic Awareness in Practice,\u201d both highlighted the urgent need to build algorithms awareness into digital literacy efforts and while offering tools for educators and students to build that competences and ultimately framing that as activism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The survey circulated at the close of the event, further emphasized these points. The survey solicited the level of resources and education around algorithm awareness at my current institution as well as asked at what grade level I thought it appropriate to introduce digital literacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n My response: elementary school, or as soon as students begin to start to seriously engage with the internet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At a moment when society is attempting to take a step back to fully understand the \u2018ghost in the machine,\u2019 it is important to see the opportunity in building digital literacy as a safeguard against current risks and advocate for change or open data in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Works Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bates, M. J. (2006). \u201cFundamental forms of information.\u201d Journal of the American Society for Information and Technology 57(8): 1033\u20131045. https:\/\/pages.gseis.ucla.edu\/faculty\/bates\/articles\/NatRep_info_11m_050514.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Gillespie T. (2014), \u201cThe relevance of algorithms\u201d in Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, eds. T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, and K. Foot. Cambridge: MIT Press, 167\u2013194. https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/Gillespie_2014_The-Relevance-of-Algorithms.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure<\/strong>s Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 1. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Wakabayshi, Daisuke (@daiwaka). “Google statement on how 4chan thread identifying the wrong man as the shooter showed up “in the news.” October 2, 2017, 10:32 AM, Tweet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u2018Pedagogy for an Algorithm\u2019 <\/h4>\n\n\n\n