Rights Over Our Algorithms
For the longest time after the creation of media platforms where news were being shared, from search engine Google to the social platform Facebook, the public believed that whatever they were given by such outlets were based on numbers and statistics, in other words, it must have been objective. Objectivity is defined as a given non-opinionated information ( Ward, 2009). While algorithms are machines that are previously encoded to transform an input data into a desired output based on calculations (Gillespie, 2012, p. 1). It becomes quite easy to believe that due to it being a calculated computer algorithm following a fixed plan, then it must be objective. With these algorithms comes a certain trust that no matter the situation or controversy, your search engine will not be bias or change, thus an algorithmic objectivity.
Many news platforms try to give out their information objectively as it plays a vital role in being democratic with your audience, and not be put under the spotlight for choosing a certain side, then be rejected by a certain group of people. Thus, the public deserves to be given completely unbiased information so they can be in charge of their free-will, and choose what to trust or not.
Most people receive a majority of their news information through social media platforms. Sites such as Facebook are giving their users the ability to receive more than one information from multiple sources, and the ability to discuss it between one another. This opened people’s eyes about the different views each person holds about a similar topic. As Facebook was growing, users believed that they had the freedom to choose their sides, and truly witness freedom of speech like never before. They completely disregarded the role Facebook has in filtering out certain words, information, and sides, with the aid of algorithms. While users believed they were getting all the information they needed from more than one outlet, thus different views, the algorithms were working to filter out information they believed a certain user was not interested in. This in a way, erased the entire idea of new objectivity. It is now seen in a more obvious form on sites other than Facebook, such as YouTube, Instagram, and Google, that bombarded their users with advertisements. Over time, users began to notice that the advertisements they are receiving seem to be targeting their needs very accurately, thus controversy began to spark on the use of algorithms.
After using Instagram for a while, the platform begins to save information about the user. If one user follows a high number of musicians and people who cover songs, then this person will be bombarded with Radio, Instruments, and concert tickets advertisements and suggestions to follow musicians only. This may be seen as a positive thing for some people as it facilitates their search, thus allows them to have a faster and more enjoyable experience on the application. However, this means that the user will no longer be exposed to information other than what they already know, it decreases the circle of interest of said user. In other words, algorithms will work based on what it thinks the users needs to see and will most likely react to it, which erases the notion of “objectivity” as the user will only be aware of news that is bias to their own interest.
Thus, for a non-bias story by a journalist to reach a wider audience it must get a large amount of attention in order to get to the “trending” section of platforms such as Twitter. Twitter’s trending algorithm works based on the amount of clicks in a short period of time, of a story that is relevant and was not trending in the past. This may be seen as very useful, only if all news were allowed to trend. “Allow” because some stories are censored without people’s awareness. #OccupyWallStreet was circled around the frustration of the 99% people who wanted to end the inequality in wealth in the United States’ economy. Yet, not many people had heard of it even though it was shared and live streamed by many users. The hashtag seemed to be missing. Social media, including Twitter, are not transparent with their algorithms.
One thing is for sure though, these algorithms are created and controlled by those who own the sites. This results in a change that people may not notice. In September of 2017, Facebook announced that they were paid by Russian groups “$100,000 for roughly 3,000 ads aimed at US voters.” (Vogelstein & Thompson, 2018, p. 7). This controversy resulted in a manipulation of the recent United States Election giving Trump a wider platform, and trending the videos, articles, and images that put Clinton in the bad. Facebook was outed to play around with their algorithms for their own gain, thus manipulating people’s beliefs. They highlighted and removed whatever did not interest them, for example, as Thompson and Vogelstein (2018) mentioned “if something like a mass shooting happened, and Facebook’s algorithm was slow to pick up on it, they would inject a story about it into the feed”.
In a way, it’s clear to see that algorithms are controlling each media platform for what it is known as today. Facebook is a place for effective marketing, and Twitter is a place to defy the odds and communicate to a wider audience if users worked hard on trending a certain topic. Not all algorithms follow the same rules. Thus not all news is in the hands of the users. Some information may be users-bias, non-objective, and some may be a payed marketing scheme. Thus, even though people do play a role in a non-objective information that they are receiving, they are not to blame. Algorithms should filter out the “needs” of certain users and give them objective news. Even though controversial, homophobic and racist comments should be filtered, but not entirely, as users should have the right to know what is happening in the world in all clarity, and earn back the freewill to choose and think on their own rather than have words and thoughts be forced onto them.
References
1. Gillespie, T. (2012, November 26). The Relevance of Algorithms. Culture Digitally, p. 1.
2. Vogelstein, F., & Thompson, N. (2018, December). INSIDE THE TWO YEARS THAT SHOOK FACEBOOK — AND THE WORLD. p. 7.
3. Ward. (2009). Truth and Objectivity’ in in Wilkins & Christians. Handbook of Mass Media Ethics, p. 71–89.
