Władza algorytmów mediów – między reifikacją a rynkiem

Jan  Kreft

Titles

Abstract

The power of media algorithms—between reification and the market

The aim of the article is to identify the power of algorithms interpreted as mythologized and reified culture machines which establish relations in the new media cyberspace of the algorithm culture.From the humanistic point of view, algorithms are understood as a relation between a code, project assumptions, the institutional and cultural context, and a user.

In digital media ecosystems, we consider the presence of algorithms to be indispensable, and we attribute them with the redemptive potential of compensating for human limitations—they are supposed to restrict the bias of media, to perform browsing tasks, to recognise patterns, and to provide data compression and automatic correction. All of this is done better, faster, and more accurately than if performed by people.

The analysis of the significance of media algorithms, and of the digital media technologies in general, scarcely goes beyond the simple schemes according to which they come across as ultra-modern, neutral (although not easy to be recognised) elements of IT infrastructure and management in the eco-systems of new media. Usually, the role of algorithms in media is perceived in the way the management of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other organisations would like to perceive it. Such organisations call themselves technological companies (not media organisations) without any influence on social attitudes and hence without any responsibility for them.

When viewed in the context of the discussion about responsibility of new media (technological) organisations in the post-truth environment, the interpretation of algorithmic solutions in the category of power becomes not only legitimized but also indispensable.

The aim of the article is to identify the power of algorithms interpreted as mythologized and reified culture machines which establish relations in the new media cyberspace of the algorithm culture.From the humanistic point of view, algorithms are understood as a relation between a code, project assumptions, the institutional and cultural context, and a user.

In digital media ecosystems, we consider the presence of algorithms to be indispensable, and we attribute them with the redemptive potential of compensating for human limitations—they are supposed to restrict the bias of media, to perform browsing tasks, to recognise patterns, and to provide data compression and automatic correction. All of this is done better, faster, and more accurately than if performed by people.

The analysis of the significance of media algorithms, and of the digital media technologies in general, scarcely goes beyond the simple schemes according to which they come across as ultra-modern, neutral (although not easy to be recognised) elements of IT infrastructure and management in the eco-systems of new media. Usually, the role of algorithms in media is perceived in the way the management of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other organisations would like to perceive it. Such organisations call themselves technological companies (not media organisations) without any influence on social attitudes and hence without any responsibility for them.

When viewed in the context of the discussion about responsibility of new media (technological) organisations in the post-truth environment, the interpretation of algorithmic solutions in the category of power becomes not only legitimized but also indispensable.

Keywords

algorytm, władza, postmedia, kultura algorytmiczna, Google, Facebook

algorithm, power, postmedia, algorithmics culture, Google, Facebook

References

Ananny M., Toward an Ethics of Algorithms: Convening, Observation, Probability, and Timeliness, „Science, Technology and Human Values” 2016, no 41(1), s. 93–117.

Anderson C.W., Deliberative, Agonistic, and Algorithmic Audiences: Journalism’s Vision of Its Public in an Age of Audience Transparency, „International Journal of Communication” 2012, vol. 5.

Aneesh A., Global Labor: Algocratic Modes of Organization, „Sociological Theory” 2009, vol. 27(4), s. 347–370.

Abriszewski K., Poznanie, zbiorowość, polityka: analiza teorii aktora-sieci Bruno Latoura, Kraków 2008.

Barocas S., Selbst A.D., Big Data’s Disparate Impact, „Cal. L. Rev.” 2016, s. 671–732.

Beam M.A., Automating the News: How Personalized News Recommender System Design Choices Impact News Reception, „Communication Research” 2014, vol. 41(8), s. 1019–1041.

Beer D., Power through the Algorithm? Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious, „New Media & Society” 2009, no 11(6), s. 985–1002.

Blackmore S., Maszyna memowa, Poznań 2002.

Brasher B.E., Give Me That Online Religion, San Francisco 2001.

Bucher T., Want to Be on the Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility on Facebook, „New Media & Society” 2012, vol. 14(7), s. 1164–1180.

Callon M., Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility [w:] J. Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, London–New York 1991.

Campbell H., Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in New Media Worlds, London 2012.

Celiński P., Postmedia. Cyfrowy kod i bazy danych, Lublin 2013.

Chun W.H.K., On „Sourcery” or Code as Fetish, „Configurations” 2008, vol. 16(3), s. 299–324.

Couldry N., The Myth of „Us”: Digital Networks, Political Change and the Production of Collectivity. Information, „Communication & Society” 2005, no 18, s. 608–626.

Crang M., Graham S., Sentient Cities: Ambient Intelligence and the Politics of Urban Space, „Information, Communication & Society” 2007, no 11(6), s. 789–817.

Danaher J. i in. Algorithmic Governance: Developing a Research Agenda through the Power of Collective Intelligence, „Big Data & Society” 2017, vol. 4(2).

Deleuze G., Guattari F., Kłącze, „Colloquia Communia” 1988, nr 1–3.

Diakopoulos N., Algorithmic Accountability: Journalistic Investigation of Computational Power Structures, „Digital Journalism” 2015, vol. 3(3), s. 1–18.

Dourish P., Algorithms and Their Others: Algorithmic Culture in Context, „Big Data & Society” 2016, no 3(2), s. 1–11.

Drucker J., Performative Materiality and Theoretical Approaches to Interface, „Digital Humanities Quarterly” 2013, vol. 7(1).

Emerson R.M., Power-Dependence Relations, „American Sociological Review” 1962, s. 31–41.

Epstein R., Robertson R.E., The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Possible Impact on the Outcomes of Elections, „Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” 2015, vol. 112(33).

Gillespie T, Algorithm [w:] B. Peters (ed.), Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture, Princeton 2016.

Göhler G., “Power To” and “Power Over” [w:] S.R. Clegg, M. Haugaard (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Power, London 2009, s. 27–39.

Graham S., The Software-sorted City: Rethinking the Digital Divide [w:] S. Graham (ed.), The Cybercities Reader, London 2004, s. 324–232.

Hillis K., Petit M., Jarrett K., Google and the Culture of Search, New York–London 2012.

Kitchin R., Thinking Critically about and Researching Algorithms, „Information, Communication &
Society” 2017, vol. 20(1), s. 14–29.

Kreft J., Algorithm As Demiurge: A Complex Myth of New Media [w:] R. Batko, A. Szopa (eds.), Strategic Imperatives and Core Competencies in the Era of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, Hershey 2017.

Kreft J., Mityczne organizacje nowych mediów. Google, Facebook a sztuczna inteligencja [w:] A. Adamski, S. Gawroński, M. Szewczyk (red.), Nauki o mediach i komunikacji społecznej. Krystalizacja dyscypliny w Polsce. Tradycje, nurty, problemy, rezultaty, Warszawa, s. 511–523.

Kreft J., Fydrych M., VI Power of Google and Facebook and Fake News, Hershey 2018 (w druku).

Krzysztofek K., W stronę maszyn społecznych. Jaka będzie socjologia, której nie znamy?, „Studia Socjologiczne” 2011, no 2(201), s. 123–145.

Kushner S., The Freelance Translation Machine: Algorithmic Culture and the Invisible Industry, „New Media & Society” 2013, vol. 15(8), s. 1241–1258.

Langlois G., Participatory Culture and the New Governance of Communication: The Paradox of Participatory Media, „Television & New Media” 2013, no 14(2), 91–105.

Lash S., Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation?, „Theory, Culture & Society” 2007, no 24(3), s. 55–78.

Latour B., Reassembling the Social, Oxford 2005.

Latour B., Splatając na nowo to, co społeczne. Wprowadzenie do teorii aktora-sieci, Kraków 2010.

Law J., Hassard J., Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford 1999.

Lindström M., Brand Sense: marka pięciu zmysłów, Gliwice 2009.

Mager A, Algorithmic Ideology: How Capitalist Society Shapes Search Engines, „Information, Communication & Society” 2012, vol. 15(5), s. 769–787.

Manovich L., Język nowych mediów, Warszawa 2012.

Manovich L. Software Takes Command, New York 2013.

Miroński J., Zarys teorii przedsiębiorstwa opartej na władzy, Warszawa 2004.

Neyland D., Möllers N., Algorithmic IF... THEN Rules and the Conditions and Consequences of Power, „Information, Communication & Society” 2017, no 20(1), s. 45–62.

Pawlicka U., Literatura cyfrowa w kontekście kultury uczestnictwa, „Prace Centrum Humanistyki Cyfrowej” 2016, s. 43–67.

Rich M.L., Machine Learning, Automated Suspicion Algorithms, and the Fourth Amendment, „U. Pa. L. Review” 2015.

Seaver N., Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems, „Big Data & Society” 2017, no 4(2), s. 1–12.

Strehovec J., E-literature, New Media Art, and E-literary Criticism, „CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture” 2014, vol. 16(5).

Źródła internetowe

Arnuk S., Saluzzi J., Broken Markets: How High Frequency Trading and Predatory Practices on Wall Street are Destroying Investor Confidence and Your Portfolio, FT Press, 2012, https://www.cfapubs.org/doi/full/10.2469/br.v7.n1.15@faj.2013.69.issue-1 [odczyt: 12.11.2017].

Diakopoulos N., Algorithmic Accountability Reporting: On the Investigation of Black Boxes, A Tow/Knight Brief. Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia Journalism School, http://towcenter.org/algorithmic-accountability-2/ [odczyt: 18.03.2018].

Gillespie T., Algorithm (Digitalkeyword), http://culturedigitally.org/2014/06/algorithm-draft-digitalkeyword/ [odczyt: 18.08.2017].

MacPherson M., The Official Church of Google, The Official Church of Google.org [odczyt: 13.11.2017].

Shinal J., Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook Can Play a Role that Churches and Little League Once Filled, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/mark-zuckerberg-compares-facebook-to-church-little-league.html [odczyt: 11.08.2017].

Shirky C., A Speculative Post on the Idea of Algorithmic Authority, 2009, http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/11/a-speculative-post-on-the-idea-of-algorithmic-authority/ [odczyt: 14.11.2018].

Slavin K., How Algorithms Shape our World, TED Talk, 2011, http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html [odczyt: 13.12.2017].

Information

Information: Culture Management, 2018, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp. 11 - 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/20843976ZK.18.002.8494

Article type: Original article

Titles:

Polish:

Władza algorytmów mediów – między reifikacją a rynkiem

English:

The power of media algorithms—between reification and the market

Authors

Jan Kreft

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-8424

Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of Managment and Economisc

Published at: 07.05.2018

Article status: Open

Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Percentage share of authors:

Jan Kreft (Author) - 100%

Article corrections:

-

Publication languages:

Polish

View count: 2059

Number of downloads: 1387

<p> The power of media algorithms—between reification and the market</p>

Culture Managment