{"id":6791,"date":"2016-05-13T15:08:58","date_gmt":"2016-05-13T19:08:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/?p=6791"},"modified":"2016-10-07T15:11:14","modified_gmt":"2016-10-07T19:11:14","slug":"facebook-accountability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/archives\/2016\/05\/13\/facebook-accountability.html","title":{"rendered":"Facebook Must Be Accountable to the Public"},"content":{"rendered":"

A pair of Gizmodo<\/em> stories have prompted journalists to ask questions about Facebook\u2019s <\/span>power<\/span> to manipulate political opinion<\/span> in an already heated election year. If the claims are accurate, Facebook contractors have depressed some conservative news, and their <\/span>curatorial <\/span>hand affects the Facebook Trending list more than the public realizes.<\/span> Mark Zuckerberg took to his Facebook page<\/a> yesterday to argue that Facebook does everything possible to be neutral and that there are significant procedures in place to minimize biased<\/span> coverage. He also promises to look into the accusations.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>
Watercolor by John Orlando Parry, \u201cA London Street Scene\u201d 1835, in the Alfred Dunhill Collection<\/a>.<\/figcaption>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As this conversation <\/span>swirl<\/span>s around intentions and <\/span>explicit<\/span> manipulation, there are some significant issues missing.<\/span> First, <\/span>all systems are biased<\/em><\/span>.<\/em><\/span> There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to media<\/span>.<\/span> That has long been a fiction, one that traditional news media needs and insists on, even as scholars highlight that journalists reveal their biases<\/span> through everything from small facial twitches to choice of frames and topics of interests<\/span>.<\/span> It\u2019s also dangerous to assume that the \u201csolution\u201d is to make sure that \u201cboth\u201d sides of an argument are heard equally<\/span>.<\/span> This is the source of tremendous conflict around how heated topics like climate change and evolution are covered.<\/span> It<\/span>is even <\/span>more dangerous, however, to think that removing humans and relying more on <\/span>algorithms<\/span> and <\/span>automation<\/span> will remove this bias<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recognizing bias and enabling processes to <\/span>grapple with<\/span> it must be part of any <\/span>curatorial<\/span> process, algorithmic or otherwise<\/span>.<\/span> As we move into the development of algorithmic models to shape editorial decisions and curation, <\/span>we need to find a sophisticated way of grappling with the biases that shape development, training sets, quality assurance, and error correction, not to mention an explicit act of \u201chuman\u201d judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n

There never was neutrality, and there never will\u00a0be<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This issue goes far beyond the Trending box in the corner of your Facebook profile, and this latest wave of concerns is only<\/span> the tip of the iceberg around how powerful actors can affect or shape political discourse. What is of concern right now is not that human beings are playing a role in shaping the news\u200a\u2014\u200athey always have\u200a\u2014\u200a<\/span>it is <\/span>the <\/span>veneer<\/span> of objectivity provided by Facebook\u2019s interface, the claims of neutrality enabled by the integration of algorithmic processes, and <\/span>the assumption that what is prioritized reflects only the interests and actions of the users (the \u201cpublic sphere\u201d) and not those of Facebook, advertisers, or other powerful entities.<\/span><\/p>\n

The key challenge that emerges out of this debate concerns <\/span>accountability<\/span>.<\/span>In theory, news media is <\/span>accountable to<\/span> the public. Like neutrality, this is more of a <\/span>desired<\/span> goal than something that\u2019s consistently realized.<\/span> W<\/span>hile traditional news media has <\/span>aspired to<\/span>\u200a\u2014\u200abut not always realized\u200a\u2014\u200ameaningful accountability, there are a host of processes in place to address the possibility of manipulation: <\/span>ombudspeople<\/span>, whistleblowers, public editors, and <\/span>myriad<\/span> alternate media organizations. <\/span>Facebook and other technology companies have not, historically, been included in that conversation<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

I have tremendous respect for <\/span>Mark Zuckerberg, <\/span>but<\/span> I think his stance that Facebook will be neutral as long as he\u2019s in charge is a dangerous statement<\/span>.<\/span>This is what it means to be a <\/span>benevolent<\/span> dictator,<\/span> and there are plenty of people around the world who disagree with his values, commitments, and logics.<\/span> As a progressive American, I have a lot more in common with Mark than not, but <\/span>I am painfully aware of<\/span> the <\/span>neoliberal<\/span> American value systems that are baked into the very architecture of Facebook and our society as a whole<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Who Controls the Public <\/span>Sphere<\/span> in an Era of Algorithms?<\/span><\/h4>\n

In light of this public conversation, I\u2019m delighted to announce that Data & Society has been developing a project that asks w<\/span>ho controls the public sphere in an era of algorithms<\/span>. As part of this process, we <\/a>convened<\/a><\/span> a workshop<\/a> and have produced a series of documents that we think are valuable to the conversation:<\/p>\n