Algorithms

In this week’s reading, we focused on algorithms. In Algorithms of Oppression by Safiya Umoja Noble the book brings up many examples of the ways that algorithms can fail, and in her specific text it looks at marginalized groups. In chapter 1, the author goes into personal experiences of how Google has often offered sexualized results when searching for simple yet underrepresent groups, in their search bars. Chapter 2 shows a specific scope on how, or more importantly why, black people and the BLM group were able to become monetized due to Google’s lack of diverse in their work force. Chapter 3 then looks at the motive behind the terrorist attack in Charleston, South Carolina, and how Dylan Roof’s search for racial crimes created a false narrative, and therefore incited his massacre. Chapter 4 looks at data retention and how that potentially become harmful and impede on public rights. Chapter 5 gives many examples, like racial slurs, on how information becomes stores in a database and then used as fact in specific informational systems, like libraries. And finally, chapter 6 reflects on why the entirety of the book is relevant within the bounds of algorithms and needs lawful regulations. 

I found this book incredibly interesting, as Noble connects many notions to civil experiences that made navigation easier. I was specifically intrigued by the chapters that tackled the false google results that lead to false “racial attitudes”, and data retention (p. 110 & 119).

Noble goes into detail on the events that transpired before the deadly shooting in South Carolina, and the risk that was unaccounted for through Google’s results. I immediately made the connection to the way the current political climate has resulted in the phrase “fake news.” In both instances, we see very powerful entities giving false information that essentially incites violence through false notions, and therefore should be simply regulated. In the case of the president, his tweets were (finally) flagged for his nonsense. In a similar sense Noble is only asking for management on Google’s behalf; to fact check, to change its algorithms past practices. Noble states “search results can reframe our thinking and deny us the ability to engage deeply with essential information,” (p. 116). The comparison made of Roof to any other individual looking for resources, shows the grasp that Google has to reliable definite data. We never question Google, we simply search, find what we’re looking for, and move on. Other than a college student or two, I’ve never experienced anyone asking for sources when they look up any sort of significant information. And as of now, Google will bold the most significant result and push it to the top of the page (was the algorithm doing that in 2018? I’m not sure).

The section on data retention also caught my attention, and the reason why is because I never thought about how significant it was for data to be erased or forgotten. I understand why certain things should be stopped when looking through public data, and the stories although compelling, had me wondering if this issue of privacy is Googles’ doing, or more so the surrounding area’s issue with certain hot topics (i.e. sex work or employing past criminal offenders). I understand the issues that algorithms have when attaching themselves to minority groups, and I’d like to clarify that I am not at all arguing that Google is responsible due to their lack of forgetting and erasing data after it has falsely promised to do so.

Questions:This book was published not too long ago. With that said, in what ways have platforms changed to help combat the racism that is produced by search engines? Or in platforms in general? 

Platforms

This week we talk about various platforms. Many of these platforms share different rhetorical insight and interfaces that may be often pushed to the background if not otherwise pulled to the surface. In this week’s readings there were many familiar platforms that were analyzed. For example, YouTube’s “circulation gatekeepers”(p. 62) in Edward’s reading. These entities control the content that moves throughout the platform and therefore controls what user can and cannot interact with. In the many strict ways YouTube operates, it often becomes difficult for writers to navigate without accidently suspending their content or tripping up the algorithm to work against them. Moving on to Faris and his surveying of the app Grindr, he argues that Grindr has been monetized by advertisements and specific discourse to target the “ideal gay” (p. 6). This then challenges the ethical standard and inclusivity of Grindr. In another reading Vie argues that in many instances colleges need to reassess their reasons behind using plagiarism detection tools such as “Turnitin” (p. 4), as it often loses its effectiveness. The arguments made by Arola is that social media has had much more of an impact and influence on user. She then specifies 3 impacts that have “writing related themes” (p.1). In the Medina & Pimentel reading, there is a discussion on how people of color fall into a digital divide that will inherently place them in a racist position. 

 

The authors of these works have taken on the task of pulling apart and taking a deeper look on what platforms can do for the user. While I found them all just as intriguing, I thought it was important for me to look at the Edwards reading a little closer. While YouTube is a very familiar platform, I have fallen into this accidental space where my video is taken down due to copyright infringement when no other music or video was playing in the background.  Although my videos being taken down did not disrupt my life in any way, the same cannot be said for those that are creating videos for content purposes. Content providers often suffer at the hands of algorithm procedure that often become fed up with their accidental copyright issues. I cannot imagine someone editing diligently on a video for hours on end for a non-existent copyright issue to completely trash their hard work. But because YouTube has become this powerhouse of a platform, it would be impossible to move onto another streaming/ content service that offers diversity in video topics, with the same following that YouTube already has thanks to their famous influencers.

 

Topics on pedagogy always peak my interest, so I happen to also find Vie’s writing just as familiar as the YouTube reading. While I think it might be important to use plagiarism detection services like “Turnitin,” I am not sure what type of rhetorical message colleges are sending to the students when doing so. The purpose of “Turnitin” is to catch students plagiarizing; However, if the tool is used when a student is not plagiarizing, then doesn’t that send the message that the school is and always will be suspicious of plagiarism, even when plagiarism is not detected? Vie takes on this idea, and instead attempts to change the focus to revising papers rather than using this tool. This tool may sound tempting to institutions while we’re all online, but the idea still stands. However, I remember feeling uneasy when I turned in my papers as an undergrad (e.g. “did I cite correctly?” “is there an obscure rule I broke?”). Not because I did anything wrong, but the feeling of guilt and paranoia becomes incredibly welcoming when I checked the box to use the tool. This then made me think about student who have trouble paraphrasing, what happens then? Will they be reprimanded for accidently plagiarizing? The idea that educators and institutions would rely on “Turnitin,” for something that is often met with disciplinary actions seems dated and non-inclusive, and really should be refrained from being used at all.

 

 

I think I asked some questions above, but here are some more:

What do you think are the advantages of a curated algorithm made just for you? What are the disadvantages? Does anyone ever feel like this becomes an invasion of privacy?

 

 

Reflection Post 1

In regard to how I’m understand the course and it’s relating topics I thought it would be easier to cluster the adjectives in chunks.

I came into this course with absolutely no background on digital platforms, software or anything in between. This was my first time experiencing grad school, online, during a pandemic :/ Now with all that said I have had some take-aways from this course.

Recently the most exciting topic we have gone over is games. Now, I’m not sure if it because there is a relatability factor there from watching my family fight over the X box or if it’s because games seem to encompass many of the topics and concepts we have already gone over. Whatever the case may be I found the topic much more engaging than anything we’ve gone over; so much so that I am teetering on writing my final on it. In a similar sense, I found interface just as interesting, as there were many instances where interface becomes crucial to our learning and to rhetorical message when considering social media platforms like Facebook. However, there is still confusion on my part on this topic and thus has made it uncomfortable to write a lengthy paper on it.

As far as surprising, I found literacy to be the most shocking rather than surprising. Not that I thought everyone in this country was equal, but I hadn’t yet considered people of color and their relationship with technology. As it stands marginalized people already struggle with every other aspect of “equality” here in America, but I found the excessive struggle much more upsetting as even during these trying times there is still so much to be done to help the equality in a digital scope(Not to mention that those articles were written during a “normal” time in America).

Like I stated before, this course caught me off guard when looking at rhetoric though a digital standpoint. There were many instances where I found myself confused or I found concepts difficult to understand. However, MOST of the time I found my footing again. I will say that all of the concepts we’ve gone over I still don’t fully understand, but I think the density of the subject matter in this course allows for a brief overview with sufficient material to understand just enough.

Every week we go over a new concept that I forget could be considered as digital, so as far as questions about the semester’s’ subtopics, I have none. I am anticipating even more interesting concepts in the coming weeks that may pertain to gaming in pedological sense as I have grown an interest in this topic. I would definitely benefit from any future theory, abstract or idea at this point, because as my mind races over communication through various modes I have enough to write my final. However, I am excited to see what else we can pull out of digital rhetoric that can aid me in my journey or even just for fun.

Good games

For this week’s readings, we looked at various games that extend their purposes further than entertainment. In the Davis reading, many important concepts were introduced, however, the idea that games could be used for pedological purposes was brought up and warranted. In the following readings there are important points made to prove that video games have rhetorical purposes and can/should be implemented in a classroom. For example, Bogost makes the argument that games do in fact have claims to real world criticisms and should therefore be taken into serious consideration when looking at rhetorical analysis. In both readings Bogost makes the claim that organism’s reactions towards incentives allow for a connection in an educational based setting. Furthermore, Gee offers examples of how gaming could propel a student’s learning in a more virtual experience. The concepts that are introduced opens up a possibility to what can be achieved if executed in a more critical sense. Alexander and Ballentine both have readings that would recognize that video game software is much more complex than audiences are aware of, and thus show their presence in rhetorical argument. This then offers a way for educational entity to recognize the significance games have over users.

            I found a few of these readings interesting (and relatable). In the second reading by Bogost, he brings up a handful of games that seem disconnected when thinking about rhetorical analysis. Games like The Sims and Animal Crossingshad always confused me with game play. Are they not more or less gamers living their mundane only through a screen? However, Bogost calls this “human practice” or “human experiences” (pg 123). These terms are categorized as “procedurality,” and while they may seem to fall below the pedagogical sense, Bogost recognized how they could be used as teaching tools. The term allows gamers to represent themselves as anything! Literally anything, even yourself setting the house on fire and having a fiddling match with death (lol). The idea that living through a virtual world offers a space for users to grasp a better understanding of a different perspective. Even so, Bogost gives us much more to look for when understanding visual and auditory communication, and it can become even more useful in the future. This then allows the gaming world to interject itself into a teaching one. But Bogost also acknowledges gamer software is “not automatically rich, sophisticated statements about the world around us” (pg137). Meaningful games can have a much stronger impact on communication, and though I was wrong about the games I originally criticized, it does put into perspective that not all games have a critical scope on what is actually happening in the world. But as rhetoric is presented in almost everything, it would be difficult to make the claim that such games don’t exists; I’d rather focus my attention on “good games” as Gee highlights.

Gee use his experience of watching his child play a game to understand how we could take a very serious pedological approach to gaming. Gee’s reading seemed presented to me as a handbook on why children should be playing good games for educational purposes. Or even as a lesson plan for teachers thinking about supplementing their teachings with games. Often, I thought about my own experiences of my children while reading this (Mario Odyssey is their jam right now), and I often wondered, how and why my children’s preferences leaned more towards games than reading from a paper book. Sure, my children were entertained, but as Gee puts it “they [the games] feel “doable,” but challenging. This state is highly motivating for learners. School is often too easy for some students and too hard for others” (pg. 36). And while I understand that games could be a leeway for much more important subjects, this idea of children learning virtually via games does not seem too out of the ordinary during these times. This brings me to my question(s) this week:

Games seem to possess a lot of different features and modes when considering rhetoric. They focus on auditory, textual, and visual aspects, along with interactivity. Why then do you suppose games are not used more in contemporary learning? Even when games are generally associated to children, shouldn’t children then be playing more learning games? Shouldn’t teachers be exploring this even more during the pandemic?

How do sound & video persuade?

In this week’s reading, the concept of audio comes into question and legitimacy. Much like last week’s visual argument, there should be no push against these modes as we move on to a much more digital setting.

In Mckee’s writing, she argues that sound is inherently integrated within everything; our entire lives are embedded in sound. Amongst other concepts and forms, she goes into different effects sounds can have when they are altered, and when they are presented to audiences. VanKooten then takes these concepts and applies them to a project a student of hers created. A project that allowed the student to show the great range and effect that sound would create to further her message. This reading then questions where pedagogy fails to understand the importance of auditory meanings. Alexander then explains that audio does in fact have scholarly work behind it, and although it has fallen in the scope of new media, there is room for its growth. This reading revolves around the artist Glenn Gould and his insight within the scope of auditory understandings. Rodriguez’s interactive reading encompasses the idea of using sonic rhetoric as a teaching tool. Sonic rhetoric is then pulled into a handful of categories that would likewise be used to recognize the full spectrum of its effects. Hidalgo’s film then puts these theories and concepts into perspective by utilizing them to create the video essay. In this video, we are shown how video and audio creates a better understanding for the viewer, the content, and the creator. Finally, we end with McIntyre and her take on the Boston Marathon Bombings. She makes a clear distinction on why and how humans and non-humans are able to work together to create a vast channel. In this channel both parties were able to work in tandem to eventually catch and coherently explain how the Boston Marathon Bombings happened.

            Much like other topics in this course, I found the emphasis on audio to be interesting. We cannot escape it. Mckee points out that “As I type this essay, I hear the plasticized, slightly muffled click of the keys” (337). To understand certain messages we need audio, it is vital, whether it is specific to our message or not. I specifically found VanKooten’s reading interesting because its entirety is based off audio in the pedagogy. Of course, as a future teacher I would like to fully explore every aspect of rhetoric and how that will eventually show up in a lesson plan. This reading not only explores a student’s project, but VanKooten also recognizes that the 21^st century pedagogy needs to completely survey anything connecting to digitized teaching, specifically for student to think of this concept in a critical motion.

            In addition to looking at audio in a pedagogical setting, other readings explored the network in which humans and non-humans coexist. I particularly found this reading interesting due to the subject matter of the actual attack. I wouldn’t have necessarily connected the technological aspect of this attack to be rhetorical. After reading the piece I found myself understanding (not fully) yet another aspect of auditory meaning. The network that houses both humans and non-humans, would eventually show evidence that would convict the attacker, without spoken or written communication. This in turn proved the rhetorical auditory role it played during the conviction process.

 

Questions:

           In relation to last week’s readings, which consisted of images and visual theory, what do you make of the connections between silence and auditory, as well as empty/unused space and imagery?

             We learned earlier this semester that authorship is dying due to digital/online spaces. Vankooten echoes this thought by arguing that web apps like chat rooms and blogs blur lines of authorship by allowing text to be redesigned, added to, and manipulated. What are some of the benefits (if any) that have come from the unfortunate death of authorship in this online setting? Does auditory concepts effect authorship at all?

Image Analysis Activity

 I chose to do my analysis on image number 2. I found this image interesting because of the way the people are positioned, in a very zig zag order. While I did my analysis on chapter 8, I thought it would be much more appropriate to look at this image through Rose's "Spacial organization" section on chapter 4.3.

Out of context, this picture looked like some sort of practice (maybe). It was obviously taken during a time in movement, as all people are in different positions. I highly doubt this was taken while they all hung parallel to the wall, but in the perspective of imagery, it is possible. However, the idea that it may or may not have been as escape of some sort also come to mind. The height and the angle of the building organizes the image in an upward view. Perspective allows for the viewer to see this building as much larger as Rose argues "perspective thus provide means of representing three-demesion space on two-dimensional surface" (68). 

Which then brings us to what is happening behind the dangling people. While their identity is ambiguous, the signs are much more tangible. Unfortunately for me, I do not recognize that language. And like the identities, I am left at a loss for the actual reasons behind the image.  The signs themselves, regardless of the language, are secondary to my eye as their position are not as prominent as the bodies. Still though, without context, and clear intent, I cannot properly decipher the meaning behind the image.