User:GN75/sandbox

"This is an addition to the Algorithms of Oppression article"

About the author
Dr. Safiya Noble is an associate professor at UCLA, in the information studies department. Noble also serves as the co-director for the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry. Noble holds a BA from California State University, a MS from the University of Illinois and a PHD also from the University of Illinois.

Her research focuses on how digital media platforms on the internet are designed and their subsequent social implications. She also looks at the way digital media intersects with issues or race, gender, culture and technology, a predominant focus in her book “Algorithms of Oppression.”

Her other areas of research interest include “search engine ethics, racial and gender bias in algorithms, technological redlining, socio-cultural, economic and ethical implications of information in society, race, gender and sexuality in information communication technologies, digital technology and internet policy development, privacy and surveillance, information and/as control, and critical information studies.”

Book Overview
Noble explains that “Algorithms of Oppression” is about the power that algorithms carry in the context of technology and when applied to neoliberalism, this leads to the reinforcement of racialization and oppression onto marginalized groups of people. Noble uses the study of Black women as the forefront for the book, explaining how the search term brings about hypersexualized and pornographic search results that become reinforced through technological norms that are enacted through a white dominant hierarchical system.

The NYU press defines the book as challenging the idea as Google and search results being neutral, instead outlining how it is an example of data discrimination against people of colour, especially women. They also explain how Noble uncovers an online culture of racism and sexism that is perpetuated by Google’s search results. This leads to the book being a way to reshape and rethink the ways in which society interacts with forms of technology that appear innocuous, where in reality are harmful and oppressive.

Chapter 1: A Society, Searching
Chapter one begins with Noble outlining a campaign by the United Nations that focuses on search results on Google that are sexist and discriminatory towards women. The search results are from Google’s autosuggestion feature that adds terms to user search queries based on previous popular searches. Examples found through the campaign include: women cannot: drive, women should not: have rights, women should: be in the kitchen, and women need to: know their place. The campaign itself served as a way to critique the status quo surrounding women, however Noble argues that it reveals problematic information about search engines like Google and their algorithm.

Noble also prefaces her book in this chapter by explaining one limitation of the study being the constant evolving of the topic over time, therefore, her research and book focuses on the periods of search results between 2009-2015.

Noble moves onto then outlining examples of sexist search results on Google, beginning with the term ‘black girls.’ Noble explains that a simple search of the term brought up hypersexualized and pornographic search results first in 2009 and again in 2011.

Noble also provides other examples of Google search queries done in 2013 including searching for ‘why are black people so’ turning up the first result of loud (P. 20) and also another search for ‘why are black women so’ turning up the first result of angry. This in comparison to another search for ‘why are white women so’ turning up the search results of pretty and beautiful. (P. 21) Noble explains that this difference in search results can be solely attributed to Google’s biased views on topics.

Noble also brings up the term algorithmic literacy referring to the knowledge of understanding how algorithms work. She explains that having the technical knowledge in such departments is important hence the reason why initiatives such as Black Girls Code is important, as it provides an avenue to learn an otherwise difficult field of study for marginalized groups to access and get into.

Noble outlines a core argument of the book being how Google biases certain search results that benefit themselves at the expense of others, especially when it comes to monetary gain. Noble then explains that academic work has been done with critiquing Google, however there is a gap that exists in the academic literature when it comes to the harm done by Google onto marginalized groups of people. This is the gap that Noble outlines and is hopeful that her research will fill. (P. 28) Noble is also hopeful that her research will reshape the dominant forms of control, especially when it comes to reshaping the embedded consciousness present in search algorithms.

Noble explains that Google’s monopoly over the search market in addition to biased search results favouring neoliberal interests, creates a view of credible information where in reality that information is a reflection of advertiser interest. Noble delves into this deeper by examining how top search results on Google actually work. Noble explains that the algorithms designed to input search results are complex and lack the emotional and cognitive response required to reflect the users who are searching. Noble provides an example of this in play, when searching for the term ‘Jew’ brought up anti-Semitic search results. Noble explains that this was challenged by the Jewish community and Anti-Defamation League in terms of removing the anti-Semitic search results that were popping up. Google’s response was to stop searching for ‘Jew’ and instead search for ‘Jewish people’ or ‘Jews.’ This was because Google claimed that it could not do anything related to the association of anti-Semitism to the term Jew by White supremacist groups. Noble explains that according to Google’s own disclaimer, they only remove pages that are considered unlawful, leaving in pages that can be considered racist and harmful.

Noble then moves onto a discussion on how Google’s advertising model works, through their advertising tool known as AdWords. Noble explains that the tool allows for freedom in the sense of access and customizability, where relevant words can be matched to search queries resulting in the advertisement being brought up. Then, if the user clicks on the advertisement, the advertiser pays Google, allowing the keywords, page rank and algorithm to work in conjunction in order to bring up certain results that are beneficial to advertisers. Noble provides an example of this by outlining ‘Google bombing’ referring to the malicious attachment of terminology to people, where one example was the search term ‘miserable failure’ bringing up the biography of former President George W. Bush. Noble outlines that effects of such practice explaining that the reality of the internet is that it favours the powerful and the elite and is not really a space for all as indicated by the ability to manipulate search results. The leads to Noble outlining the need to question Google as a public resource particularly due to the widespread use of Google by those looking for credible and reliable information.

Noble also outlines Google and the attachment of surveillance, especially when it comes to data tracking. Noble explains that some users may see different results than others, based on things like identity tracking and previous searches, that way there is a factor of personalization when it comes to search results and advertisements seen by the user.

Noble explains this filtering out further, this time applying it to Google itself, by explaining that a study by ‘ConsumerWatchdog’ looked at how Google prioritizes their own sites over their competitors in terms of search results. The examples given explain that Google prioritized YouTube over other video sharing sites, Google Maps over MapQuest and Google Images over Photobucket and Flickr.

Noble ends the chapter by revisiting the need to critically interrogate search engines through a black-feminist lens in order to analyze how Black women are portrayed within search results. Noble explains that the front of search results being free and democratic are untrue and instead both sexism and pornography seem to be the most popular portrayal of women found through search results.

Chapter 2: Searching for Black girls
Chapter two begins with Noble outlining how in 2016 the Black Girls Code organization would be moving into Google’s New York City offices in part of Google’s 150 million dollar investment to bringing in a pipeline of diverse talent into the tech industry. The idea of pipeline talent was critiqued by Laura Weidman Powers of CODE2040, explaining that this idea of investing in the future through this new talent pipeline, takes away from the talent of those already in the tech industry who’s voices are not being heard and instead, continue to be marginalized. Noble also critiques the idea of bringing in pipeline talent by explaining by bringing in future Black women programmers who then become responsible for fixing the past problems of racial exclusion is not the correct way to go about things, as it becomes an excuse for not having to address the persistent marginalization of Black women in the tech industry.

Noble emphasizes the need to hire people who have a firsthand understanding of the challenges of racialization and marginalization, explaining the need for jobs to exist that factor in degrees from ethnic cultural studies, as the typical engineering program lacks the ability to address such areas. Noble explains that the people who design technologies need to take into account and have a background in the history of marginalized peoples, or at the very least, work alongside those who have the expertise required in the social sciences and humanities fields.

Noble also adds that although the main focus in her study is the search results from the searching ‘Black girls,’ similar sexualized and pornographic search results from searching Asian, Asian Indian, Latina and White girls are also present. Noble explains that this reaffirms her point that women in general are not portrayed accurately through Google’s search results.

Noble moves onto discussing the work of Vilna Bashi Treitler on racialization and ethnic groups. Noble explains that in Treitler’s work on racial formations, power and privilege form a hierarchical system that privileges the elite and whiteness when it comes to politics and the economy. This leaves ethnic groups on the bottom of that system, as they are left vying for power that is already afforded to those at the top. Noble explains that Treitler’s work is essential in understanding how these hierarchical system reproduce themselves in online environments.

Noble moves on to giving the example of Kabir Ali an African American teenager who posted a video onto his twitter account of the Google search “three black teenagers,” and the results were filled with Black teenager’s mugshots. Ali then changed the term black to white in his search and the results were drastically different, removing any indication of criminality and instead replacing it with typical pictures of wholesomeness. The tweet went viral and was picked up by news stations, resulting in Google issuing a statement citing the images as not in their control and as an anomaly in their system. Then a few weeks later, it was discovered that the pictures were tweaked, now showing more wholesome pictures when searching for three Black teenagers, and a new pictures of a white teenager’s mugshot when searching for three white teenagers. Noble explains that this pattern displayed by Google is nothing new as it follows the pattern of initially denying any responsibility, while working behind the scenes to fix the issues away from the public eye. This as Noble explains also adds to a problematic and prolonged pattern in which the superiority of whiteness is reinforced. Noble also provides further examples of difference when searching for Google images, as when searching for the term doctor, the results displayed images with white doctors and also when searching for professional and unprofessional work hairstyles, the professional search displayed white women, while the unprofessional search displayed black women. Noble refers to this pattern of search as technological racialization in the form of algorithmic oppression.

Noble moves onto to discussing the ‘politics of representation’ in terms of representing groups that have previously been and continue to be marginalized and disenfranchised through the dominant culture. Noble explains that this cannot exist without acknowledging how power is already skewed through the existing system that is inherently founded on whiteness and sexism. Noble explains that systems as such have seeped into technology, heightening the need for such systems to be critically analyzed. Noble’s hope then for this work is to reshape the ways in which Black women and women in general are collectively viewed and represented not only in the field of technology, but society more broadly.

Noble moves onto to discussing pornography in relation to Google search results, explaining that through keywords, pornographic search terms can pop up first in suggested search results. Any pornographic term can attach itself to an innocuous term demonstrating the power that the pornography industry has in controlling search results. Noble then shifts the discussion towards looking at Black women as commodities, where in the past, historical looks at African American women in the context of slavery and exploitation normalized the ideas of rape and conquest over Black bodies. This idea then shapes them into sexual objects, which are now commodified in today’s marketplace. Noble provides an example of this play, where in April 2012, Adelsohn Liljeroth the former culture minister of Sweden, took part in a celebratory event for Sweden’s World Art Day. The event featured an art installation by Makoda Aj Linde who dressed in blackface was at the top of the cake, with images appearing to be grotesque at the expense of Black women.

One of Noble’s key points for the chapter comes on page 99, where she explains: “This study highlights misrepresentation in Google Search as a detailed example of the power of algorithms in controlling the image, concepts, and values assigned to people, by featuring a detailed look at Black girls. I do not intend to comprehensively evaluate the vast range of representations and cultural production that exists on the Internet for Black women and girls, some portion of which indeed reflects individual agency in self-representation (e.g., selfie culture). However, the nature of representation in commercial search as primarily pornographic for Black women is a distinct form of sexual representation that is commercialized by Google” (Noble, 2018, 99)

Noble also explains that the rise of the internet has made racialized depictions of pornography easily accessible and increasingly commodified.

Noble shifts gears to explain that in 2012, Google changed its algorithm to remove the primary number of pornographic search results when searching for Black women and by 2016, the search included an increase in diverse and less sexualized images than before. However, Noble explains that some images still remain troubling, especially in the video section, where the videos depict a comedic and stereotypical look at Black women.

Noble ends the chapter, discussing the importance to recognize Google and their advertising model as a media practice, based on its capacity to influence and shape views. This in the sense that the predominant images associated with women on Google searches, attaches women to men or to sexuality, thus reinforcing these views onto those consuming the images and advertisements.

Noble sums up the chapter by explaining: “How women, particularly Black women, are misrepresented on the Internet in search results and how this is tied to a longer legacy of White racial patriarchy” Furthermore, “men, intending to or not, have used their control and monopoly over the domain of technology to further consolidate their social, political, and economic power in society and rarely give up these privileges to create structural shifts in these inheritances. Where men shape technology, they shape it to the exclusion of women, especially Black women” (Noble, 2018, 107).