No. The receive preferentially information provided by the services, on the basis of inferences drawn by pattern-matching algorithms based on the capturing of their own past behavior. The environment is learning to reinforce their attention patterns, by selling the incremental changes in attention. To treat this as a monopoly on information is incorrect, and the resulting analysis will be ineffective.

Is it possible that service providers abuse such algorithms or users misuse such algorithm in bad faith? Even when there is no abuse or misuse, is it possible that the individuals who acquire information selected by other entities do have intellectual autonomy?

Newspapers, magazines, and broadcast news were also edited in the 20th century, often by quite crude algorithms. People read multiple newspapers as they presently interact with multiple platforms. What's the problem?

But there is no indication of effectiveness. The wrong done is the involvement of the intelligence services in politics, not the effectiveness of retweeting bullshit.

No proof whatever that this is true, compared to whatever baseline you like, let alone the baseline of government control of broadcast, common to places such as Russia, and the DPRK, where TV is much more important than the Internet, and in this respect approximating late 20th-century conditions in all the advanced societies.

It's easy to retain intellectual autonomy in countries with an uncensored Net, if one structures how one reads and uses the Net appropriately. Far easier than it was in 20th century, because the power of the Net is great if it is free. It's the Chinese paradigm that matters, not the social networks I don't have to use.

A good set of observations and thoughts about a problem that wasn't defined quite right. The route to revision lies in the first section, where I have tried to raise the relevant challenges for improvement.

Algorithms and Intellectual Autonomy

-- By HyunKyungLee - 21 Mar 2017

1. Introduction

After Trump was elected the 2016 US presidential election, many pointed out that Facebook helped Trump won the election. They claimed that unverified misinformation spread and reproduced through a gigantic service Facebook which consequentially contributed to Trump’s win. As of February 2017, Google accounts for 80 percent or more of the search marketand Facebook is taking up 40 percent or more of the SNS market. The users of those services receive only the information selected based on the algorithm adopted by the services. Is it possible that service providers abuse such algorithms or users misuse such algorithm in bad faith? Even when there is no abuse or misuse, is it possible that the individuals who acquire information selected by other entities do have intellectual autonomy?

2. Algorithms and intellectual autonomy

A. Fairness of algorithm?

Regarding the US presidential election, one media raised allegation that Facebook manipulated algorithm to prevent Trump’s win. Facebook received investigation by the US Senate Commerce Committee regarding the allegation it deliberately suppressed news from conservative view. Are the algorithms adopted by monopolistic services fair? As those services refuse to completely disclose their algorithms based on trade secret, we can never know but only guess how they select the information they provide. It is easy to misunderstand that machines would be fair, but machines in the end are also made by humans. It is technically possible service providers select the information to provide users with and manipulate public opinion through tampering with algorithms.

B. Manipulation of public opinion through fair algorithms

Although we do not have access to the secrets of Facebook’s algorithm, it is well known that the more Likes there are, the more likely it is that the posting will be on someone else’s news feeds. It is actually a common marketing technique to expose certain postings more frequently on others’ news feeds through manipulating number of Likes, and in such ways inaccurate conspiracy theories can be spread widely. In South Korea, there was a case where National Intelligence Service of Korea manipulated public opinion by increasing the counts of for or against on reports or comments on political issues or posting tweets on Tweeter and using automatic retweet program etc. in the 2012 presidential election.

C. Intellectual autonomy

Even without considering situations as above, we find that service providers basically adopt algorithm in a way to acquire competitive advantages. The giant services tend to select and provide information that users want to hear to prevent user attrition. As a result, users are repeatedly exposed to the information they agreed upon, instead of balanced information, and get more convinced with such information. People think that their choice and conviction are independent, but are they? Under such circumstances, is intellectual autonomy feasible? Intellectual autonomy can be defined as thinking for oneself independently from others’ direction and control. With the thinking process regarded as making rational decisions based on information through reasoning, people start thinking process from defective information in the world dominated by giant services that adopted algorithms. Moreover, as people do not want to be unpopular by thinking differently from those around them, they tend to agree with them, and the algorithms adopted by giant services, particularly SNSs, suppress intellectual autonomy by continuously stressing how people around their users think. Furthermore, what makes this even more dangerous is that people in societies dominated by such services misunderstand that their thoughts and decisions are based on their autonomous thinking while they actually think and decide as the algorithms decide.

3. Response plan

A. Antitrust regulations?

We cannot simply conclude that we should not use such giant services. First started using giant services such as Google or Facebook for various reasons, people are already habituated to such services and feel that they cannot live without them. In other words, the giant services’ monopoly will not be resolved through users’ voluntary exits. With market control by the above services as premise, we can consider antitrust regulations that requires special obligation to prevent these companies from harming consumers by leveraging their positions. The European Union’s competition commissioner filed antitrust charges on Google, Google received antitrust investigation in US and Facebook is under antitrust investigation in Germany.

B. Algorithmic transparency

Angela Merkel demanded algorithmic transparency to giant service providers last fall, alleging that they are creating bubbles of self-reinforcing views. Aside from her demand, there has been continuous demand for algorithmic transparency for a long time. However, the service providers have avoided disclosure of algorithm, arguing that the algorithms are their most invaluable trade secrets and are difficult to technically explain. It is true that algorithms are the core assets of the service providers. However, although the very initial and simple algorithm might have been created solely based on their ideas, the current algorithms are the results of continuous use of users’ information and correction of defects of past algorithms. In this regard, can we view the algorithms of the giant service providers purely as the fruits of their efforts? Moreover, considering that many experts are striving to improve the rights of consumers, while it might be difficult for individual consumers to understand what input generates what output in what process at a glance, it would be possible to understand those algorithms through experts’ interpretation and education. Algorithmic transparency is essential for intellectual autonomy, considering the market monopoly by giant service providers and the environment where it is hard to avoid using such services.

C. Education

The most important is education of people. Users need to understand the trends and defects of the information they find on the Internet. Moreover, users should understand and stay vigilant against the fact that they do not think independently. Rather, they tend to blindly follow what others think. While it might not be possible for users to completely leave such algorithmic services, they should at least make efforts to pursue compromised intellectual autonomy based on the understanding of the risks of such services.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, HyunKyungLee
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.