Very interesting. I think about these things a lot and there’s a lot here. I don’t have much to add, certainly not in terms of more texts. A couple of things. Computationally, there’s often not a lot of difference between data and metadata. In fact, one of the critiques that’s been lobbied at the Obama administration is the this “just metadata” idea is crazy. Sometimes the metadata reveals more than the data itself. A picture, for example, might be elusive about it’s location in the photo itself, but it’s metadata reveals the GPS data. Here’s an article about that (http://blog.internetcases.com/2014/02/04/no-privacy-interest-in-photo-metadata/). You seem already headed in that direction. Where once only the metadata was easily accessed by machines, now all the text and other data, maybe even edits? are available.
Second thought, I’ve recently found myself on the receiving end of gender bias connected to the procedural impact of online media. It was kind of weird. It was one of those things where if one searched Google, let’s say, my name and 4 men would appear, perhaps with the 3 of the men appearing above me and one below. Rather than say, invite 1 guy and me to speak, the 3 men were selected. There could have been other reasons, of course, but it’s relatively clear that gender had something to do with it, not that the person/people was being biased but because the way the internet work, more is better. Does that make sense?
Increasingly, I think, people are assuming that the technology is neutral, when it’s clearly not, and often reinforces existing biases. Maybe that’s too simple a conclusion, but I guess the real work is in figuring out ways of constructing metadata so that it works against our tendencies. Dash’s experiment was a human being’s attempt at that, but the real work is in the machine.
geekymom
February 18, 2014 7:45 pmVery interesting. I think about these things a lot and there’s a lot here. I don’t have much to add, certainly not in terms of more texts. A couple of things. Computationally, there’s often not a lot of difference between data and metadata. In fact, one of the critiques that’s been lobbied at the Obama administration is the this “just metadata” idea is crazy. Sometimes the metadata reveals more than the data itself. A picture, for example, might be elusive about it’s location in the photo itself, but it’s metadata reveals the GPS data. Here’s an article about that (http://blog.internetcases.com/2014/02/04/no-privacy-interest-in-photo-metadata/). You seem already headed in that direction. Where once only the metadata was easily accessed by machines, now all the text and other data, maybe even edits? are available.
Second thought, I’ve recently found myself on the receiving end of gender bias connected to the procedural impact of online media. It was kind of weird. It was one of those things where if one searched Google, let’s say, my name and 4 men would appear, perhaps with the 3 of the men appearing above me and one below. Rather than say, invite 1 guy and me to speak, the 3 men were selected. There could have been other reasons, of course, but it’s relatively clear that gender had something to do with it, not that the person/people was being biased but because the way the internet work, more is better. Does that make sense?
Increasingly, I think, people are assuming that the technology is neutral, when it’s clearly not, and often reinforces existing biases. Maybe that’s too simple a conclusion, but I guess the real work is in figuring out ways of constructing metadata so that it works against our tendencies. Dash’s experiment was a human being’s attempt at that, but the real work is in the machine.