Johanna Hedva: One of the things that was not includ­ed in my bio was that I did my under­grad­u­ate degree in this depart­ment, the Design Media Arts Department, many years ago. And I have to just start this con­ver­sa­tion by say­ing I am so moved that this conversation’s even hap­pen­ing in this space, in this depart­ment. It was not at all hap­pen­ing when I was a stu­dent here, and I’m real­ly just so thrilled, like real­ly emo­tion­al about it that we are hav­ing polit­i­cal con­ver­sa­tions around our work as graph­ic design­ers, media artists, artists, cul­tur­al pro­duc­ers, in the 21st cen­tu­ry in a dig­i­tal world.

One of the things that just imme­di­ate­ly struck me about all three pre­sen­ta­tions is the role of design and just visu­al semi­otics of these things. For exam­ple, Safiya talk­ing about these web sites that Dylan Roof would go to and they looked like, they spoke the visu­al lan­guage of a neu­tral news site or a rep­utable jour­nal­ism site, some­thing like this. That’s a graph­ic design issue, right, media design. And the visu­al­i­ty thread is seen in all of these, how rep­re­sen­ta­tion just [at] a very basic for­mal lev­el is work­ing here.

So one of the things that it makes me think about was, in my expe­ri­ence as an under­grad­u­ate, my men­tor was Willem Henri Lucas, who is a very polit­i­cal design­er, and we would often talk about what the pol­i­tics were that were embed­ded in cer­tain choic­es we were mak­ing as design­ers. For exam­ple typog­ra­phy choice is a polit­i­cal one. Who made it? Did you have to pay for it? Is it a cor­po­rate font? Is it used by cor­po­ra­tions, so that it looks cor­po­rate? Are there fonts that you use in jour­nal­ism sites that bring you a sense of legit­i­ma­cy as a news site?

And I think that our gen­er­a­tion is so well-equipped to be able to make media and make our own images on the Web. And I think that we can be very savvy about how those get deployed. And in the case of the Council for Conservative Citizens, they prob­a­bly had a good sense of what kind of graph­ic design deci­sions they need­ed to make in order to seem neu­tral.

So I was won­der­ing if maybe we could start by talk­ing about how this ques­tion of struc­tures of oppres­sion and dom­i­na­tion that are in place in the real world get­ting repli­cat­ed online often hap­pens visu­al­ly. And through just very basic visu­al cues. Fonts, like if it’s in bold, that sig­nals some­thing dif­fer­ent than if it’s blink­ing yel­low.

So maybe we could talk about the visu­al lit­er­a­cy, media lit­er­a­cy, that’s inher­ent in dig­i­tal prac­tices, espe­cial­ly the 21st cen­tu­ry, espe­cial­ly for Millenials, the gen­er­a­tion that grew up being very com­fort­able mak­ing media online.

Safiya Noble: I’m hap­py to jump in on that. I think it’s a great prompt. One of the things that I like to talk about as well in this kind of issue, par­tic­u­lar­ly with the exam­ple of Google, is that what we have is kind of an aes­thet­ic of a white page, a blank white slate with an emp­ty box that com­mu­ni­cates sim­plic­i­ty. It’s sim­ple to put in a query, and it’s sim­ple to get back an answer. And yet the kinds of ques­tions that often get put into a search engine are high­ly com­pli­cat­ed, nuanced, con­test­ed kinds of ideas or con­cepts; that sim­plic­i­ty is actu­al­ly not the right approach.

So we have a social­iza­tion, and I cer­tain­ly see this myself now in this role teach­ing, kind of an expec­ta­tion of a sim­ple and imme­di­ate answer. An instan­ta­neous put in, get out” kind of aes­thet­ic, and that that trans­lates to how knowl­edge is pro­duced. And of course we know that is not how knowl­edge is pro­duced. People go to war over knowl­edge, right? So I think there’s some­thing that we have to be incred­i­bly care­ful about. I talk in my work about what would it mean, for exam­ple, to make knowl­edge trans­par­ent and to see all of the com­plex­i­ties of it, and then have to make choic­es with­in that com­plex­i­ty rather than an aes­thet­ic of white­space and noth­ing­ness that com­mu­ni­cates some­thing. And it’s a false­hood.

So danah boyd for exam­ple did stud­ies on teenagers who moved from MySpace to Facebook. And what she found in her study [PDF] is that high school stu­dents who were still on MySpace were typ­i­cal­ly mar­gin­al­ized stu­dents. They weren’t jocks, they weren’t cheer­lead­ers, they were kind of alter­na­tive, what­ev­er that means, and also peo­ple of col­or I guess were alter­na­tive. (Aren’t we?) And part of the kinds of things that stu­dents report­ed, espe­cial­ly in a 21st cen­tu­ry era of col­or­blind ide­ol­o­gy [was] stu­dents want to name in an explic­it way how they felt about their peers. They would say things like, Well, Facebook is clean­er. It has clean­er design. It’s not so messy.” And these were code words that she found that reflect­ed the incred­i­ble hyper­indi­vid­u­al­i­ty that you can express on MySpace—you got the march­ing ants or what­ev­er code in there—those were sig­ni­fiers of dif­fer­ence. That in a space like Facebook that was made as an Ivy League social net­work­ing plat­form, where you have a high degree of homo­gene­ity in that kind of uni­ver­si­ty envi­ron­ment, that the aes­thet­ic of clean lines, of not point­ing to dif­fer­ence and indi­vid­u­al­ism, was actu­al­ly val­ued. But it also was loaded with these kind of class and racial mark­ers.

So I think these are the things that— Go read her work, because it’s real­ly pow­er­ful. And what hap­pened as stu­dents left MySpace and went to Facebook, we lost a whole gen­er­a­tion of espe­cial­ly girls who were learn­ing how to code. They could do basic HTML kind of work by per­son­al­iz­ing their MySpace pages. You guys prob­a­bly weren’t even born when every­body was on MySpace. So what did we lose, also, in these kinds of design choic­es and moves, and the dis­course and rhetorics that we used around them. So I think these are absolute­ly design ques­tions and issues, and they’re explic­it­ly polit­i­cal and loaded with these racial, class, gen­der dynam­ics.

Hedva: I just want to offer rejoin­der before you all jump in, but I think always about—in arts, which is the world that I end­ed up mov­ing in more than the design world, there’s this word that gets tossed around a lot which is very fun­ny to me, which is site-specific.” Like as though there is a thing that’s not that, right? Like this idea of space (and artists talk a lot about space) as though it’s this neu­tral, emp­ty, ahis­toric loca­tion. Like what about place? Place implies there’s a cost of rent, there were neigh­bors, there’s rules, there’s cracks in the walls, there’s street noise. There’s all of these things that are part of that loca­tion.

And I think in dig­i­tal space,” which we often talk about, those assump­tions are car­ried over again. Like this idea that the clean­est dig­i­tal design solu­tion is the best is an implic­it val­ue. There are always these redesigns of social media plat­forms that are done, accord­ing to the com­pa­ny, to make things clean­er, which I just think is so fun­ny, that that’s the implic­it val­ue that we all now in this world want. Like, oh I need to clean up my Facebook feed, I need to clean up my Twitter feed. This kind of cleanliness…very strange to me.

Casey Reas: Before MySpace came to the world, every­body was not every­body at all. The few peo­ple who had a pres­ence online were doing every­thing entire­ly from scratch. Learning from oth­er peo­ple by look­ing at what they had done, but every­body was able to have an entire­ly unique—the sys­tem allowed for an entire­ly unique pres­ence. MySpace was some­where in between there and what Facebook is now. Twitter has large­ly pro­lif­er­at­ed because it’s so easy to do, but we’re all with­in the strait­jack­et of that char­ac­ter count, and it seems like we’re increas­ing­ly putting our­selves into these nar­row con­tain­ers through which we can express our­selves. Facebook is chang­ing a lit­tle bit now, but the only affect you can apply to some­thing is you Like it. You have no oth­er option. I find that just to be very inter­est­ing.

Noble: I don’t want to dom­i­nate. I going to just say real­ly quick­ly that I think you’re right. What has hap­pened for those of us who remem­ber pre-digital, pre-Internet, and kind of came of age (which would be my gen­er­a­tion) on the Web, there was cer­tain­ly… The com­mer­cial Web envi­ron­ment was kind of late to the game. It took a while. I remem­ber when every­body was like, you know some teenag­er owned AT&T dot com. Then they’re like, Oh my god, we got­ta get that domain!” So that was hap­pen­ing all over cor­po­rate America. Everybody owned some­thing and was sub­vert­ing it. So you’re right. I mean, what’s now total­ly nor­mal­ized is that we func­tion with­in these cor­po­rate con­tain­ers, with very lit­tle recog­ni­tion of, for exam­ple, our dig­i­tal labor, that just our­selves as an audi­ence is the com­mod­i­ty, right? (So Dallas Smythe and the audi­ence com­mod­i­ty.) We have to under­stand that these con­tain­ers in many ways shape our behav­ior and social­ize a par­tic­u­lar­ly kind of nor­mal­cy. And it’s incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult to inter­vene upon it.

Marika Cifor: There’s now inter­est­ing activism that comes specif­i­cal­ly from those con­straints. There’s an exam­ple of an activist get­ting get­ting Nike to cus­tomize his sneak­ers with the word sweat­shop” on it, which they didn’t want to do. So kind of using the con­straints as a way to speak back to that cor­po­rate sys­tem in inter­est­ing ways.

An Xiao Mina: I think what’s inter­est­ing also is how these spaces and with­in these con­straints peo­ple are find­ing ways to cri­tique oth­er forms of media. So two spe­cif­ic exam­ples that I can real­ly think of recent­ly is that hash­tag #IfTheyGunnedMeDown, where young men of col­or, espe­cial­ly black men, were using Instagram or oth­er forms of social media to show side by side how they choose to depict them­selves ver­sus how main­stream media might depict them if they were gunned down. And I thought that was very pow­er­ful and provoca­tive, because it was a cri­tique of broad­cast media.

And then you see this in a place like China, where you’ll see pro­pa­gan­da memes. People will take clas­si­cal Chinese pro­pa­gan­da and then remix that and chal­lenge the tra­di­tion­al broad­cast media that pre­vi­ous­ly most peo­ple had to just inher­it and could remix maybe on a small-scale local­ly with posters. But the abil­i­ty to dis­trib­ute that through these net­works becomes very pow­er­ful. And it seems like there’s this oppor­tu­ni­ty to make more pub­lic this crit­i­cal dis­course in media, and that crit­i­cal dis­course needs to go back onto the media itself that peo­ple are using. That in using and find­ing so much pow­er through Instagram and Twitter to cri­tique broad­cast media we’re for­get­ting that those plat­forms are them­selves media, they are them­selves a form of medi­a­tion, and that they them­selves have their own bias­es that need to be crit­i­cal­ly exam­ined. And it’d be interesting—I’m kind of think­ing of this snake eat­ing its tail—but that kind of crit­i­cal cri­tique of the very plat­form on which you’re doing your cri­tique, what that might look like and how we can shape a pub­lic dis­course around that.

Hedva: An, one of the things I was think­ing when you were talk­ing was sort of how impe­ri­al­ism has now begun to func­tion with­in lan­guages on the Internet and how we can see— Well, you know that first map where the lan­guage just redraw geopo­lit­i­cal lines. I’m won­der­ing if you can talk a lit­tle bit about…there’s a lot of dis­course in post­colo­nial, decolo­nial thought around how the col­o­niz­ers’ theft of the indige­nous lan­guage is a func­tion of impe­ri­al­ism. All of this lit­er­a­ture that I’ve read about it is pre-Internet so far. And I feel like this is the first time I’ve start­ed to think about how lan­guages are still in that process, but now in a dig­i­tal way. So I’m won­der­ing if you could talk a lit­tle bit about the rela­tion­ship between imperial/colonial his­to­ries and meth­ods with lan­guage.

Mina: Sure. That’s a great ques­tion. I think the his­to­ry of eras­ing lan­guages is very much a colo­nial arti­fact. And it’s often invis­i­ble to the next gen­er­a­tion, I think espe­cial­ly in the United States. My family’s Filipino-Chinese. I grew up speak­ing only English. It just takes one gen­er­a­tion for access to one’s native tongue to just van­ish and dis­ap­pear. And cer­tain­ly this has a very long his­to­ry. And it’s inter­est­ing because the very plat­forms that are dis­sem­i­nat­ing across the world are large­ly being designed and devel­oped in one part of the world, which hap­pens to be where I live. And that inher­ent bias that that one region of the world, which is just one space per­spec­tive, then places pres­sures on oth­er peo­ple to have to learn that lan­guage.

And I think about these lan­guage bias­es as being a full stack prob­lem. In tech­nol­o­gy design we talk about the full stack. All the way down from the very code in which there’s so much talk about the open source soft­ware move­ment and the abil­i­ty to cre­ate and shape your soft­ware and your media envi­ron­ment. That code, the human-facing part of that, is in English. And it’s sim­ple phras­es. Yes, you can learn those phras­es, but imag­ine try­ing to relearn code in a lan­guage that you don’t speak, and sud­den­ly you’re hav­ing to learn two lan­guages: the pro­gram­ming lan­guage and then the lan­guage in which the pro­gram­ming lan­guage is expressed.

And then it moves up to the typog­ra­phy pres­sures. The abil­i­ty to input Arabic on a mobile phone up until recent­ly was severe­ly lim­it­ed, and Arabic speak­ers lit­er­al­ly had to use Roman numer­ics to express their lan­guage online. Which was incred­i­bly cre­ative. There’s these cre­ative workarounds for the lan­guage, but as a result had to use Latin script and basi­cal­ly erase their script from the Internet until input sys­tems improved.

Then it goes up from there into con­tent and how if you want to know what’s going on in the world, if you want to have access to… Here I used the Wikipedia exam­ple, but anoth­er exam­ple would be Stack Overflow. Again, such an impor­tant place for peo­ple to learn how to build the soft­ware around them, if that knowl­edge is only avail­able in English and Portuguese right now, the pres­sure to have to learn those lan­guages increas­es sub­stan­tial­ly.

And then all the way to the typog­ra­phy. We’re talk­ing about the polit­i­cal deci­sions around typog­ra­phy. In lan­guages that use Latin let­ters, you have a wide vari­ety of typog­ra­phy and fonts that you can use, and if you have that kind of crit­i­cal knowl­edge about the impli­ca­tions of all these fonts you can real­ly make impor­tant design deci­sions. But if you have access to only one or two fonts, sud­den­ly the abil­i­ty for you to cre­ate a space around the very con­tent and the sites that you’re try­ing to cre­ate again becomes lim­it­ed and you’re inher­it­ing some­one else’s designs around your typog­ra­phy.

So these bias­es and these pres­sures exist across the board. And the very pres­sure to join a major net­work like Facebook or Twitter then pres­sures you to have to learn the lan­guages in which they oper­ate. So these kind of colo­nial pres­sures on lan­guage are very much repro­duced.

Hedva: It’s like code-switching but for cul­tur­al things. I was just hav­ing a con­ver­sa­tion with my friend who’s Polish the oth­er day and he was say­ing because of glob­al­iza­tion and impe­ri­al­ism he can talk to me about The Simpsons or some­thing, but I won’t have any idea about the Polish TV shows that he grew up watch­ing. And I think that this way of cul­tur­al, per­ni­cious, per­va­sive­ness from English con­sid­ered to be the uni­ver­sal lan­guage now…this is real­ly get­ting repli­cat­ed expo­nen­tial­ly in the dig­i­tal space.

Mina: And even with­in English-speaking cul­tures, the gen­er­al val­u­a­tion of whose English is more impor­tant and cer­tain­ly when we’re talk­ing about the English-speaking Internet those peo­ple are think­ing United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and maybe Australia. But many oth­er coun­tries, peo­ple do speak English and even then their voic­es and their per­spec­tives are often deval­ued and under­served. So in addi­tion to build­ing voice I think we need a cul­ture of also build­ing bet­ter tools for lis­ten­ing and these kind of pipelines for val­u­a­tion of these new voic­es online. Because you can shout all you want and have new voice, but if there’s not enough lis­ten­ing those con­nec­tions aren’t made.

Noble: I want to add too that I think there’s this eco­nom­ic dimen­sion, espe­cial­ly in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, where tru­ly it’s a closed com­mu­ni­ty of most­ly men and well-documented racism and sex­ism and exclu­sion that hap­pens, par­tic­u­lar­ly in ven­ture cap­i­tal fund­ing. So that the par­a­digm around design hap­pens in the con­text of com­mod­i­ty. So what can be com­mod­i­fied and sold, pack­aged, make prof­it, that’s a dri­ving par­a­digm, a design par­a­digm I would argue in Silicon Valley that real­ly affects every­one else. If you don’t have mil­lions of dol­lars, you actu­al­ly can’t imple­ment a lot of these kinds of projects that we might offer up [as] cri­tiques or sub­ver­sions or some oth­er kind of alter­na­tive.

So the opt­ing out and going to oth­er things, like, what oth­er things? How can those things be cre­at­ed when they’re hap­pen­ing in the con­text of real­ly hyper-capitalism in Silicon Valley. And of course the bias that we don’t see is the incred­i­ble prof­it mar­gins that hap­pen around plat­forms and tech­nol­o­gy designs com­ing out of the Valley are in direct rela­tion­ship to our eco­nom­ic poli­cies of glob­al­iza­tion. So the man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs are off­shored to the places where chil­dren can make those tech­nolo­gies or peo­ple can live in dorms. We’ve read the kind of Foxconn sto­ries where, for exam­ple, in the Congo where peo­ple who are doing the min­ing for coltan are liv­ing in the most extreme sex­u­al vio­lence, rape, assault con­di­tions in the world accord­ing to the United Nations. So those things get out­sourced. So what gets out­sourced in the design of our projects is real­ly impor­tant as a human­i­tar­i­an issue.

One thing that we don’t talk about that I’m start­ing to take up in my own work is the sus­tain­abil­i­ty of these tech­nolo­gies as well. We have a seri­ous design cri­sis around information/communication tech­nolo­gies and their con­tri­bu­tion to glob­al warm­ing. We just saw the lat­est reports com­ing out now post the Paris bomb­ing and just pri­or to that cli­mate change issues are direct­ly impli­cat­ed in the desta­bi­liza­tion of many nations where we are start­ing to see tremen­dous con­se­quence as a result of that desta­bi­liza­tion. And we’re impli­cat­ed, again, in these while we’re fetishiz­ing Google and Facebook. So I think that we need a rad­i­cal design change. And I might ask if I were teach­ing an HCI class or design class with you, I would say, How are you going to design this so that not one life is lost?” What if that were the design imper­a­tive rather than what’s your IPO going to be?

So it’s the par­a­digms with­in which we’re design­ing which that are real­ly impor­tant, too.

Reas: Safiya, I have two follow-ups with that. One is the state­ment that you made that peo­ple seem to trust search engines. So my ques­tion is why do you think peo­ple trust search engines. But that leads to the next ques­tion, which is this idea of pro­pri­etary and cor­po­rate data ver­sus open sys­tems, pub­lic sys­tems, and why do you think that all of our data is with­in these pro­pri­etary algo­rithms and ways of stor­ing rather than in things that are more open, more pub­lic.

Noble: These are great ques­tions. Part of the rea­son we trust search engines is because if we need to find out what time Starbucks clos­es, it gives us the answer, right? So that’s cru­cial infor­ma­tion that some peo­ple need. If you need to know what time does my class start, I’ve got to go online and get the sched­ule because it’s the first week of class, the room or the map…there are kinds of banal types of infor­ma­tion that search are excel­lent at index­ing and then pro­vid­ing for us. And that rein­forces our trust in them.

When we start to put com­plex ideas into these envi­ron­ments, oth­er things hap­pen and that’s where we lose our sense of mak­ing sense of what’s appro­pri­ate to put in and what’s not. And of course any of us up here who teach (this is a tip for any­body here who’s an under­grad), your pro­fes­sors see it when you’re papers come in and you’re cit­ing things that make no sense to a fac­ul­ty mem­ber as a legit­i­mate cita­tion. There are cer­tain things that, you must have Googled that because there’s noth­ing schol­ar­ly about that and that’s a no. You can’t go on that. But you don’t know, right? Because you can trust it for all these oth­er types of infor­ma­tion search­es. So that’s part of the chal­lenge.

I think in our field, we might say that librar­i­ans and infor­ma­tion pro­fes­sion­als, we’ve real­ly been focused on schol­ar­ly infor­ma­tion and schol­ar­ly knowl­edge, a dif­fer­ent type of curat­ed and vet­ted infor­ma­tion. And we have not put a lot of our atten­tion as a field, as a prac­tice, on the broad­er index­ing of the web and curat­ing the web. I’m cer­tain­ly try­ing to implore peo­ple who do that type of work to con­sid­er that that might be an alter­na­tive way for us to think about. What if we had a search engine, I often say, that was curat­ed by all the research uni­ver­si­ties in the world? Not just in the United States, but in the world.

There are so many forms of knowl­edge, for exam­ple, that we don’t even have access to because of the lan­guage. Brilliant think­ing that’s hap­pen­ing from oth­er parts of the world that’s real­ly high­ly inac­ces­si­ble. And these are the kinds of chal­lenges that I think we’re fac­ing in the Library and Information Science, Information Studies fields, access to knowl­edge has always been a key dri­ver for mil­len­nia for peo­ple who keep the record and knowl­edge. But in the com­mer­cial spaces, which is where the major­i­ty of peo­ple live on the web, that has not been in the bulls­eye. And I think that’s part of the bar­ri­er that we have to work through.

Maybe some of you will come do grad­u­ate work in Information Studies and will help us think through these, because they are design issues, too.

Hedva: Marika, do you want to jump in?

Cifor: I think that it’s also that they’re not a thing we’re taught to read crit­i­cal­ly. They seem very neu­tral and objec­tive, and even the way in which the lan­guage there is used, right? It’s the things that pop up with the high­est rel­e­van­cy, to the top of your Google search, for exam­ple. And we pick on Google a lot, but that’s because Google is more than 70% of the mar­ket share for search­es in the United States, so it mat­ters. It is a tar­get for a par­tic­u­lar rea­son. But the design itself is intend­ed of course, to come back to that, to look neu­tral and unless peo­ple are taught to read that crit­i­cal­ly the way in which they’re taught to read oth­er infor­ma­tion crit­i­cal­ly, why would you?

Noble: Also, Google, or search engines, they’re a rank­ing for­mat. So the already always way of think­ing about rank­ing, espe­cial­ly in the con­text of the West or the United States is what? We’re #1,” right? If it’s first, it’s the best. If it’s on page ten thou­sand what­ev­er, we don’t even care. Because the par­a­digm of rank­ing is actu­al­ly the design dri­ver. So that has an incred­i­ble impact on why we believe, because it must be right.

Why porn…up until I wrote that Bitch mag­a­zine arti­cle, about six months after I wrote that arti­cle they changed the algo­rithm and black girls don’t get porni­fied as bad­ly any­more. (I can’t say it’s the arti­cle, but I can’t say it’s not.) All I’m say­ing is that who has the most polit­i­cal cap­i­tal an eco­nom­ic cap­i­tal is the porn indus­try on the Web. Are you kid­ding? It’s like, we wouldn’t have cred­it card pro­cess­ing and video and audio if the porn indus­try hadn’t put a ton of mon­ey behind that so that they could sell their prod­ucts. So again, we don’t real­ly think about these oth­er eco­nom­ic and design dri­vers that are pro­vid­ing the con­text for how we receive.

Mina: It’s got me think­ing in terms of design and design provo­ca­tions as, there’s this fetishiza­tion around intu­itive design and sim­ple design, and how those can be extreme­ly dan­ger­ous, that intu­itions are found­ed on assump­tions. And if you are design­ing to make things as sim­ple and as click­able as pos­si­ble with­out forc­ing peo­ple to have to think through what click­ing means, what search­ing means, and that this whole ethos of not mak­ing the user think is a great way to hide the implic­it bases and explic­it bias­es that these sys­tems con­tain. So it would be inter­est­ing I think to think about, rethink, a fric­tion of design that would show what is hap­pen­ing behind this sim­ple lit­tle box. What is this algo­rithm doing? How is it float­ing up things that are rel­e­vant? And how is your search his­to­ry and your loca­tion impact­ing these results? You can imag­ine a Google that makes it dif­fi­cult for you. Instead of I’m feel­ing lucky,” it’s, I have to work for it” or some­thing. And what could that look like? I don’t know, but it’s inter­est­ing to think about a kind of con­train­tu­itive design that can raise these ques­tions in inter­est­ing ways.

Reas: I’ll ask An a quick ques­tion relat­ed to what you were dis­cussing. What if we assume that text is no longer the stan­dard. I mean text was nec­es­sary at one time because of how slow bits would trav­el, but now we can work with dif­fer­ent kinds of media. So yes­ter­day we were talk­ing a lit­tle bit about lan­guages that aren’t character-based or don’t real­ly have a writ­ten form and how work­ing with audio direct­ly can enable dif­fer­ent kinds of con­ver­sa­tions. So I was won­der­ing, what is the state of the art of that, or where do you imag­ine that going, to allow oth­er voic­es to come into play?

Mina: I think the most inter­est­ing to me is the WeChat exam­ple, which I showed and you saw in that pic­ture of Leo Messi. I didn’t get to talk about it; I was rush­ing through, but that inter­ac­tion of him hold­ing the phone like this [holds phone up to mouth] is him press­ing a but­ton and speak­ing into WeChat, which is a Chinese social net­work that start­ed out a lit­tle like WhatsApp but is a lot more robust now. And he’s speak­ing into the mic and then releas­es the but­ton, and that sends an audio mes­sage to the recip­i­ent. It’s not a tran­scribed audio mes­sage, it is just the audio mes­sage. WeChat was sort of a pio­neer in that inter­ac­tion. We now have that with iMes­sage and WhatsApp.

Part of the rea­son that this became very pop­u­lar is that again the dif­fi­cul­ty of inputting Chinese into a mobile phone. And Chinese being a non-alphabetic lan­guage, there are many forms of input, and it’s inter­est­ing that the key­board kind of stepped away. This sim­ple of idea of even using the key­board to input your lan­guage moved into just press­ing a but­ton to actu­al­ly speak it. And that I think is one great exam­ple of how audio can change an inter­ac­tion both for input and then also for lis­ten­ing.

Then you see this with e-reader apps, Instapaper or Kindle. And we were talk­ing about this yes­ter­day, that this is not just an issue of lan­guage, it’s also about acces­si­bil­i­ty and also lit­er­a­cy. That the abil­i­ty to just press a but­ton and lis­ten to what’s there, to lis­ten to the text or sim­ply bypass text alto­geth­er and lis­ten to a pod­cast. The rise of pod­casts is an inter­est­ing exam­ple again of mov­ing away from text as the pri­ma­ry mode of inter­ac­tion with the Web and mov­ing into audio and poten­tial­ly video.

And I think this is going to be an urgent need as this next bil­lion peo­ple who are com­ing from lan­guages that have no writ­ten form, the abil­i­ty to inter­act with infor­ma­tion, and share that infor­ma­tion with com­mu­ni­ties, I think—again these bias­es. Forcing oral lan­guage com­mu­ni­ties to have to write down their lan­guage. The major­i­ty of lan­guages in the world have no writ­ten form, the major­i­ty of lan­guages in the world are oral. And so rethink­ing the very inter­ac­tions and focus­ing on audio, poten­tial­ly video, again as tech­nolo­gies allow for this I think can be quite pow­er­ful and also just nec­es­sary, I think. Just an impor­tant way of pre­serv­ing cul­ture and not con­tin­u­ing this cul­tur­al impe­ri­al­ism that tech implic­it­ly con­tin­ues.

Hedva: I just have to…as the queer per­for­mance artist, from my posi­tion I have to talk about the body. So I want­ed to talk to Marika about how espe­cial­ly this ques­tion of embod­i­ment on the Internet and how I think you called it the Internet inter­ven­tion into the prove­nance of bod­ies and how that func­tions I think can also relat­ed to this idea of mov­ing away from text. Because if we think about differently-abled folks who might inter­act with infor­ma­tion from a dif­fer­ent place from read­ing text, right, I think that… I don’t know. I’m in a very ambiva­lent posi­tion about how the body can exist in a vir­tu­al space and I just rewatched Johnny Mnemonic… See, nobody knows what this movie is.

So this was this cyber­punk vision in the 90s of what vir­tu­al real­i­ty would be. It’s Keanu Reeves and one of the most…the best Keanu Reeves role. And the idea is that he can car­ry data in his brain. He can car­ry forty giga­bytes [laugh­ter] and so he’s on the black mar­ket as a data car­ri­er across inter­na­tion­al polit­i­cal lines, and he has to upload it into his brain. And some­thing went wrong and he now has eighty giga­bytes and so, you know.

But the impli­ca­tion of the body in these ear­li­er cyber­punk films and nov­els, of course, was that the body would some­how kind of dis­in­te­grate into tech­nol­o­gy in a very hor­rif­ic, dystopi­an way. He keeps say­ing, I need to get online,” because he needs to emp­ty his head. Sorry for the detour but it seems per­ti­nent.

So I’m very inter­est­ed in how the body gets rep­re­sent­ed and archived and repli­cat­ed and erased and all of these things. I’m won­der­ing if you could talk a bit about that in its rela­tion­ship to the Internet, the dig­i­tal, vir­tu­al, space.

Cifor: I think that’s an inter­est­ing and impor­tant ques­tion. And there’s much writ­ten about, espe­cial­ly I think in the ear­ly 2000s about the kind of poten­tial for the Internet as a space where you wouldn’t be tied to your body, as a kind of free­ing poten­tial to live in a world where you could evade race and class and gen­der and all of the things that con­strain our phys­i­cal bod­ies, as well as issues of abil­i­ty and oth­er con­straints of the phys­i­cal body.

What’s actu­al­ly hap­pened, of course, is…that hasn’t hap­pened. People’s avatars tend to rep­re­sent things about their own expe­ri­ence. We know that all kinds of things that hap­pen to phys­i­cal bod­ies in the phys­i­cal world hap­pen in the dig­i­tal as well. It per­haps frees up cer­tain kinds of harass­ment to hap­pen in a greater extent if there’s poten­tial of anonymi­ty, and appar­ent­ly when giv­en anonymi­ty we get even more racist and sex­ist and clas­sist than we feel free to be when we actu­al­ly have to look at some­one.

So I think that some of that poten­tial for the body to dis­ap­pear just, we still kind of inter­act with the dig­i­tal world con­strained by the same kind of par­a­digms in which we live. It’s hard to think out­side of the con­straints of race, class, and gen­der even if you’re in a world where maybe you can make your avatar look like what­ev­er you want it to look. We still are con­strained by think­ing in ways that are formed in anoth­er world. And I think that it’s part that temp­ta­tion to draw a line between the phys­i­cal and the dig­i­tal world, as two sep­a­rate worlds when in fact I don’t see them as sep­a­rate worlds. They con­tin­ue their racism, clas­sism… Like sex­ism in the real world, there’s racism, clas­sism, sex­ism in the dig­i­tal world. And that some of that poten­tial for the body to dis­ap­pear hasn’t hap­pened, that of course con­straints of phys­i­cal bod­ies, when we were talk­ing about issues espe­cial­ly of acces­si­bil­i­ty, still apply in a dig­i­tal world; depend­ing on your phys­i­cal lim­i­ta­tions or poten­tials of how Internet is also shaped in that way. So I think a lot of that kind of utopic poten­tial for the body to dis­ap­pear just is not real­is­tic and is per­haps not even a thing we want.

I’m also real­ly fas­ci­nat­ed by the way in which new iden­ti­ties are formed by the dig­i­tal, and the way in which those iden­ti­ties are high­ly gen­dered. If we think about the cat­e­gories of peo­ple that didn’t exist, like the bro­gram­mer and the pro­lif­er­a­tion of those images. Those are high­ly gen­dered images of who is cre­at­ing the dig­i­tal world. And it’s not just that. It’s all of those images are high­ly gen­dered. So I don’t think we have escaped the body in any way.

Noble: I want to add to that. I think we could also ask about to what degree does arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence pro­mote an era­sure of our human­i­ty, or we could call it the body, or a human expe­ri­ence. So those of us who study algo­rithms crit­i­cal­ly, we talk about the ways in which human beings now who engage with algo­rithms in every­day life are more like­ly to trust the algo­rithm than to trust pre­vi­ous forms of knowl­edge. Tarleton Gillespie writes about how algo­rithms have become so fun­da­men­tal to the human expe­ri­ence that they’ve start­ed to replace com­mon sense, cre­den­tialed experts, or the sci­en­tif­ic method, and even the word of God. This is what he says. And I think these kinds of ways of see­ing a dis­ap­pear­ance of the body, we could argue, by our increas­ing reliance upon an arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence is some­thing that’s real­ly impor­tant and worth exam­in­ing and think­ing about into the future.

So what would it mean that, and you hear peo­ple already in such com­mon every­day ways, talk about… I heard the provost of a big uni­ver­si­ty once say some­thing, or was report­ed that he said, What do we need the library for when we have Google?” So it’s like you have an inter­est­ing notion of human knowl­edge and its com­plex­i­ties, and that even the process… You know if you’ve had to go to the library to actu­al­ly do research…which I’m not even going to ask for a show of hands because I already know that the num­ber is low. So what does it mean, again, that we trust an algo­rithm to give us a deci­sion or give us knowl­edge or to have already curat­ed or done the hard think­ing for us? And you know, there are peo­ple who are writ­ing in con­tro­ver­sial ways about this like Nicholas Carr, who’s talk­ing about the neu­ro­log­i­cal effects of how our brains are changed by this kind of instant grat­i­fi­ca­tion, instant always, uncritical…our loss of our abil­i­ty to think.

And so I think this could be a very impor­tant aspect of rethink­ing what it means to think about embod­i­ment, that we trust our tech­nolo­gies to embody a lev­el of our human­i­ty that’s bet­ter than our own human­i­ty. And I think that’s incred­i­bly com­pli­cat­ed.

Mina: And I think there is this oppor­tu­ni­ty instead of eras­ing the body, to make the body even more vis­i­ble and more nuanced. I was just read­ing an arti­cle about the Tumblr cul­ture of the tags and of talk­ing about gen­der and gen­der iden­ti­ty has helped fos­ter a sig­nif­i­cant­ly more nuanced lan­guage around what gen­der and gen­der iden­ti­ty look like. So mov­ing beyond male/female bina­ries into gen­derqueer iden­ti­ties, LGBTI iden­ti­ties, things like that.

And then sim­i­lar­ly we could talk about this with race and class and this deci­sion to flat­ten race into these big cat­e­gories. Instead, look at the nuances of what people’s racial and eth­nic iden­ti­ties look like. It seems like there’s an oppor­tu­ni­ty to make the body more vis­i­ble, and more vis­i­ble in its speci­fici­ty, and that rather than eras­ing the body it’s about bring­ing out our human­i­ty.

Of course there are risks to this, espe­cial­ly if you are high­light­ing a mar­gin­al­ized iden­ti­ty. That can cre­ate a non-safe space for these com­mu­ni­ties. But at the same time, the vis­i­bil­i­ty of one’s body, mak­ing that vis­i­ble, mak­ing that vis­i­ble to oth­er peo­ple, becomes an impor­tant way for espe­cial­ly mar­gin­al­ized com­mu­ni­ties to find iden­ti­ties that may not be rep­re­sent­ed in main­stream media. And I think par­tic­u­lar­ly the trans and LGBTI com­mu­ni­ties have a lot of great stud­ies on how being vis­i­ble to each oth­er is itself a pow­er­ful act. So I think mak­ing our bod­ies more vis­i­ble seems like a crit­i­cal act of jus­tice.

Further Reference

There was also a href="http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/biased-data-panel-qa/">Q&A session.

Biased Data: A Panel Discussion on Intersectionality and Internet Ethics at the Processing Foundation web site.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.