Introducer: Welcome every­body for the next talk, When Algorithms Fail in Our Personal Lives.” It is a one hour talk. Our love­ly speak­er with us today is Caroline Sinders. She’s a user researcher for IBM. She’s also an artist, a researcher, a video game design­er. She’s from the States, and I should also men­tion that she is a mem­ber of the NYC Resistor hack­er space. And I see some fans over here. Cool.

We already learned in a bunch of talks over the course of Congress what algo­rithms do when they fail. Yesterday we learned about how algo­rithms can dis­crim­i­nate, or not dis­crim­i­nate in the hir­ing process, and Caroline is going to tell us a lit­tle more about when it’s bet­ter not to use algo­rithms because there are some things that algo­rithms just can’t do, that humans can do. 

So please give it up for Caroline and enjoy the talk. Thank you very much.

Caroline Sinders: Hi, every­one. I’m Caroline Sinders. I should prob­a­bly first spec­i­fy that I am speak­ing here of my own accord and not on behalf of IBM. So just FYI. And that this is actu­al­ly a pre­sen­ta­tion also on a very strange and spe­cif­ic art project I did back in late November. So, when algo­rithms fail in our per­son­al lives. This is prob­a­bly the best way to describe me because I live on the Internet.

I’ve spent the last two years study­ing online fan­doms, com­mu­ni­ties, Internet cul­ture, and online harass­ment. And this is what I do for fun out­side of work. I think a lot about lan­guage and con­ver­sa­tion as iden­ti­fiers, and I spend a lot of time read­ing the way in which con­ver­sa­tions unfold on dif­fer­ent sub­red­dits on Reddit, 4chan, 8chan, Wikipedia, the way Wikipedia is used as a con­ver­sa­tion­al tool not just to upload infor­ma­tion, and obvi­ous­ly Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

And the one thing I’ve sort of learned from all this is that each of these dif­fer­ent plat­forms have a very dif­fer­ent iden­ti­ty and they have a very dif­fer­ent way in which con­ver­sa­tion sort of has evolved lin­guis­ti­cal­ly to that plat­form. The way we talk on Reddit is a lot dif­fer­ent than the way we talk on Twitter. And I think that that is due to the infra­struc­tur­al design of the plat­form itself, as well as the ways in which the plat­form iden­ti­fies itself to users, so like a code of conduct.

Two years ago, actu­al­ly like a year and a half ago, I real­ly start­ed focus­ing on online harass­ment. I specif­i­cal­ly focused on Gamergate. As a video game design­er, I saw Gamergate kind of affect­ing the com­mu­ni­ty around me. I’m not dri­ven to study harass­ment by why it hap­pens, but rather how. How does harass­ment unfold on dif­fer­ent sorts of plat­forms, and how do plat­forms allow for dif­fer­ent kinds of com­mu­ni­ca­tion? And real­ly how open is the gen­er­al user on a plat­form? How con­nect­ed are they to the pri­va­cy poli­cies? And how aware are they of how exposed they are, and how per­me­able their data and infor­ma­tion is?

So TLDR, I explore com­plex emo­tions and emo­tion­al reac­tions with­in sys­tems. And I’m going to briefly cov­er some of the anti-harassment research I’ve done.

So some­times I write things, the Internet does­n’t like them. Last April, the Internet sent a SWAT team to my mom’s house. If you don’t know what swat­ting is, it’s a very pop­u­lar online harass­ment tac­tic that man­i­fests itself IRL.” Oftentimes a fake vio­lent phone call is placed to a local police depart­ment. That vio­lent phone call trig­gers the mil­i­ta­rized police to be deployed, and this is what hap­pened to my mom.

Sometimes pan­els I’m on get can­celled because maybe they’re kind of con­tro­ver­sial. I sub­mit­ted a design pan­el to SXSW and it was can­celled due to harass­ment and threats of violence.

So I guess my work seems kind of con­tentious. I think that it’s pret­ty straight­for­ward. It’s gen­er­al­ly design. I don’t know why any­one would have a real­ly mas­sive opin­ion around it. But the thing I sort of want to talk about, actu­al­ly, and what I care about explor­ing, is how do sys­tems affect behav­ior? I said ear­li­er I’m here not as an IBM rep­re­sen­ta­tive, but I spend most of my day job work­ing on Watson, work­ing in arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence as a user researcher around con­ver­sa­tion­al ana­lyt­ics for chat robots. That’s kind of a mouthful.

What I mean by that is I spend a lot of time work­ing with soft­ware that allows users to set up chat robots. So I think a lot about the ways in which I’m design­ing soft­ware to help peo­ple design con­ver­sa­tions that robots have with peo­ple. So when I say I believe that sys­tems affect behav­ior, I live that every day, and I think about the ways in which the struc­ture of an inter­face actu­al­ly will lead peo­ple to con­verse and what that would look like.

In the past two years of doing I guess broad heuris­tic ethno­graph­ic research, what I’ve come to real­ize is users have a myr­i­ad of dif­fer­ent prob­lems that can be solved in sim­i­lar ways, but yield rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent results. Meaning that we can sort of start approach­ing ways to solve prob­lems of harass­ment through either new kinds of algo­rithms or a real­ly flex­i­ble UI on top of an algo­rithm, ie. what if we gave peo­ple more robust pri­va­cy set­tings and allowed users to start to artic­u­late the ways in which they’re reach­able and how their data, real­ly their con­ver­sa­tions, are read?

And I think this because algo­rithms real­ly aren’t that smart, and lan­guage with­in an algo­rithm is decon­tex­tu­al­ized into data. We as users pro­vide con­text to lan­guage. Language is what we make it. But in a sys­tem it’s not sim­ply just bits of data. So I was dri­ven by this thought: How could I make a flex­i­ble sys­tem to solve a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent prob­lems, for a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent people? 

So I did what I do best, and I made a low-res wire­frame. I cre­ate these spec­u­la­tive wire­frames to sort of focus myself on what I thought could be achiev­able, and then I decid­ed to test it against twen­ty dif­fer­ent users I had inter­viewed that had been affect­ed by Gamergate, as well as a hand­ful of Gamergaters them­selves who would inter­act with me on Twitter and I would ask them ques­tions about the ways in which they orga­nized them­selves, the ways in which they talked to oth­er peo­ple, what con­ver­sa­tions they were hop­ing to get out of inter­act­ing with em on Twitter.

What I start­ed to learn is that we need to focus on pri­va­cy in social media. It needs to be as preva­lent and as impor­tant as writ­ing con­tent itself. Do you see that gray box at the top? That is a place­hold­er for a but­ton that sends you to a redesigned pri­va­cy page. 

From inter­view­ing these twen­ty users, I got a real­ly robust sense of dif­fer­ent kinds of needs and wants users want­ed out of Twitter. I inter­viewed peo­ple that had over 100,000 fol­low­ers that absolute­ly want to remain com­plete­ly pub­lic. And they want to be reach­able at all times. I inter­viewed some users that had 3,000 fol­low­ers, that want­ed to be com­plete­ly hid­den but still have their tweets treat­ed as media, thus share­able. And I inter­viewed some users that want­ed to not go pri­vate (which is a very pub­lic state­ment on Twitter, to have the lock next to you) but want­ed to have all the affor­dances of privacy.

What I’ve added as you can see is these check­marks to allow a user to start to change the way their writ­ten con­tent can be accessed and so real­ly actu­al­ly change the way in which the amount of users on Twitter could start to read con­tent they’re posting.

One of them is allow fol­low­ers of your fol­low­ers to tweet at you,” so the idea of friends-of-friends. Do not allow accounts with less than X fol­low­ers to fol­low you” or don’t allow accounts less than X days,” mean­ing new accounts are often cre­at­ed in moments of harass­ment cam­paigns. So if an account was a week old with two fol­low­ers, that’s prob­a­bly a troll account. Additionally it also allows users to say, if you’re not on my lev­el you can’t tweet at me.” Not judg­ing; that’s inter­ac­tion some­one wanted.

And then I start­ed to think more about what does it mean to exist pub­licly as a per­son on a plat­form? Twitter is sort of this mixed iden­ti­ty and mixed emo­tion­al state. It’s both pro­fes­sion­al and per­son­al. It’s used as a net­work­ing tool as well as a social aid and a com­mu­nica­tive tool. So peo­ple either have real­ly per­sis­tent alias­es or avatars that have fol­lowed them from plat­form to plat­form but they’re not using their real name. There’s lev­els of pseudo-anonymity on Twitter. In my case I use my real name and I can’t real­ly undo that. So my needs in using Twitter, espe­cial­ly as a tech­nol­o­gist exists in a much dif­fer­ent way than, per se, some­one who uses it as a casu­al medi­um. And we have very dif­fer­ent needs.

But through these dif­fer­ent kinds of dials, I feel that this serves my needs as well as all of the users I’ve inter­viewed because we’re able to start to tai­lor though UI, and be able to pull from very top-levels of infor­ma­tion, just main­ly around fol­low­ers, as to how acces­si­ble I am.

I added oth­er things such as blocked accounts and blocked tweets. Right now you can only see blocked accounts. You can’t see blocked tweets. What if you could? And I pulled from this because in moments of harass­ment, even if it’s a sus­tained stalk­er, there’s often a tweet that will trig­ger it. It’s nev­er going to some­one’s account, at least with­in a harass­ment cam­paign, you’re not real­ly going to some­one’s account and say­ing, Today I’m block­ing you.” There is often an inter­ac­tion, a tweet, that will trig­ger that response. So what if you could see that, start to group the togeth­er, and maybe send a report to Twitter or to your­self. The user can start to con­tex­tu­al­ize this is a way in which these tweets are linked.” So if there’s a mob harass­ment cam­paign, a user could say, I think all these are linked.” And if Twitter’s imple­ment­ing any kind of machine learn­ing or nat­ur­al lan­guage pro­cess­ing they’d be able to start batch­ing mul­ti­ple reports at once and see how they’re all related.

Again, what if you could group men­tions together? 

And I added this last night. One thing that I noticed from a lot of my research is that users don’t real­ly have an under­stand­ing as to how their lan­guage is actu­al­ly data and how acces­si­ble their things are. 

I’m sure you’ve heard a vari­ety of sto­ries around tweets going viral. Someone tweets some­thing and then months lat­er it’s dug up. Or they tweet some­thing… In the case of this real­ly well-known inci­dent this woman tweet­ed a real­ly off-color joke about AIDS, got on a plane, twelve hours lat­er this tweet had com­plete­ly explod­ed. The back­ground of that sto­ry is that this woman only had a hun­dred fol­low­ers and had nev­er had her tweets inter­act­ed with very much at all. Not in the sense of with strangers. So for her this was a com­plete moment of the sys­tem kind of break­ing. And I won­der if there are ways to start to artic­u­late to users how acces­si­ble you are. Even if you feel small, even if you feel like no one is inter­act­ing with your tweets, you’re still actu­al­ly com­plete­ly open. And the infor­ma­tion you send out into the sys­tem is media that can be iso­lat­ed and shared quick­ly, and that’s sort of the way in which Twitter functions.

So I won­dered what if you could just break some­thing down real­ly sim­ply, and just sort of say fol­low­er impres­sions and non-fol­low­er impres­sions to sort of get an idea of as to who’s inter­act­ing with your tweet, and who out­side of your decen­tral­ized social cir­cle on Twitter. 

And then I start­ed look­ing at Facebook. Additionally, I did anoth­er round of inter­views, specif­i­cal­ly for this project I’m get­ting into, Social Media Breakup Coordinator, where users actu­al­ly had no idea what the pri­va­cy check­up meant. I think this is a great addi­tion. You add a but­ton. You can say only friends can see this.” But what if Twitter added a pop­up and then said, Great, this con­tent right here, this com­ment. If your friend Jane com­ments on it, her mom can see it.” It start­ed to real­ly show how extend­ed net­works that you’re uncon­nect­ed to, 2nd and 3rd-party rela­tion­ships, can actu­al­ly inter­act with your information.

I’m real­ly dri­ven by this need and this idea as a design­er, what would it look like to have a semi-private space in a pub­lic net­work, and how could I design that? I think about this a lot because our com­mu­ni­ca­tion on the Internet is asyn­chro­nous, right? But a lot of social media cre­ates things as a time­line. This cre­ates a false idea as to how infor­ma­tion is actu­al­ly accessed, and how data is actu­al­ly stored. And that false infor­ma­tion is artic­u­lat­ed to users. So what feels like safer spaces, even if you’re com­plete­ly pub­lic because you’re not inter­act­ed with, is a lie. It’s a false sense of infor­ma­tion. It’s a false sense of safety.

So I won­der with all these vary­ing lev­els of needs that we have as users, and as we live more and more of our lives dig­i­tal­ly and on social media, what would it look like to design a semi-private space in a pub­lic network?

The past two years have real­ly hit this on home that there’s this neb­u­lous­ness sur­round­ing algo­rithms and social media and the way in which our data is saved. And a lot of that hap­pens when Facebook for instance changed their time­line to be algo­rith­mi­cal­ly dri­ven based off con­tent. Then I think it was last sum­mer, or two sum­mers ago, there was this thing called the Ice Bucket Challenge, and these riots in Ferguson, Missouri. And what hap­pened [was] peo­ple real­ized that Ice Bucket Challenge posts were being weight­ed above these oth­er protests. And the way to work around that was to include Ice Bucket Challenge” when you were post­ing about Ferguson to start to flip and change what you were see­ing algo­rith­mi­cal­ly in your time­line. So there’s this idea that users don’t quite know what and why the algo­rithm will weight things over oth­er things. So when you post some­thing on Facebook, the feed­back is, I have no idea when it’s acces­si­ble, how it’s acces­si­ble, and if it will be accessed.”

So that let me do this project that I cre­at­ed. I cre­at­ed a fake per­for­mance art piece—I mean, it’s a real art piece—called Social Media Breakup Coordinator, where I turned a video game art gallery in New York called Babycastles into a doc­tor’s office. And I held fifteen-minute therapy/consulting ses­sions on social media. 

I had users fill out a twenty-two point very stan­dard user quiz around why they were show­ing up. But then when they sat with me, I had them sign a terms of ser­vice agree­ment, I lis­tened to them, and then I start­ed to write down notes. But before I start­ed this project, I reached out to a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent peo­ple, because from my research I had sort of start­ed to real­ize that there’s a lot of dif­fer­ent moments where there needs to be human inter­ven­tion with­in algo­rithms with­in social media.

So how do you start to pull away from dif­fer­ent groups that you’ve been asso­ci­at­ed with? How do you start to cut ties? And how do you start to cut ties between infor­ma­tion when you cross-post against dif­fer­ent platforms?

A good exam­ple of that is what hap­pens if some­one in your fam­i­ly dies and that ends up in Facebook mem­o­ries because you Instagrammed it? What does that feel like, to have that emo­tion­al trig­ger? What does it feel like to quit a job and not be sure if your new cowork­ers can see your old cowork­ers? Or if you post some­thing neg­a­tive about your old job are you still con­nect­ed to your boss and what can they see? And gen­er­al­ly there is this lack of under­stand­ing that I found that most gen­er­al users (prob­a­bly not most peo­ple in this room) have a lack of under­stand­ing around how much their infor­ma­tion is accessed. 

So I was curi­ous on a bunch of lev­els if peo­ple would actu­al­ly pay me to give them advice. If they would trust me as a pro­fes­sion­al. And if they would actu­al­ly engage with my ser­vices. And then I was curi­ous if I could actu­al­ly then covert­ly teach them the pri­va­cy poli­cies of all the dif­fer­ent plat­forms they were on.

When I start­ed this project I real­ized I need­ed to talk to a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent pro­fes­sion­als. I’m a user researcher, so my pro­fes­sion lies in talk­ing to users and design­ing solu­tions for them. But as social media starts to over­take more and more aspects of our lives, I real­ized that there were cer­tain things that I’m not equipped to han­dle. So what hap­pens if some­one has suf­fered trau­ma on social media? As a vic­tim of harass­ment, I still can’t offer any­one feed­back on that, and that’s sort of not my place. 

So I spoke to a rape cri­sis coun­selor, an engi­neer, a data sci­en­tist and pro­fes­sor, and a pri­vate ther­a­pist, and a pri­vate psy­chi­a­trist. The take­away I got was main­ly this, and this is some­thing I’d love to impart on most social media engi­neers and design­ers: It’s not my job to nec­es­sar­i­ly tell peo­ple what to do, it’s my job to lis­ten to what peo­ple need to get done. 

An exam­ple from that is, let’s say a user came to me for Social Media Breakup Coordinator and said, I have an abu­sive boyfriend and he’s hor­ri­ble and we have a child togeth­er and I want to un-Facebook friend him.” It’s not my place nec­es­sar­i­ly to say, Okay, wait. Can I know more? Are you close with his fam­i­ly? Let’s start to cut down all these ties.” The rea­son I would ask that is, think­ing as a design­er if you’re Facebook friends with some­one, and then you’re Facebook friends with their par­ents, and then it says on that per­son­’s pro­file who their fam­i­ly is, the sys­tem has cre­at­ed more ties to that per­son, even regard­less of if you unfriend them. You would need to block them as well as unfol­low all of these oth­er peo­ple relat­ed to them and tied to their pro­file to actu­al­ly real­ly separate.

A lot of the feed­back I got was it’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly your job to tell a user all of that if they’re telling you what exact­ly they need. You sort of need to lis­ten and guide from there and not real­ly get into, Well why are you here? What are all these dif­fer­ent real­ly spe­cif­ic and high­ly per­son­al details?”

So why would I do this?

I was just very inter­est­ed in the ways in which peo­ple live their lives online, and I real­ly want­ed to see if I could also gath­er a lot of data from this project. I had six­teen peo­ple fill out twenty-two dif­fer­ent ques­tions and meet with me and walk through all their dif­fer­ent prob­lems. And I was real­ly curi­ous if I could pro­vide solu­tions the way an algo­rithm would. I out­lined ten dif­fer­ent solu­tions that I could affix to peo­ple based of dif­fer­ent that they answered in a cer­tain order.

And again the covert point of this project was to sort of teach peo­ple about the per­me­abil­i­ty of their posts and real­ly how pri­va­cy is looked at and inter­act­ed with on social net­works. And with the onset of all these dif­fer­ent apps, par­tic­u­lar­ly in America, that are offer­ing to out­source emo­tion­al labor to a per­son, mean­ing there’s all these new apps that’ve been cre­at­ed of, We’ll break up with your boyfriend for you,” I was real­ly sort of curi­ous to see if peo­ple would actu­al­ly engage with me face to face.

So, when I launched the project peo­ple thought it was real. And then the media thought it was real. And it was real­ly hard to explain to, for instance Jezebel, that this was an art project. Because they were like, But you’re charg­ing peo­ple… And you made them sign a con­tract… Is the con­tract legal­ly bind­ing?” Yes, it is. So you charge them mon­ey?” I did. Did you give them fake feed­back?” No, the feed­back was all sin­cere. I real­ly legit­i­mate­ly tried to help solve these prob­lems. But it’s an art project?”

The rea­son that it’s an art project is to me it’s a mas­sive com­ment on the shar­ing econ­o­my that’s in America, and just this idea that I could be an emo­tion­al Mechanical Turk. And I com­plete­ly made that by design and inten­tion. Should peo­ple be trust­ing me with their data? Yes, because I am a pro­fes­sion­al, and I made sure to very very clear­ly artic­u­late the ways in which I would use their data, how they would be pro­tect­ed, and that I would not share any per­son­al infor­ma­tion about them. I went through all of those steps, but is that sort of the nego­ti­a­tion we have with social net­works? Do we have that kind of interfacing?

And an even big­ger com­ment was no one every com­ment­ed on price. I charged $1 a minute to sit and lis­ten all day to peo­ple. I only gave them fifteen-minute blocks. It was actu­al­ly incred­i­bly tax­ing, phys­i­cal­ly. It was an all-day event where I think I only gave myself fif­teen min­utes for lunch. I def­i­nite­ly have a whole new type of respect for ther­a­pists. That was grueling.

So before I start­ed the project, I start­ed to break down what plat­forms I would cov­er. These are exam­ples of my Post-It Notes. I had cov­ered Resistor in one evening. And I start­ed to break things down based off the four major plat­forms that are used in America, which is LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. I start­ed to break down by what I thought were the four most broad, most uni­ver­sal, social group­ings. So friends, fam­i­ly, work, and roman­tic. Then I start­ed to think about why your roman­tic part­ner would friend you on LinkedIn, for exam­ple. Or why they would fol­low you on Instagram. Or why your boss would friend you on all of those platforms.

And I start­ed to attach dif­fer­ent emo­tion­al respons­es. So should you LinkedIn con­nect with your Dad? Maybe? Should you LinkedIn con­nect with your lover? If you want to… But you don’t have to. But then these are connections…if they’re dif­fer­ent par­ty apps that you don’t real­ly use…that you then have to break down lat­er if those rela­tion­ships sour.

So remem­ber when I said that every­one thought that this project was real? It’s because I went to real­ly great pains to also make it look real. When peo­ple showed up, we had a recep­tion­ist who had cof­fee. There was a wait­ing room, and I had peo­ple sign in with the date they arrived, the rea­son, and I the time of their appoint­ment. There was then a paper ver­sion of the quiz if some­one walked in. Sometimes you get walk-ins. The doc­tor gets that all the time.

This is me work­ing. This is what my desk looked like. Everyone got their own fold­er that I would write their name on. I would write out what I called a receipt. It’s all the advice I’m giv­ing them and I’m tak­ing my own notes. We both got a copy of the terms of ser­vice agree­ment. And then I would send them on their way.

So it looked actu­al­ly fair­ly… It looked hacker‑y legit, you know. I mean…a falling-apart build­ing, but I’m giv­ing you legit­i­mate advice and you just paid me $15.

This is our recep­tion­ist, Lauren. This is the wait­ing room. This actu­al­ly was­n’t posed. I popped my head out and saw a bunch of peo­ple sit­ting and read­ing. This is me pro­vid­ing advice. And these are some stu­dents of mine that showed up. I taught a class on visu­al sto­ry­telling with social media, and they had shown up to observe.

This is also what the break­down of the terms of ser­vice agree­ment looked like. This is the first page. It’s pret­ty stan­dard. One of my favorite lines is My obser­va­tions of this per­son­’s behav­ior and respons­es gives me no rea­son to believe that this per­son­’s not ful­ly com­pe­tent to give informed, know­ing, and will­ing consent.”

I should also clar­i­fy a real­ly dear friend of mind who’s my col­lab­o­ra­tor, Fred Jennings, works for a law com­pa­ny called Tor Ekeland. They do a lot of dig­i­tal law cas­es. He actu­al­ly draft­ed this up specif­i­cal­ly for me, for the needs of this project. I told him to keep it short, and I told him to bold cer­tain things so users could real­ly see, if they were scan­ning, what I’m talk­ing about. So as you’ll see, var­i­ous social media plat­forms are bold­ed with what I’m giving.

But then I had him out­line the nature of ser­vices. And what you’ll see is that the Client acknowl­edges the Coordinator pro­vides nei­ther con­tent or mate­ri­als intend­ed as finan­cial advice, coun­sel­ing, or ther­a­py.” And I real­ly want­ed to high­light I am not a ther­a­pist, and this is not a ther­a­py ses­sion. If any­thing, I’m like a real­ly weird SEO advi­sor that you’ve con­sult­ed to maybe talk about your per­son­al life with. But I am def­i­nite­ly not a therapist.

So I had twelve peo­ple fill this out online, four peo­ple do walk-ins. And what’s fas­ci­nat­ing is I only had two peo­ple show up and talk to me about heart­break. This project was not inspired by a breakup. It’s actu­al­ly about break­ing up with social media. I had some­one show up and ask me a lot of real­ly spe­cif­ic ques­tions about LinkedIn and her work­place, and what’s the prop­er way to break up on LinkedIn with your old job. And I was like, You should just prob­a­bly unfol­low them.” I’m like, Do you talk to them on Facebook?”

She’s like, I do.”

I’m like, Well, don’t do that.”

And I start­ed to gath­er all this real­ly fas­ci­nat­ing infor­ma­tion, specif­i­cal­ly around the ways in which my users were using social media. This is some­thing I’m going to open­ly share, prob­a­bly post- this talk, if y’all want to look at what I’m accruing.

Different things like, let’s get a lit­tle per­son­al, Why are you here?” Romantic rea­son, work rea­son, friend, fam­i­ly, gen­er­al social media? And maybe these ques­tions seem real­ly innocu­ous, but the way in which I was struc­tur­ing my per­son­al algo­rithm I had built, each of these ques­tions trig­gered a dif­fer­ent kind of answer that I could give some­one, and I could string answers togeth­er. So I could give a com­bi­na­tion of Answer A plus Answer D plus Answer J to sort of give some­one a high­ly per­son­al­ized response to what they’d giv­en me. But this is sort of the way algo­rithm work. It’s not high­ly per­son­al­ized; the com­bi­na­tion to the user just feels per­son­al­ized. And on my end, that was sort of the art project for myself.

And I asked the gen­er­al ques­tion Do you feel safe online?” I was slight­ly sur­prised only two peo­ple said no. But I was more sur­prised that actu­al­ly only two peo­ple said no. I thought it would be less, and then at times I thought it would be more. Given my research in online harass­ment, I was pre­pared for some­one to show up and say, I’m being vic­tim­ized of harass­ment,” and I had a whole dif­fer­ent answer ready for them. 

But just the fact that most peo­ple had come with very gen­er­al prob­lems, I was actu­al­ly sur­prised that in gen­er­al 16% of appli­cants don’t feel safe online.

Then I asked how How often do you use social media?” Pretty much every day. How often do you want to be using it?” Pretty much every day.

And the one I found the most fas­ci­nat­ing was when peo­ple described what they used it for. About half of users said they used it for social­iz­ing. And when I asked what do you want to use it for, half of users replied with net­work­ing.” So there’s a sort of pull to actu­al­ly be tak­en off social media.

And this is what I learned from all of this. A lot of advice I gave peo­ple was, Maybe you should just quit Facebook.” 

And that was met with a resound­ing, No. How dare you sug­gest that?” 

And I was like, Okay, great. Let’s pull back. Let me offer some­thing else. Do you have a smartphone?” 

Of course.”

Delete the app from your phone?”

They’re like, Oh, that’s brilliant.”

I’m like, I know, right? Whoa.”

But the one thing I actu­al­ly found the most fas­ci­nat­ing was most peo­ple did not under­stand­ing Facebook’s pri­va­cy check­ups. Whenever peo­ple talked about that they want­ed to social­ize less and be less acces­si­ble, the first thing I always said was, Well, what is your pri­va­cy check­up? Have you done one?”

They’re like, Oh my god, what’s that?”

I’m like, We have a problem.”

And the one thing I found super fas­ci­nat­ing is that most users did­n’t realize—and this is actu­al­ly hyper-specific to one user that came through—that you are acces­si­ble even with very pri­vate set­tings on Facebook, to non-Facebook-friends chat mes­sag­ing you. And if you respond to that mes­sage, that chat is moved into your gen­er­al stream of chats and it makes your infor­ma­tion acces­si­ble to that per­son you have not friended.

So I had a friend who was like, I want to be super pri­vate but the rea­son I keep my Facebook open is like what if a young game devel­op­er’s try­ing to reach me?”

And I was like, Did you know that chat does this?”

He was like, I had no idea.”

And I was like, Well, that’s ter­ri­fy­ing, but you could maybe use it this way if you’re not con­cerned about harass­ment but you’re con­cerned about being reached.” Because he was more con­cerned that friends could be exposed through his open­ness, which I was like that’s a very very con­sid­er­ate [?] way to take your Facebook.

One thing I learned is that no one knew any­thing about Instagram’s pri­va­cy poli­cies, nor did they care. They’re like, Eh, Instagram’s fine. We don’t care.”

Again, most peo­ple want­ed to use social media as a net­work­ing tool. 

But the biggest take­away was every sin­gle per­son that showed up— And I had a vari­ety of peo­ple that were incred­i­bly savvy; they were engi­neers. They actu­al­ly thought that they did not under­stand social media as well as they could, and that they need­ed some­one to help them bet­ter under­stand. And they need­ed some­one to help them bet­ter under­stand who they paid $15 to in a hack­er video game space.

And I want that to sort of res­onate, because that is a joke. But also real­ly think about the fact that these tools are so neb­u­lous that you would go to a space and pay some­one $15 that you’ve nev­er met before that says they’re an expert, to just han­dle this for you.

And that for me was the biggest take­away. How can we make things feel more acces­si­ble, or bet­ter yet let’s make a new platform. 

I’m putting this up here because this is one of my biggest pet peeves. You would prob­a­bly nev­er explain how to SMS some­one through screen­shots. You’d prob­a­bly say, Do you see that lit­tle thing on your phone, the chat? Open it up. Write in a num­ber. Say something.”

When this project launched, a friend wrote about me and some work I had been doing, and one of her fol­low­ers legit­i­mate­ly believed that I did not under­stand Facebook. And he took it upon him­self to try to explain Facebook to me. Which oth­er than being kind of insult­ing because I work for a tech com­pa­ny and I have a Masters in inter­ac­tive tech­nol­o­gy, what I found illu­mi­nat­ing is the fact that this is not a weird response. This is not unusu­al, for some­one to say, Oh, right. Facebook is so hard to use when it comes to pri­va­cy and cre­at­ing lists of posts to peo­ple that I’m going to screen­shot every­thing for you.”

And that is nev­er the way in which you should explain a com­mu­ni­ca­tion tool to some­one. If you have to screen­shot some­thing to some­one, you fucked up as a design­er. [clap­ping from audi­ence] And those are my gen­er­al thoughts on that. I can’t even. I just can’t.

So I guess what I impart to you and all of us here is, let’s make some­thing not shitty.

And I know the rea­son peo­ple use Facebook, and this is not a talk to get off Facebook. I use Facebook. Facebook will per­sist for a very long time. Think of all the third-party apps that use Facebook as an auto­mat­ic login. That is a design pat­tern that rein­forces the need of Facebook in every­day users’ lives. 

But as a design­er and tech­nol­o­gist, I want to make some­thing bet­ter even if it’s just for my friends. We could do socialmedia.onion? Thoughts? And that’s sort of where the future of this project comes in, as I’m actu­al­ly work­ing on a social media co-op with two tech­nol­o­gists in New York, Dan Phiffer and Max Fenton.

I’m doing anoth­er round of Social Media Breakup Coordinator in Oakland in January. And I’m hop­ing to keep gath­er­ing data around the ways users use these plat­forms through my per­for­mance art piece, but also as well as covert­ly keep [impart­ing] infor­ma­tion on pri­va­cy. And what would it be like if we lived our lives just a lit­tle less online. And I’m hop­ing to even­tu­al­ly have a real­ly robust data set that could be used as an actu­al data set and not just a sampling.


Audience 1: Did you ever ask the ques­tion why those peo­ple did­n’t under­stand the set­tings on Facebook, etc. and still used it. I mean, it’s like walk­ing into a gun shop, pur­chas­ing a firearm, and you have no idea what to do with it.

Sinders: Right. I think… What I said lat­er in the pre­sen­ta­tion is we have these design pat­terns in every­day life that real­ly actu­al­ly enforce this use of Facebook. So this project was real­ly cen­tered around gen­er­al users, and a gen­er­al under­stand­ing of tech­nol­o­gy. We are mov­ing to a very high­ly digitally-literate and data-literate soci­ety, but we’re not there yet. There’s pock­ets of lit­er­a­cy. This is a real­ly good pock­et of lit­er­a­cy right here; we’re a real­ly awe­some community.

But one thing I strive is like, the peo­ple that are mis­us­ing” or mis­un­der­stand­ing” Facebook, they’re not like elder­ly par­ents. They’re actu­al cohorts of mine that are my age, peo­ple younger, and peo­ple even a few years old­er. And I think the rea­son is that Facebook is real­ly easy. And it’s high­ly addict­ing to use. And it’s like a phone book; every­one’s there. It stores birth­days for you, which is real­ly actu­al­ly help­ful. It’s a fast way to talk to peo­ple. But I think the big­ger thing is it’s enforced on oth­er sites. Think of all the web sites you go to dur­ing a day and how many of them say log in with Facebook,” sign up with Facebook.” Log in with Twitter.” 

And those design pat­terns, which seem real­ly innocu­ous to us actu­al­ly are real­ly impor­tant. They fur­ther enforce the ubiq­ui­ty of Facebook, because it makes it easy. I mean, I’m shud­der­ing think­ing about all the third-party apps that would be asso­ci­at­ed right now with a Facebook login if you’ve done that for every site. But the com­mon user does not know that. And that’s sort of the issue, I think.

Audience 2: Hi. Thank you very much for this inter­est­ing talk. I have basi­cal­ly two ques­tions that kin­da are the same, and they are around the art project part of your talk. And the first one is how did you make sure that peo­ple would actu­al­ly under­stand that this was a piece of per­for­mance art. Did you rely on the absur­di­ty of your propo­si­tion, that that would be rec­og­nized? Because clear­ly peo­ple thought not, and in terms of satire there needs to be some ele­ment of exag­ger­a­tion or some­thing that makes it clear that this is intend­ed as a piece of art. So I was just won­der­ing what your thought was that. 

And the sec­ond part was where do you— So the data that you get from your piece of art you pre­sent­ed as a research out­come, almost. So that obfus­cates the arti­ness of your project and turns into real-life data. And isn’t that also one of the prob­lems why peo­ple are so care­less with Instagram, because they see it as art when they pho­to­graph their food, whether that’s true or not? That’s open to debate. But they don’t see it as an actu­al act of data collection.

Sinders: Right. So, I guess to sort of back up. The way in which I describe myself [is] as a spec­u­la­tive design­er, and I think about crit­i­cal design a lot and crit­i­cal mak­ing, and like what is that line. And often­times you’re mak­ing some­thing real that is sort of mak­ing a point. Most peo­ple seem to sort of get that this was an art project of mine. And it helped that I was in New York doing this, and I was doing it in an art gallery that’s a video game gallery. So there were arcades in the back of the space. 

But cer­tain peo­ple, I actu­al­ly real­ized… Because I had a cou­ple peo­ple phone in that had sort of seen this and had signed up online and were not in New York. And I real­ized that they did­n’t know that this was an art piece. And I kind of went with it. And a lot of that is they were sign­ing a terms of ser­vice agree­ment, I did tell them this is not ther­a­peu­tic advice, I’m not held liable for any deci­sions that you make, and I said all that over the phone to make sure that they under­stood that. And then I told them these are just sug­ges­tions. You don’t have to fol­low them, and you are allowed to push back. And that’s what I tell every par­tic­i­pant. I’m giv­ing you these sug­ges­tions based off my best-practice knowl­edge and this algo­rithm I’ve designed that you don’t get to see.

So your ques­tions are trig­ger­ing cer­tain results, but you are also allowed to say, I don’t like that,” and I can tai­lor them slight­ly. If you don’t like the result at all, you should take the quiz again. But the big­ger thing is that it walks this real­ly weird line. And this is a weird anec­dote, but I’m also a por­trait pho­tog­ra­ph­er. My back­ground’s actu­al­ly in fine art pho­tog­ra­phy and I got a Masters in inter­ac­tive tech­nol­o­gy years lat­er. And my work was my fam­i­ly and I recre­at­ing moments post-Hurricane Katrina. So peo­ple always ask, Are these real pho­tographs, Caroline?” Well, they weren’t tak­en on the fly. I set them up. But they were real to me.

And they’re say­ing some­thing. And that’s the way in which I would describe this project. It’s not real, but it was real to us in the moment, and it’s com­ment­ing on things and also pro­vid­ing real solution.

Audience 3: Hi. Do you know of some soft­ware that shows how open you are to oth­er peo­ple? For exam­ple, a Facebook app or some­thing that shows you a mir­ror of your­self, more or less.

Sinders: I don’t know of any sort of check­er like that. I use a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent things. A friend of mind made a real­ly great WiFi snif­fer, which is at the extreme end of what you’re talk­ing about. Not that you all should do this, I often will unfol­low and refol­low, and unfriend and refriend peo­ple and change my pri­va­cy set­tings, and then I try to log out and get some­one else to log in, see if they’ll let me audit. And then I will see what I look like to oth­er peo­ple. That’s a lev­el of insan­i­ty that I don’t think most peo­ple in this room should nec­es­sar­i­ly engage with. But I don’t actu­al­ly know of a check­er that lets you see that. 

I know that there are ana­lyt­ics sys­tems you can down­load with Instagram to see who’s unfol­lowed you and fol­lowed you, and who’s fol­low­ing you that fol­lows oth­er peo­ple that you know, which cur­rent­ly Instagram does not have that ana­lyt­ic feed­back for users. It’s a third-party app you have to download.

Twitter has start­ed to add ana­lyt­ics on the side to sort of give an idea of how suc­cess­ful your tweets were. But they’ll nev­er say like, This is who did­n’t fol­low you that accessed this tweet today.” But they give you a more robust ana­lyt­ic break­down of, Your tweet about pup­py dogs did real­ly well, but your tweet about OpSec did not.”

Audience 4: Hi. I real­ly appre­ci­ate your insights on visu­al design and the user expe­ri­ence of data at rest. I’m real­ly curi­ous what your thoughts are on tem­po­ral design and the user expe­ri­ence of data in motion. Because you men­tioned that one of the things that came out of your inter­views was peo­ple hav­ing a sense of just sort of not under­stand­ing social media and feel­ing like they need help under­stand­ing social media. 

In pro­gram­ming we talk about code smells, which are sort of fea­tures of code and how peo­ple use code that are a sign that some­thing’s prob­a­bly not designed right here. And it seems to me that that sense of mis­un­der­stand­ing is a design smell. Maybe that there’s just too much try­ing to con­sume users’ atten­tion and we need to change the rate at which we’re deliv­er­ing. Anyway, it’s an open-ended ques­tion. I’m just real­ly curi­ous what your thoughts are there.

Sinders: So I’ve actu­al­ly thought about that a lot. I actu­al­ly haven’t met with any engi­neers at Facebook or Twitter, but if you’re here I’d love to talk to you. But I met with some­one that worked in brand­ing at Twitter and I asked him to just sort of talk about his day job and describe how the brand­ing team tar­get­ed ads. Because I fig­ured that was a real­ly good way to get a sense of how the algo­rithm was working.

He start­ed spout­ing a lot of buzz­words, as he is prone and wont to do, because he was a cowork­er of mine from a real­ly old job. But he said some­thing that was real­ly fas­ci­nat­ing to me. He was like, Well you know, Caroline, there’s just so much noise. We have all these dif­fer­ent algo­rithms work­ing, but it’s just so much noise on top of each oth­er and you’re just try­ing to find this lit­tle sig­nal.” So I know for instance with Twitter it’s exact­ly that prob­lem, that they infra­struc­tural­ly designed them­selves incor­rect­ly, and to com­bat it you can’t… They’re at a point where I feel like they can­not shut it down and rebuild it and become min­i­mal, with a bet­ter work­ing code­base. So they’re build­ing on top of everything.

The rea­son I also think that is a lot of anti-harassment that they have they’ve been rolling out for ver­i­fied users and not for the com­mon use base. So if you’re a ver­i­fied user, the way in which their anti-harassment ini­tia­tives work, it works way dif­fer­ent and way bet­ter for you. They have an algo­rithm work­ing where you will nev­er see as a ver­i­fied use cer­tain harass­ment tweets. They’re catch­ing them before they come to you, and you can look at them lat­er. But there’s all these real­ly high­ly spe­cif­ic changes— And I have not yet seen a ver­i­fied user account. No one’s let me log into theirs. (Again, if you have that, let’s chat.) But I’ve seen enough screen­shots and read enough about it, and talked to friends who have it. And it’s like Twitter 2.0. It’s just slight­ly better. 

So what I think the big­ger issue is, there’s so much data in motion that they can only iso­late it for what they are infra­struc­tural­ly decid­ing who is a pow­er user, and that pow­er user infra­struc­tural­ly actu­al­ly becomes a bet­ter pow­er user.

Audience 4: I guess the hid­den ques­tion I have there is real­ly more of, is Twitter even­tu­al­ly doomed to tear itself apart because it’s trig­ger­ing peo­ple’s System 1 respons­es instead of their reasoning.

Sinders: I real­ly don’t have an answer to that ques­tion, because as a Twitter who’s thought about quit­ting but I real­ly love the com­mu­ni­ty I have on Twitter, it’s kind of a weird emo­tion­al nego­ti­a­tion that I have of like, I don’t know how acces­si­ble I am and I face harass­ment on a usu­al­ly month­ly basis, for a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent things. And it’s this weird nego­ti­a­tion I have of, why am I still here? But I actu­al­ly legit­i­mate­ly like it. And I think that that’s the big issue. It’s like maybe it will pull itself apart, but harass­ment while it affects a lot of peo­ple is also affect­ing hyper-specific groups of peo­ple. And I think a lot of the fear around it, right­ly so, is well if it hap­pens to one per­son it could hap­pen to you because we’re infra­struc­tural­ly in the same place and we’re both equal­ly open.

I guess I’m not sure. I’m inter­est­ed to see what hap­pens in the next two or three years, because Twitter is not gain­ing any new fol­low­ers at this point. They’re kind of start­ing to plateau. So they are not grow­ing at a rate at which oth­er social media net­works are grow­ing. And that’s a major issue. And dome of that issue could be tied towards bad infra­struc­tur­al design or real­ly poor code of conduct.

Audience 5: Last year my broth­er blocked my mom on Facebook and she still vocal­ly beat about it. I men­tion this because many times our online social net­work is almost direct­ly mapped or close­ly inter­twined with our offline social net­work. So did you look into mak­ing changes into these social net­works that’s online, how does that affect our social net­work offline? As much as you may unfol­low and stop talk­ing to your boss or your for­mer col­leagues, you’ll still meet them at con­fer­ences and at tea par­ties. So how do you deal with that change of this net­work online which does not actu­al­ly give a clear pic­ture of how your social net­work looks like. [?] the inter­ac­tion between the offline and online after that change.

Sinders: I def­i­nite­ly thought about that a lot. Just in gen­er­al as a researcher I’ve always been real­ly intrigued by soci­etal norms and pro­pri­ety and what is polite behav­ior across many dif­fer­ent cul­tures. And I’m speak­ing as an American but I come from a hyper-specific place in the United States. I come from Louisiana, which is the American South. We’re a hyper-hyper-specific cul­ture. We speak two lan­guages. It’s English and then Cajun, which is an oral-based lan­guage. I only know a cou­ple words. But New Orleans where I’m from has the high­est rate of birth reten­tion. 75% of peo­ple that are born there stay there. So the ways in which I social­ize as a New Orleanian is very dif­fer­ent than the ways I social­ize as a New Yorker.

And that’s true even, I think, when you get even more local­ized. If you look at Americans ver­sus Canadians ver­sus Mexicans and get­ting into Latin America. So I thought about that a lot, that actu­al­ly a lot of the inter­ac­tions you have offline def­i­nite­ly affect and influ­ence the inter­ac­tions you have online. So a lot of advice I gave peo­ple was also hav­ing to break down like, how often do you inter­face with this per­son, and let’s think of the most neu­tral and polite way to break things down. 

So yeah, I thought about that a lot. I haven’t yet, with the peo­ple I’ve giv­en advice to, said unfriend some­one. Oftentimes unless the rela­tion­ship has incred­i­bly soured, that’s usu­al­ly the advice. But if it’s in the case of a boss, for instance, my reac­tion is often­times, Why don’t you reach out to them if they’re an old boss and say, I’d love to keep in touch. Here’s my email. But I’m keep­ing my Instagram just for friends only.’ ”

Audience 6: From your project, I’m curi­ous to know if you think that social breakup is actu­al­ly pos­si­ble or if it’s not real­ly pos­si­ble because peo­ple end up see­ing your stuff anyway.

Sinders: Is it bad if my response is both?” I think that as social media users, for a real­ly long time we’ve been taught to inter­act with social media in a par­tic­u­lar way. And I don’t think that that way is cor­rect. Facebook active­ly wants you to post more, as does Twitter, and Instagram wants you to share and accu­mu­late fol­low­ers. And that’s the way in which these net­works grow. You’re cre­at­ing con­tent and that con­tent is ana­lyt­ics, and they pack­age and sell that to advertisers.

I’m polit­i­cal­ly agnos­tic on that, but I have my own per­son­al thoughts, as a researcher that’s just what they do. But I think that that push towards shar­ing and cross-platform shar­ing, that you can cross-post, per­haps in terms of pri­va­cy is a hor­ri­ble idea. What are you say­ing, how are you say­ing it, are all iden­ti­fiers, and they’re all iden­ti­fiers that can pin­point loca­tion and who you are, and who you are offline and where you are. And that’s some­thing I often do try to impart to peo­ple: what are you say­ing and when, and does it need to be said online?

So I per­son­al­ly, and I always give this exam­ple with peo­ple that sit with me, I’m like, I per­son­al­ly try to not post loca­tion but I have a very spe­cif­ic rea­son I can’t do that.” And I had a lot of inter­nal dia­logue of should I post that I’m at CCC? What if some­one’s here and they want to talk to me about some­thing that I don’t want to talk about? Or what if I say I’m home, does that make my mom more of a tar­get if some­one want­ed to try to swat us again?

And those are extreme exam­ples. But it’s also impor­tant to think about like, are you acci­den­tal­ly doxxing your­self? If you’re say­ing, I’m at the bar down­stairs from my apart­ment. Let’s check in on Foursquare and post that on Instagram,” you’ve pin­point­ed where you live. And that’s infor­ma­tion that peo­ple don’t actu­al­ly need. So I always try to walk this line of like, I think it’s total­ly find to post pic­tures of food and fam­i­ly and friends and to do it fre­quent­ly. But I think it’s impor­tant to know are you high­light­ing where you are and are you high­light­ing reg­u­lar pat­terns in your lives? And are you then ampli­fy­ing that to a vari­ety of peo­ple that you don’t know and you have no idea how many peo­ple are access­ing it?

Audience 7: [Angel] I’ve got a ques­tion from the Internet. Yesterday there was a talk titled The Possibility of an Army” by Constant Dullaart, who bought thou­sands of fake accounts. What do you think about these actions?

Sinders: I guess I need a lit­tle more con­text. This per­son bought thou­sands of fake accounts to…?

Audience 7: [Angel] Actually, I don’t have any con­text for that for you.

Sinders: In grad­u­ate school, this fan­tas­tic ethno­g­ra­ph­er, Trisha Wang, came to speak to us and the pro­fes­sor, Clay Shirky, at the time was say­ing he bought her 50,000 fol­low­ers in a day, and I think he paid like $100. I think it’s real­ly fas­ci­nat­ing the ways that that bumps you up into a dif­fer­ent sort of social stra­ta, and how it pre­sent­ed her in a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent way online. That changed the way in which peo­ple inter­act­ed with her and the amount of fol­low­ers she start­ed to accrue on a dai­ly basis. 

Oh, I think I’m… So, this per­son cre­at­ed like a thou­sand dif­fer­ent accounts. I think that that’s what that ques­tion may have meant.

Audience 7: [Angel] From what I read, he bought them.

Sinders: Oh, he bought them? I would be curi­ous to know why. Like if he was look­ing at data or if he just bought a thou­sand fol­low­ers. But I guess I need a lit­tle more information.

Introducer: Alright. Well the per­son­’s not here so we don’t know. We have anoth­er ques­tion from mic #3.

Audience 8: Hi. My sis­ter had an occa­sion where some­one who she sort of…became a stalk­er, and did­n’t real­ly know her very well, but then start­ed to send real­ly weird mes­sages to her. And it got to a point where they were fol­low­ing her on Instagram and she can’t real­ly control…because this per­son knows who she is and her friends. She could­n’t con­trol her infor­ma­tion and so this per­son would send stuff based on, Oh, we bought this blender,” and would deliv­er it to our house along with let­ters about like how they would have sex even though they had nev­er real­ly inter­act­ed before. And it got real­ly scary and unsafe. And it’s sad for that per­son but also it became real­ly scary for my sis­ter and she did­n’t know where to go and what to do. And when she went to the police and said, I’m scared that this per­son might come and touch me when I’m going home late at night. What should I do?” They said, Well, until some­thing hap­pens we real­ly can’t do any­thing for you.” So there may be resources out there for peo­ple who are fac­ing this, but for those watch­ing this video, what would you rec­om­mend them to do?

Sinders: First of all I want to say I’m so sor­ry for your sis­ter. That’s hor­ri­ble. And sec­ond­ly what I would sug­gest doing is, there are a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent non-profits that exist. Crash Override is one once you’ve been harassed in a real­ly spe­cif­ic way. What I would sug­gest is Smart Girl’s Guide to Privacy has this. It’s this real­ly fan­tas­tic book, and they list where you can access, I think, lawyers that are more dig­i­tal­ly savvy around dig­i­tal crimes.

And my rec­om­men­da­tion in a case of that with that kind of per­sis­tence where it’s a reg­u­lar per­son, mean­ing a reg­u­lar stalk­er, it’s one enti­ty and they’re actu­al­ly start­ing to sort of move away from social media and mov­ing into let­ters, you should get a lawyer. And from there fig­ure out ways to assign space between you and the oth­er per­son across state lines, even. I don’t know the par­tic­u­lars of this case. If this per­son is in a dif­fer­ent state than your sis­ter, that gets a lit­tle bit trick­i­er. Are they in the same city? [reply inaudi­ble] So they’re in the same city. There’s a lot more you can do. My rec­om­men­da­tion would be to imme­di­ate­ly find a lawyer who is well-versed in online harass­ment. But if that per­son­’s in the same city and they’re send­ing let­ters, I think that’s a pret­ty good rea­son to start press­ing charges. That would be my imme­di­ate reaction.

Audience 9: Yes. Thank you for your won­der­ful talk, first of all. One thing I find myself per­son­al­ly very pre­oc­cu­pied by is not just the ques­tion of how to act on social media in the present, but also how to clean up after my past. Certainly things I’ve writ­ten or post­ed before. And I actu­al­ly find that the obsta­cle towards doing that is fre­quent­ly infra­struc­tur­al. It’s real­ly hard to sort of have an over­sight of every­thing you’ve done in the past. What do you sort of see as the future of design on these plat­forms? Are they inten­tion­al­ly mak­ing it dif­fi­cult, or have they cod­ed them­selves into a cor­ner, and is this going to become a big­ger problem?

Sinders: I guess I would say, bas­ing off the way the design is now, I think it’s a mix­ture of hav­ing cod­ed into a cor­ner and also try­ing to make design min­i­mal. So, a lot of trends in design are around opti­miza­tion and usabil­i­ty. But we’re opti­miz­ing for speed and we’re mak­ing things more usable for mobile. But we’re not opti­miz­ing or design­ing for safe­ty. And we’re not opti­miz­ing or design­ing for longevi­ty of life with­in inter­act­ing on these plat­forms. So I would say it’s a mis­use of design pri­or­i­ties. And I think that now there is some push­back with peo­ple say­ing, How’s this being accessed? There’s harass­ment per­sist­ing on this plat­form. How’s this hap­pen­ing? Oh, it’s hap­pen­ing because of these rea­sons,” etc.

I would say that it’s just a mis­align­ment of pri­or­i­ties with­in a design hier­ar­chy and a cod­ing hierarchy.

Further Reference

This pre­sen­ta­tion page at the CCC media site, with down­loads available.

Help Support Open Transcripts

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