What has this got to do with pandering to the algorithm? Everything. My wise old matriarch delights in sharing her daily curated newsfeed content, dogged with negative stories challenging the efficacy of the vaccine.

Like clockwork, one of us disputes the claim while another says we need to be open-minded. Matriarch fights back. Chaos ensues.

Nature or nurture?

As human beings, we have always been hard-wired to form social groups. Part of it is a survival instinct. As Psychology Today puts it, “In a hunter-gatherer group, being ostracised or banished could have been a death sentence.”

Another reason is social influence. We go to school with children of the same age; we attend church with those of the same faith. We’re born without prejudice but we’re put into groups from birth.

Sure enough, having a common interest, be that religion, sport or superheroes, is relatively harmless.

But what happens when the algorithms intervene? What if our shared beliefs are not based on the collective fandom of one particular entity, but rather, the calculated outcomes of an entirely artificial equation?

Why we rely on algorithms

The term ‘algorithm’ dates back to the ninth Century – long before we needed Google for everything. It comes from Muhammad ibn Mūsā al’Khwārizmī, a mathematician whose Latin name was Algoritmi, or the “decimal number system”.

As we navigate through history, we see algorithms hard at work in:

• Ancient Greece, to power modern mechanics
• The 19^th Century Analytical Engine, with algorithmic input from Ada Lovelace
• The Second World War, when Alan Turing played his part in cracking the Enigma Code, and paving the way for ‘general purpose’ computers.

Today, we use them to answer questions, drive from A to B, and segment our customers. They’re also extremely cost-effective for harnessing astronomical amounts of data. This has its benefits: personalisation and time saving, for example.

It also has potential for harm. New Scientist states that “cash-strapped authorities are turning to algorithms they don’t fully understand in an effort to cut costs”. This has resulted in one police force investigating half as many reported assaults, based on a computer’s decision.

The filter bubble

Beyond their uses for enterprise, algorithms may also influence how we think. Following Mark Zuckerberg’s historic hearing, Facebook made changes in 2018 that would prioritise “posts that spark conversations and meaningful interactions between people”.

At the time, businesses groaned as they saw their page reach diminishing, but the long-term effects were far more pernicious.

“Intellectual isolation”

Let’s say you’re not really sure of your stance on something. You log in to Facebook to see what the world has to say. The algorithm has prioritised these ‘conversations’ and as such, you’re confronted with hundreds of posts from one hard view. Before long, you’re in the rabbit hole, seeking out more information that aligns with these views.

In the background, apps and cookies are monitoring this activity to get a better impression of you. Let’s take Apple News – a news aggregator platform which “personalises content to your interests”. The more of this content you view, the more of it you’re fed. Before long, you’ve succumbed to the filter bubble.

A filter bubble is the intellectual isolation that can occur when websites make use of algorithms to selectively assume the information a user would want to see, and then give information to the user according to this assumption.

-Eli Pariser: The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You.

The problem with this bubble is that it limits us from exploring alternative views, in turn leading to confirmation bias. Like our hard-wired desires to conform, we seek out information that supports our views, and we dismiss the alternatives.

In practice, this means a lot of family arguments, or dramatic Whatsapp group exits. Mic drop.

The deleterious effects of algorithms

So, you like dogs; I like cats. So what? If the effects of these filter bubbles were limited to claims of hoax moon landings, we could breathe easy.

For starters, we have the ongoing issue of fake news. Again, not a problem if we’re bickering over Kimye divorcing, but quite significant when we consider that lives are at stake.

The 2020 Reuters Digital News Report revealed that 37 per cent of us feel we have been given “misleading information” about the coronavirus:

Source: The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020

That’s on social media alone. More than a quarter of us blame video sites, while almost a fifth blame search engines…and at 32 per cent? Of course. Whatsapp.

But it goes beyond COVID. I’m not even getting into Brexit or the 2016 election results because there aren’t enough hours in the day. Just look at the dangers of algorithms in 2020/1:

Patients are refusing ‘non-English’ vaccine

At the turn of the year, Dr Paul Williams, the Labour MP for Stockton South, and former GP, tweeted:

Some local patients have turned down an offer this weekend of getting a Covid vaccine when they found out it was the Pfizer one. “I’ll wait for the English one”.

People at risk of death in the depths of a pandemic.

A lesson that Nationalism has consequences.

— Dr Paul Williams (@PaulWilliamsLAB) January 7, 2021

This is quite an eye-opening insight into polarised Britain. We might even call it groupthink: the group are united in their nationalism to the point that they will make poor decisions, like turning down a ‘non-English’ vaccine.

Think algorithms don’t play a part? Think again. In August 2020, Professor J. Paul Goode discussed the links between algorithms, artificial intelligence and nationalism. He says:

“Disruptive technologies can empower the powerless, influence the movements of populations and ideas across borders, change how the nation is imagined in daily life, and facilitate revolution.”

Think of that in the context of the Capitol riots.

The 2020 A-level fiasco

In one of just many examples of AI bias, the 2020 A-level fiasco led to almost 40 per cent of students receiving grades lower than expected.  Worse still, the UK government capped growth rates for universities. Even if universities had attempted to be lenient, they were not allowed to grow by more than 5 per cent.

In lieu of real exams, an algorithm calculated students’ grades based on three things:

1. Historical grade distribution of schools during the years 2017-2019
2. The individual student’s rank, based on teacher evaluations
3. The student’s previous results for that particular subject.

Point one is particularly noteworthy. It essentially penalises students based on the performance of others. Further analysis concluded that those in smaller schools were more likely to benefit.

Then there was the appeals process, which came with a fee – once again, discriminating students from certain backgrounds. Thankfully, the students’ results have since been retracted and will be determined by teacher feedback, or, you know, an actual human being.

Skills and employment bias

Algorithms are powered by data – or human input. As humans we may have inherent biases towards our own race or sex, which may affect outcomes on anything from crime prediction to job applications.

One of the issues is the sheer scale of the data. Stas Sajin argues that it is not enough to simply “remove race” from job applications as a variable. There are so many other indicators of our personal attributes. As he notes, Amazon’s hiring algorithm inadvertently discriminated against women – there was no mention of their sex, but there were references to “Women’s Chess Club Captain” and such.

If we extrapolate this, algorithms could be penalising applicants based on their socioeconomic background, race, sex, faith – it calls for human intervention.

The power of Twitter

With all this evidence, we could be forgiven for claiming the algorithms have brainwashed us. Facebook has 1.82 billion users per day – all that data is bound to influence our thinking.

But we have to take responsibility for our actions. Twitter, for example, offers a mixture of “algorithmic and real-time content”. Therefore, we might see Trump inciting violence because we follow him, or because we see it in the trending section.

If political unrest wasn’t enough, we also have cancel culture. Earlier this week, Rowan Atkinson was featured in a controversial article discussing online mobs, and said it was important that we consider a wide spectrum of opinion.

The article also cites the case of JK Rowling, a former national treasure who was ‘cancelled’ after a series of tweets discussing trans people. Would 81,000 people have waded into that conversation had it not been on Twitter? Or did those who had no opinion either way feel compelled to form one…because it was trending?

We must take responsibility

Whatever your opinions on JK Rowling, Rowan Atkinson, Donald Trump – you cannot ignore the facts. On January 6, Trump tweeted: “Get smart Republicans. FIGHT!” Twenty-four hours later, five people were dead.

It’s up to us whose accounts we follow, whom we choose to retweet and how we interpret information that’s given to us. President of Reuters News Michael Friedenberg perhaps sums it up best:

Historically, the supply chain of content has always been about creation and distribution. Somewhere along the line it added verification. But the order should be creation – verification – distribution.

We play a part in disseminating the message now. We need to consider the consequences.

The good news

The good news is that the onus is not on us alone. Social networks are facing up to their responsibilities and tightening their grip on ‘fake news’ culture. World leaders are not exempt from this. Take this excerpt from the Reuters report:

“Facebook has stepped up funding for independent fact-checkers and a number of platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have taken down misinformation that breached guidelines, including a video from Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.”

In the same vein, Trump has now been banned from most major social media platforms.

Similarly, in February 2019, Google published a white paper on how it plans to fight disinformation, including:

• Focusing on quality content
• Counteracting ‘malicious actors’ (those out to deceive)
• Giving users more context with knowledge panels
• Partnering with experts and championing quality journalism.

What, us? Bickering?

So, what can you do?

If you’re finding yourself locked in daily tussles, take it from someone with five siblings:

1. Ask if it’s worth your time

Is the vaccine an exercise in government control, or the first step to getting through this pandemic? Revised: can you change anything, either way? It’s best to focus your energy on things you control, like how you talk to others.

2. Curate your own feed

Seeing too much content from the same groups? Leave the group, change your cookie settings, untick the advertising tick boxes, unfollow the hashtags. If you want to broaden your horizons, follow both camps. Make your own conclusions.

3. Respect other people’s right to an opinion

Note that opinion is different from fact. If somebody is broadcasting an opinion as fact, it’s right to challenge them – particularly if it’s harmful. But if somebody is merely sharing an opinion, respect your rights to disagree, or even prompt healthy debate. You may have facts that they don’t, or vice versa.

4. Be careful what you share

It’s on you, dear reader. You have no idea how much influence that share button has. You can use fact-checking tools like Snopes to verify the claims. It’s quite eye-opening what you’ll find.

5. Question the algorithm

When the outcomes of an algorithm affect your life, by all means, challenge them. The A-level results are just one example, but AI may also hinder job interviews, loan applications and goodness knows what else. Remember that, even in 2021, we can fall back on human common sense.

Above all, remember:

Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

– George Bernard Shaw

It’s OK to change your mind. It’s fine to disagree with others. What’s not fine is other people getting hurt, and the algorithm can only work based on what we tell it.

The post Why We Must Stop Pandering to the Algorithm appeared first on Katie Lingo.

I was absent-mindedly responding to a personal message on Instagram. A York man, whom I’d never met, was giving me advice on how to get around London by tube.

“Wait, so people can send you private messages? Not comments?”

“Well, yeah – he responded to my story. I asked if anyone knew any tube stations near London Bridge.”

So ensues a half-hour conversation about how social media works. My ‘media naranja’ is not on any social media – lucky him – so he’s confused when I tell him you cannot leave comments on 24-hour ‘stories’.

I’d not given it much thought before. But if you think about it, you wouldn’t shout to strangers in the street about the best way to get to King’s Cross. Hmm. Except if you were in London, maybe.

2020’s online communities

Speaking to strangers with unabashed familiarity isn’t new to me. I’ve only met a quarter of my clients, for goodness’ sake. Of course, I’ve spoken to most, if not all of them, on Zoom – but is this an adequate substitute for human contact?

Diving deeper, 2020 has given rise to a whole new world of ‘online communities’. The clients were always there, but then we have:

• The Whatsapp group of fellow long-suffering CIM students
• The personal trainers who got us through lockdown with virtual workouts
• The LinkedIn regulars with whom I trade comments and TV show quotes
• The ‘Instagram friends’ who share an interest in running/fitness
• The content crew on Twitter – or perhaps, my third greatest loves, after cats and co-directors.

The last two are particularly notable because we’ve essentially connected over a hashtag.

A HASHTAG, of all things.

To this day, I still regularly DM a fellow cat-lover on Instagram who bloody loves a good marathon. Her name is Katie too. She’s like me, only thinner. Don’t ask me how we ‘met’ – she probably followed me after I used a #LondonMarathon hashtag.

The same goes for my content kings and queens. Had there not been the #ContentClubUK hashtag, I’d never have got to know such an inspiring, supportive, witty, intelligent and genuinely lovely group of people. You could call them competitors. I call them angels.

Just look at what Sophie Cross posted for me today.

If there’s one to watch in 2020, 2021, and always it’s this one. 👀

She’s a content marketer and proofreader for digital agencies and SMEs and she’s got an unmistakably unstoppable vibe radiating. 🔥

All her videos are 😂😂😂

⁰⁰#FreelancerAdvent Day 10 is @KatieLingoYork 👏 pic.twitter.com/DBGTgiShYs

— Sophie Cross (@FullyThoughtOut) December 10, 2020

I’m not crying. You’re crying. Despite the fact that commercial culture tells us we should be ripping the flesh off each other’s bones, we actively support each other – through Twitter messages, newsletters and Zoom chats. Angels.

The dangers of being too familiar

In lockdown, it seems as though all the advice our parents gave us about not talking to strangers has gone out the window. Indeed, you could say that happened with the advent of chatrooms – but we’re definitely getting more ‘friendly’ in a virtual world.

Our private inboxes used to be the preserve of only our closest chums. Those who’d say, “inbox me hun” after we posted cryptic Facebook statuses.

Now, they’re a free-for-all – particularly on LinkedIn and Instagram. Nine times out of 10, they’re harmless. But there always has to be one person who spoils the fun.

2020: A year summed up in creeps

There’s no way I can say this and not look like Samantha Brick. (Remember her?) Only, while she’s getting sent champagne on flights to New York, I’m getting creepy messages from blokes who have clearly been locked up too long. Check out these Don Juans.

Most of the time I screenshot them and mock them on other platforms. If you’re going to creep, you have forfeited your right to privacy. But on a serious note, what gives people the right to make other internet users feel uncomfortable?

A reminder to refresh your privacy settings

We have to laugh. If anyone made me feel threatened, I’d send them my two six-foot-three martial-arts-trained brothers.

We should perhaps use these as cautionary tales, however. (Not in a victim-blaming sense, of course. We have the right to have a social media presence without being harassed.)

It’s quite overwhelming how much you can find out about people if you really want to. Where one social media profile might not tell you everything, another might fill in the gaps. Age, job role, even addresses if these people own companies. If you want to lock it down, consider:

• Registering your accountant as your Google My Business/Companies House address
• Checking what NAP data is available on your various social channels
• Keeping business strictly separate from private profiles, for example, with LinkedIn pages
• Reviewing your settings across all platforms to limit what the public can see
• Having a separate work telephone number.

When no boundaries can be a good thing

Now you’ve finished shitting your pants, would you like to hear the good news? Despite the world leaders, the anti-maskers and the people who don’t like cheese, it’s not all bad out there.

Most people are decent human beings and if there’s anything this pandemic has done; it’s brought us together. Even if we are behind the so-called ‘black mirror’.

These new ‘virtual friends’ are likely going through a very similar, if not exactly the same, situation as you. They’ve got your back, which means the world – whether you’ve met them or not.

Here are a few snippets from people I’ve asked about the new ‘virtual friends’ they’ve made:

“I would not have coped without my virtual circle of chums!” – Catherine Jones, freelance writer

“I joined an online co-working club earlier in the year, which has been an absolute lifeline for me. And of course, I’ve met the lovely Content Club through Twitter!” – Rachel Baker, SEO specialist

“I met so many amazing people virtually through helping organise York Design Week! There are new members of Bright Young Things whom I talk to regularly too. My local network has massively grown which I don’t think would have been as possible if it wasn’t for the pandemic!” – Laura Sanderson, founder of Bright Young Things

“Virtual friends on LinkedIn have honestly got me through this year. As a sole trader I work alone, so as soon as lockdown hit, it was quite lonely not to have that day-to-day interaction. Through LinkedIn, these people have gone from a few comments on each other’s posts to full-blown WhatsApp friends where we chat about our lives.” – Giverny Harman, freelance marketing consultant

“90 per cent of my network has been made virtually, having set up one week before lockdown.” – Fiona Bradley, communications consultant

Will it be the same in person?

It’s hard to picture a world where we can socialise, but one cannot help but wonder what life will be like when we can actually meet these people. Do they speak how they type? Are they funny in person? Do they even have legs?

The abovementioned angel Sophie Cross tells me she’s since met some of her ‘online friends’. She’s still alive, so there’s hope yet!

There’d better be. I’m having a party in July for all my online friends. And there’s no mute button.

The post 2020: The Year That Personal Boundaries Forgot appeared first on Katie Lingo.