The last paper in this AoIR 2018 session was mine, presenting on our TrISMA project to gather social media data in Australia at scale. Here are the slides:
The third speaker in this AoIR 2018 session is Harsh Taneja, who promises to present an alternative history of big data. At present, many big data datasets are highly platform-specific, such data can generally be accessed via platform APIs or scraped from platform Websites. But big data research existed before the Internet: Harsh points here to the early days of advertising-supported broadcasting, when advertisers first required audience measurements.
This was done at first through self-reporting, for instance through phone surveys. Soon, however, people like Arthur C. Nielsen developed audience measurement devices, which produced a first kind of big data on …
The next speaker in our AoIR 2018 session is Ericka Menchen-Trevino, whose research interest is on the study of selective exposure; this is often studied through surveys or lab experiments, but can be usefully complemented with Web history data. Such an integration between conventional social science data and digital trace data provides a blueprint for new possibilities across a range of research interests, in fact.
Conventional social science broadly distinguishes between quantitative and qualitative data and methods, but this distinction is not particular useful when working with digital trace data. These data are usually collected by the researcher for a …
I’ve spent the morning in an AoIR Executive meeting, but I’m back for the second session on this Friday morning at AoIR 2018 – and I also have a paper in this session. First off is Rasmus Helles, though, who presents the People’s Internet Project: a major global study, supported by the Carlsberg Foundation, that seeks to map out global variations in Internet development.
This takes the citizen as a point of departure, and employs a range of methods for studying Internet use: it uses big data on Web traffic from ComScore; engages in local ethnographies of Internet users; conducts …
The final speakers in this AoIR 2018 session are Willian Fernandez Araújo and João Carlos Magalhães; they are interested in how ordinary people comprehend algorithms, and captured Portuguese-language tweets that used relevant terms to explore this.
User mentioned the algorithms’ actions (80%); the consequences of algorithms; user actions in response to algorithms; the qualities of the algorithms; emotional responses to algorithms; sources of user perceptions of algorithms; and the user’s own positioning towards algorithms. They mainly talked about acts by ‘the algorithm’, including the prioritisation of specific content, content and connection suggestions, and content distribution.
The next speaker in this AoIR 2018 session is Megan Boler, who continues our focus on algorithms. She begins by noting a concern about the affective politics of information warfare, as well as about the increasing targetting of emotions through social media activity.
Such developments have become a great deal more visible since Brexit and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We have seen many revelations about the use of marketing and behavioural science in targetting and affecting users’ emotions, and all sides of politics have realised the importance of emotion in increasing political polarisation and hyperpartisanship.
The third speaker in this AoIR 2018 session is Martina Mahnke, who is approaching algorithms from a human rather than technical perspective. Indeed, the term algorithm is often used to avoid explaining exactly how automated systems function, and what logics them embed; the study of algorithms from the user’s or programmer’s view has a considerably shorter history to date.
From this perspective, the, algorithms are communicative constructs; the narratives of algorithms influence directly how people engage with them. But this also implies that there is the narrative of algorithms that is created by the programmers, as well as a potential …
The next speaker at AoIR 2018 is Noemi Festic, whose focus is on algorithmic content selection processes by automated systems. This includes search applications, recommendation systems, and a broad range of other automated tools; these govern user behaviour by limiting and shaping activities but thereby also provide a space for new forms of engagement.
Such applications have an effect on the social order in human societies at the macro-level, but the extent of that effect is debatable and needs to be tested by empirical research. Part of the question here is how aware users are of the agency of these …
The first paper in the final session at AoIR 2018 today is SeongJae Min, who is interested in the role of algorithms in determining what we are exposed to on social media; the major finding from his research is that people’s choices matter at least as much as algorithmic shaping.
Concepts such as ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’ have become popularised in recent times, but there is a significant lack of empirical evidence for such phenomena; if anything, they are more prevalent in localised offline contexts than global online networks, where cross-cutting exposure is considerably more likely to occur. But …
The final speaker in this AoIR 2018 session is Aram Sinnreich, whose interest is in the continuing consequences of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) – and in particular its anti-circumvention elements that criminalise the bypassing of copyright protection mechanisms such as encryption, even in contexts where ‘fair use’ exceptions apply.
But there are some exceptions; the U.S. Copyright Office engages in triennial rulemaking processes that grant exemptions for particular, tightly defined cases of bypassing. However, do such exemptions work? While copyright users are by now well aware of the DMCA, they are less aware of the bypassing prohibitions …
