Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Chargement... Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culturepar Kyle Chayka
Books Read in 2024 (148) Chargement...
Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre.
"From New Yorker staff writer and author of The Longing for Less Kyle Chayka comes a timely history and investigation of a world ruled by algorithms, which determine the shape of culture itself. From coffee shops to rental apartments to social media posts the world round, a sleek and deceptively simple aesthetic has come to predominate. It's in the neon signs and exposed brick of an Internet cafe in Nairobi or the skeletal, modern furniture of an Airbnb in Portland. These designs are easy to identify, but even more crucially, they photograph well. In their simplicity and studied airiness, these images fit seamlessly into the Instagram grid. But this aesthetic is only one small aspect of a broader program of curation that is determined by the algorithm-a network of mathematically determined choices that ramify into the development of city grids and music playlists alike. To have our tastes, behaviors, and emotions governed by computers, does nothing short of call the very notion of free will into question. Over the last decade, Kyle Chayka has studied the homogeneity of this curation of reality. Working as a contributor for The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, and The New Republic, he has traveled to Berlin, Reykjavik, and Los Angeles tracing the algorithm's lineage. In Filterworld, Chayka lucidly examines how this deeply filtered aesthetic-spanning digital and physical spaces-creates an uncanny blend of work, home, and social life. As the algorithm determines our choices, other important questions arise: What happens when shareability supersedes messiness, innovation, and creativity-the very nature of being human? What does the notion of choice mean when the available options have been so carefully arranged for us? Filterworld offers a way out. Kyle Chayka shows us how to disconnect from the tyranny of the algorithms that continue to override our sensibilities, and inform even our most intimate, real-world interactions. Most importantly, he shows us how to reclaim our individual freedom"-- Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucunCouvertures populaires
Google Books — Chargement... GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)306Social sciences Social Sciences; Sociology and anthropology Culture and InstitutionsClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne:
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
All of these social platforms are for-profit businesses. Their algorithms are designed to keep you clicking and watching, so that the business can profit from your attention. The stream isn't necessarily good content, but it's profitable. Harmful and disturbing content can tick all the boxes and be promoted to users throughout a site.
The relentless focus on popularity skips over niche and unusual work in favor of an algorithmic slush of whatever has the broadest, most generic appeal.
curation, qualitative and quantitative
Next, Chayka contrasts algorithmic feeds with human-recommended collections, using examples from an experienced radio DJ and an art museum curator. This is qualitative curation, instead of data-driven quantitative curation. The author clearly prefers the human-powered version, but I don't buy his argument that it's inherently better.
The algorithmic feeds definitely have problems. But are computers really the only problem with these feeds? What about the profit incentive that drives the algorithms' definitions? Algorithms are capable of identifying unwanted content fairly well when the business is motivated to make it happen. For example, Instagram is well known for its heavy-handed censorship of female nipples, but not male ones.
Human decisions lurk behind every element of a feed. Someone decides to weight angry reactions over happy ones. Someone decides to push certain movies or music not because I might like them, but because there's money to be made.
curation as gatekeeping
When does curation become gatekeeping? Filterworld doesn't focus on that question, but it's definitely what I thought about while reading. Chayka takes time to show how the algorithmic curator picks winners and losers, deciding which content audiences are allowed to see. Commercial success depends on catering to the algorithm.
The author prefers human curation, but human curators can also be gatekeepers. His example of an art museum curator is relevant. Art buyers chase the cachet of owning work by an artist who's also represented in museum collections. Another recent read, Get the Picture by Bianca Bosker, is an inside look at the fine art world that really opened my eyes to the way that artists are dependent on the approval of gatekeepers to survive.
Human curators aren't immune to being influenced by profit, either. The payola scandals of the prime radio era are a fine example, as is the recent exhibit of falsely-attributed Basquiat works at the Orlando Museum of Art.
my personal bottom line
I'm not convinced that human curation versus machine curation is a critical issue. Instead, I want to be free to choose the type of curation that suits my needs, and to be able to opt out of curation at any time.
Transparency in curation methods is relevant too. Paid placements and financial incentives should be clearly disclosed, similar to the way that news journalists routinely note potential conflicts of interest in their reporting.
Social platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Spotify regularly make it difficult or impossible to avoid their algorithmic filters. What is a "following" list, but my own personal curation? I should have the right to opt out of their filter bubble in favor of my own decisions.
originally published at https://groddle.com/blog/2024/apr/03/ ( )