Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization

Ethics and Information Technology 15 (3):209-227 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Online information intermediaries such as Facebook and Google are slowly replacing traditional media channels thereby partly becoming the gatekeepers of our society. To deal with the growing amount of information on the social web and the burden it brings on the average user, these gatekeepers recently started to introduce personalization features, algorithms that filter information per individual. In this paper we show that these online services that filter information are not merely algorithms. Humans not only affect the design of the algorithms, but they also can manually influence the filtering process even when the algorithm is operational. We further analyze filtering processes in detail, show how personalization connects to other filtering techniques, and show that both human and technical biases are present in today’s emergent gatekeepers. We use the existing literature on gatekeeping and search engine bias and provide a model of algorithmic gatekeeping

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-21

Downloads
183 (#104,216)

6 months
13 (#182,749)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Autonomy in moral and political philosophy.John Christman - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.Mark Granovetter - 1983 - Sociological Theory 1 (1983):201-233.
Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice.Mary Flanagan, Daniel Howe & Helen Nissenbaum - 2008 - In M. J. van den Joven & J. Weckert (eds.), Information Technology and Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 322--353.
Preferences, Paternalism, and Liberty.Cass Sunstein - 2006 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 59:233-264.

Add more references