"Did someone blink?" I can clearly tell that this girl's eyes are open but the technology and sensors of the camera did not. Who's fault is that? The camera's the inventors?
David Hankerson, author of his article: "Does Technology Have Race" talks about a very interesting point and problem about how some modern day technologies are performing in a a discriminating manner towards specific groups of people. For example, the soap dispenser detecting a white person's hand but failing to detect a black person's hand. Or and apple watch not being able to detect a color person's pulse. A camera constantly asking if people in an Asian family photo are blinking. And especially, Google detecting black people in photographs and categorizing them as "Gorillas" or "Apes".
What struck me from the article was reading about how there are ways to fix these racial issues and controversies that technology is bringing about. If people in India are able to make their sensors on technology more inclusive to all skin types then why can't America?
This ties into the discussion and controvery of bullshit and lies. Harry Frankfurt, an American philospher, argues that bullshitting is not that same thing as lying because lying inncludes false facts and being fake, while bulshitting is a sort of misrepresentation. For example, he writes: "Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent." In short, bulshitting is a misrpresentation of the information; Not lying about false things but instead, twisting information.
I argue that not fixing issues regarding discriminating technology even with the ability to do so is a form of bullshit. It is the truth that there are means to and advancements to make technology in the United States more accessible and less discriminatory. So it cannot be a lie. It may just be bullshit that people who produce and sell technology that discriminates just so happens to ignore the truth that change is needed.
This point makes me lead to the assumption that no, technology is not racist and neither are the inventors of technology and algorithms are racist. The users and providers are. As Hankerson talks about in his article, the fact that bias comes from privilege needs to be recognized and addressed. When designing a product, the creators should try to invent products based on an intersectional and inclusive lens rather than designs around a "straight white male". That is why I believe that the ones who are in control of changing or teaching the algorithm or the people who have the power to change the technology should be put at some fault and should listen to the awareness and warnings like Hankerson is putting out.
How are we going to be able to call people in charge out on their bullshit? Hankerson's article was meant to raise awareness to the fact that technology is making people feel excluded. As I agree that it is important to spread this awareness especially to those who do not deal with this issue, I also think it is important that the users and the companies who sell and provide this technology follow guidelines and rules to make the tech as inclusive as possible instead of bulshitting the truth. Especially when there are countries who are able to make these changes, misrepresenting and manipulating the truth and ultimately continuing to product technology that is racially biased is unacceptable.
So who's to blame? It is really hard to say because we are unsure of the true intentions of the inventors of the product or algorithm. However, with changing who the technology designs are shaped around I believe change is possible.
I liked how you addressed an urgent topic for your post because inclusivity in tech is certainly very important, and it's clear that you tried to incorporate more of a discussion around ethics. However, I think the references to Frankfurt are still ambiguous. I'm having difficulty understanding why bullshit/lying is relevant to your argument. I also think you make some strong assumptions that may not necessarily be true (e.g., "It is the truth that...So it cannot be a lie."). It would have been interesting for you to focus on this point alone--why do you believe this is a universal truth? What are the moral implications if the assumption isn't necessarily true? Additionally, the parts of your post that were left the same could've used additional proof-reading as there were some typos and grammatical errors that were distracting.
ReplyDeleteI think you chose a great topic. The question "is technology racist or is it the people that make it?" is an important and overlooked topic in the tech community, and I liked that you took a clear stance in your argument. However, I had trouble understanding the connection to Frankfurt's article. I would recommend providing more descriptive examples. For example, the phrase "This ties into the discussion and controversy of bullshit and lies." is ambiguous to outside readers because we do not know what "this" is or why it ties into the discussion. You brought up a lot of great points, just makes sure there is a clear written connection between your thoughts and the readings.
ReplyDeleteI decided to read your article because I actually wrote about something very similar and I find it to be a very prominent current issue that plagues a lot of people using these respective technologies. Having read your last version of the article, I think there was a lot that was improved upon. This time it felt like a much more engaging read with more flow to the foundation of your argument. I liked the format you used and the references to the readings. Where I think you could spend some more time improving is definitely in integrating the readings. The Frankfurt reading feels forced into the article and it's a little difficult at first to make the connection about what the bullshit in this situation is. I also think the Hankerson article was a great addition for your argument but I would introduce it later after perhaps giving a little more background into the topic you are discussing. I think you've made some great improvements since the last version of the article, but definitely be careful about how you integrate the readings to support your arguments.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post and I think the topic is racism in technology is really interesting. Some of your examples reminded me of a big case that happened a few years back. Basically a female doctor was locked out of her gym locker room because the system thought she was a male. The engineer who designed the system just assumed that if you had a Dr. in your name, you had to be a male. This is sexism instead of racism but I believe it strongly relates to your topic as well. I agree with you that its not the technology at fault but the person behind it.
ReplyDeleteGood job on your revised post!
ReplyDeleteI really like the addition of the GIF. Adding to the entertainment value of your article despite its serious topic. I like how you used relevant examples from the last few years as well. I agree with other commenters and think that you could've have transitioned to the reading a bit smoother though.