Almost two years ago, I published my personal contribution to the “Google’s Autocompletion algorithms discriminate against women” debate by adding some context about Google and about algorithms.
Today, I could write something very similar regarding the headlines informing us that, according to a recent study, Google’s advertising algorithms discriminate against women. And it is probably a handy opportunity to let you know that my phd research in social sciences – still ongoing – is precisely about interaction with Google’s advertising algorithms…
However, this blog post is not going to be about my research. But when I saw the headlines about “discriminating advertising algorithms” I simply couldn’t *not* blog about it.
Luckily, WIRED has already taken care of asking the very same question I asked in my 2013 blog post about Google’s autocompletion algorithms: who or what is to blame? In a short but discerning piece WIRED explains the complex configuration of Google AdSense:
Who—or What’s—to Blame?
While the study’s findings would suggest Google is enabling discrimination, the situation is much more complicated.
Currently, Google allows advertisers to target their ads based on gender. That means it’s possible for an advertiser promoting high-paying job listings to directly target men. However, Google’s algorithm may have also determined that men are more relevant for the position and made the decision on its own. And then there’s the possibility that user behavior taught Google to serve ads in this manner. It’s impossible to know if one party here is to blame or if it’s a combination of account targeting from all sources at play.
This configuration has allowed powerful companies to present their services as ‘platforms’, phenomenal and simultaneously neutral vessels of communication filled by numerous individual users’ actions only. Continue reading
Recently, I held a lecture about the digital transformation for the franco-swiss CAS/EMBA program in e-tourism. The tourism industry not being my specialty, and the “social media” aspects having been thoroughly covered by colleagues, I had been specifically asked to convey a big picture view.
I chose to address some overall issues related to ICT (information & communication technology), innovation and society by debunking the following five myths:
- Ignoring the digital transformation is possible
- Technological progress is linear
- Connectivity is a given
- Virtual vs. “real” life
- Big Data – the answer to all our questions
Each of these points would deserve an treatise on its own, and I will not be able to go into much details in the scope of this article. I nevertheless wanted to share some of the links and references mentioned during my lecture and related to these issues. If you prefer reading the whole thing in French, please go to Enjeux technologiques et sociaux: cinq idées reçues à propos du numérique, which is the corresponding (but not literally translated) article in French.
Myth no. 1: Ignoring the digital transformation is possible
While discussions of online social networks have become mainstream, the digital transformation goes way beyond social media. It is about more than visible communication. It is about automation, computation, and algorithms. And as I have written before: algorithms are more than a technological issue because they involve not only automated data analysis, but also decision-making. In 1961 already, C.P. Snow said:
In order to illustrate the vastness of computation and algorithmic automation I mentioned Frédéric Kaplan’s information mushroom (“champignon informationnel”), my explorations of Google Autocomplete, as well as the susceptibility of a job to be made redundant in the near future by machine learning and mobile robotics (cf. this scientific working paper, or the interactive visualisation derived from it).
Myth no. 2: Technological progress is linear
This point included a little history including sociology of knowledge and innovation studies.
Exceptionally, this article is in French. English speaking readers might want to head over to Technology, innovation and society: five myths debunked.
Cet article esquisse mon intervention dans un module de formation EMBA / CAS il y a quelques jours. Le but était de sensibiliser les participants aux enjeux des technologies de l’information comme sources d’innovations majeures et de les rendre attentifs à quelques enjeux sociaux des TIC. Afin qu’un tour d’horizon aussi vaste soit un tant soit peu digeste, j’ai décidé de le présenter en cinq chapitres qui démontent certaines idées reçues à propos du numérique:
- Il est possible d’ignorer le numérique
- Le progrès technologique est linéaire
- La connectivité est un acquis
- Il y a le virtuel et il y a la “vraie vie”
- Les “big data”: la solution à tout
En voici ci-dessous la présentation, et ensuite quelques phrases explicatives avec liens/références.
Idée reçue no. 1: Il est possible d’ignorer le numérique
Le domaine du numérique est souvent considéré uniquement dans une perspective communication/marketing, une perspective parfois réduite aux seuls sujets des sites web et des réseaux sociaux en ligne. Et alors qu’il est possible pour une entreprise notamment de se passer d’une page facebook en toute cohérence avec sa stratégie, il n’en est pas de même avec la dynamique et l’évolution numérique au sens large. Ce parce que la révolution numérique ne concerne de loin pas que les “social media”. Elle comprend toute sorte d’automatisation algorithmique. Une citation parlante à ce sujet a été dit par C.P. Snow en 1961 déjà et je l’avais reprise dans un billet précédent (en anglais) il y a deux ans et demi:
Illustrant quelques enjeux d’automatisation algorithmique, j’ai mentionné le “champignon informationnel” de Frédéric Kaplan, mes explorations de Google Autocomplete, et les calculs de la “probabilité de remplaçabilité” d’un emploi (provenant d’un working paper scientifique, transformés en visualisation interactive) grâce aux avancées dans les domaines du machine learning et de la robotique mobile.
Idée reçue no. 2: Le progrès technologique est linéaire
Pour ce point, une petite plongée dans la sociologie de la connaissance et de la technologie:
Women need to be put in their place. Women cannot be trusted. Women shouldn’t have rights. Women should be in the kitchen. …
You might have come across the latest UN Women awareness campaign. Originally in print, it has been spreading online for almost two days. It shows four women, each “silenced” with a screenshot from a particular Google search and its respective suggested autocompletions.
Researching interaction with Google’s algorithms for my phd, I cannot help but add my two cents and further reading suggestions in the links …
Guess what was the most common reaction of people?
They headed over to Google in order to check the “veracity” of the screenshots, and test the suggested autocompletions for a search for “Women should …” and other expressions. I have seen this done all around me, on sociology blogs as well as by people I know.
In terms of an awareness campaign, this is a great success.
And more awareness is a good thing. As the video autofill: a gender study concludes “The first step to solving a problem is recognizing there is one.” However, people’s reactions have reminded me, once again, how little the autocompletion function has been problematized, in general, before the UN Women campaign. Which, then, makes me realize how much of the knowledge related to web search engine research I have acquired these last months I already take for granted… but I disgress.
This awareness campaign has been very successful in making people more aware of
the sexism in our world Google’s autocomplete function.
Google’s autocompletion algorithms
At DH2013, the annual Digital Humanities conference, I presented a paper I co-authored with Frederic Kaplan about an ongoing research of the DHLab about Google autocompletion algorithms. In this paper, we explained why autocompletions are “linguistic prosthesis”: they mediate between our thoughts and how we express these thought in (written) language. So do related searches, or the suggestion “Did you mean … ?” But of all the mediations by algorithms, the mediation by autocompletion algorithms acts in a particularly powerful way because it doesn’t correct us afterwards. It intervenes before we have completed formulating our thoughts in writing. Before we hit ENTER. Continue reading
For those of you who are not familiar with this acronym: it stands for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire and has been a bit in the news lately for discovering a new particle, most probably the Higgs boson (cf. understandable explanations of the Higgs boson).
Back to my very special day: the morning was dedicated to visiting the impressive CMS experiment facility and in the afternoon, the TEDx conference took place. We were welcomed in a tent, but the actual event was held in the beautiful Globe of Science and Innovations.
It was not my first TEDx experience, and I enjoyed the scientific emphasis. Below, I will share my personal thoughts and highlights, but would like to underline that the whole program was on a very high level.
Science and marketing
One of my favourite catch phrase comes from entertaining Marc Abrahams and goes more or less like this:
If you do research and you know what you are going to find, you’re not doing research – you’re doing marketing.
Abrahams must know: he has been following improbable research for a long time, awarding studies that first makes you laugh, then think, with the IgNobel Prize since 1991. (A quick heads-up for people based in Geneva: an IgNobel-show will take place on May 7!)
Science and findings
Unsurprising for a science-heavy program, there were several speakers sharing their journey from not knowing to actual findings:
Maya Tolstoy, a marine geophysicist with an impressive track record, spoke about her noticing oddly recurrent signals in her data – which would then pave the way for the discovery of correlations between tides and seafloor seismicity. Theoretical physicist Gian Giudice showed the impact of the discovery of the Higgs boson on the calculation of the stability of the universe. (Bad news, by the way: with Giudice’s current premises, the calculations reveal a highly unstable universe; however, it seems we don’t have to worry since our sun will blow up anyway before anything happens to our universe.)
And cosmologist Hiranya Peiris, wonderfully starting off the TEDxCERN talks with a whodunnit about the beginning of the universe, reminded us that all research – even when not revealing a ground-breaking discovery – trumps never leaving the point of not knowing:
“Looking and not finding is not the same as not looking.” (H. Peiris)
Science and resources
The focus of TEDxCERN was, accordingly, not only on the outcome of research, but also on science itself, and on the very importance of enabling and undertaking research:
Computer scientist Ian Foster, who is to be credited with the analogy between research and journey (and, accessorily, grid computing), explained very well how an “ocean liner” such as CERN may be best adapted for certain kinds of research-journeys – but not for all kinds of research-journeys. And scientists who are not aboard an ocean liner (but a sailboat, for example) need to get ahead, too…
“Today, a person can run a company from a coffee shop thanks to cloud computing… what about labs?” (I. Foster)
He presented many cloud platforms empowering small-scale labs and researchers, notably Globus online which allows scientists to focus on the data content rather than data storing, sharing and maintenance.
On the other hand, TED veteran Lee Cronin stressed the need for his field, chemistry, to advance not only in sailboats, but to engage and collaborate on ocean liner scale in order to discover the origin of life.
Science and tomorrow’s scientists
Accidentally or not, two of the most personal talks were dedicated to the situation of young academics – although each one from a very different viewpoint: Becky Parker is a teacher of physics and astronomy at Simon Langton School, acting along the lines of the “radical” idea that interest in science can be sown and supported by engaging students in actual scientific projects. LUCID proves her right. Her innovative approach and personal enthusiasm has triggered many “I wish I had had a teacher like her” thoughts and tweets.
In a society where Becky Parkers are an exception rather than a rule, insatiable curiosity and personal experience may make up for a lack of intellectual stimulation in school: Brittany Wenger began studying neural networks (by herself!) when she was just 13 years old, learnt programming and is now providing Cloud4Cancer, a service to detect breast cancer less invasively than standard methods.
The special guest scheduled right after Brittany Wenger’s talk, Will.I.am, also advocated for young scientists: on direct via webcam, he explained why he is fascinated by science and why he encourages young people, no matter what neighbourhood they grow up in, to learn about science and programming. He underlined the importance of engaging every kid in education and science, no matter their background.
(Unfortunately, I spotted some of the white grey-haired men in the public frown upon hearing a black musician (read: “non-scientist”) talking about science in his own words – kudos to the TEDxCERN curators for not sharing this elitist mindset.)
Science and collaboration
A propos science and elitism: astronomer Chris Lintott‘s talk was a perfect illustration of the benefits scientist can gain from considering laypeople as a complement rather than an opposition. His Zooniverse, regrouping citizen science projects, makes for a great POC of collaborative and/or crowdsourced science.
Collaboration of another kind is at the heart of SESAME, presented by Zehra Sayers and Eliezer Rabinovici: much like CERN has been a unique transeuropean venture in Europe post world war II, SESAME is a unique undertaking and aspires international cooperation across cultural and political divides through first-class science in the Middle East.
Science and subjectivity
By affinity, I guess – I am a sociologist – the talks addressing objectivity/subjectivity in science and research were the talks I personally liked best:
John Searle explained that ignoring consciousness was science’s biggest fallacy, which contributed to upholding, unfortunately, the wrong dichotomy of objective science as opposed to subjective consciousness. He argued for the objectivity in subjectivity (and vice versa!) and, accessorily, trashed behaviorism. Which makes me think: for subsequent editions of TEDxCERN, it would be a great addition to give more room to research about science.
Many of the examples mentioned in Londa Schiebinger‘s talk were a perfect illustration of how objectivity and subjectivity co-exist – and thus why science and innovation need to be inclusive of diversity in subjectivity in order to be as objective as possible.
“Gender bias in society create gender bias into knowledge.” (L. Schiebinger)
(For instance: childless urban planners modelled people’s movements by categorising each trip as “work”, “shopping”, “leisure”, “visits” etc. This might work for them. However, for people with care obligations who often zig-zag around the city – bring one child to school, the other one to day-care, and pass by the dry-cleaners etc. … all this on their way to work – single, finite categories for each trip simply didn’t work. For more examples and resources cf. Schiebinger’s project Gendered Innovations at Stanford.)
Science and soprano (and other music)
Listening to Maria Ferrante singing about galaxies and C8H10N4O2 was pure delight and fit the overall program very well. So did the re-edition of the first interplanetary transmitted song Reach for the stars, performed by Collège International de Ferney-Voltaire Choir and International School of Geneva Chorus. Yaron Herman and Bijan Chemirani played together at the very end of TEDxCERN. I remembered Yaron Herman from when he played at TEDxHelvetia at EPFL, a few months ago, where he also shared his fascinating story. A pleasure listening to him again, especially in harmony with Bijan Chemirani.
Last but not least
I need to mention geneticist George Church‘s talk, but I am not embarrassed to admit that I was not able to follow everything he said. What I understood and recall: DNA bears immense potential; transdisciplinary research is the future.
Big thanks to CERN, the TEDxCERN team and everyone else involved for a well-curated, diverse yet coherent program. Thanks to the speakers for making me think, and laugh.
By the way: another account of the TEDxCERN day can be found on TEDxCERN volunteer Alex Brown’s blog.
Oh, and you might want to have a look at the TED Ed videos co-produced with CERN. My favorites:
It is post-conference week: I am back from Lift 13. Some of my articles here mention previous editions of LIFT (e.g. Lift 11), but up to now, I have not yet blogged about the actual conference. Which is a shame, because this has been my 6th Lift conference. I discovered the conference in 2010 only, but I have tried to catch up by also attending LIFT France. Twice.
And this time, I promised to blog.
I have been a fan since my very first LIFT. And it is as a fan, acknowledging the efforts and energy of every single one of the organizers and contributors, that I take the liberty of pointing out what could make Lift 14 even better than Lift 13 was. Please do keep in mind that the critiques express complaints on a high level: LIFT, overall, is a great unique event. Then why point them out, you ask? For (at least) two reasons:
- I’m interested in having a public discussion. Because I would like to know what others think… first time lifters, but also other liftosaurs.
- Also, I am convinced that some points are weak signals of something crucial to be taken into account by the organizers – the earlier the better. (I’ll elaborate.)
What is so special about LIFT conference?
These lines are for those of you who don’t know LIFT: you have been missing something (hey, I told you I was a fan!). I have had the honor of welcoming first time lifters several times, and everything I said the first time is still true: it is all about interaction and magic.
LIFT is interaction between people coming from very diverse backgrounds: students, CEOs, artists, engineers, journalists, designers, sociologists, communication professionals, lawyers, IT specialists, futurists, professors, entrepreneurs etc. Not surprisingly, LIFT is a place where ideas are born. And where ideas meet. Most of the time, ideas do not just happen: there is a prologue. There is a setting. And there are the people making it happen.
The way I have come to know Lift conference, the organizers and conference designers have always been eager to provide a stimulating setting. Magic. And the people making it happen? Well, the LIFT community is one of the most outstanding communities I know…
LIFT Community and LIFT spirit: the DNA of success
The LIFT community is more than the participants. It includes also the amazing volunteers (info desk, cloak room, stage management, coffee stands, social media management etc. – all handled greatly by volunteers. Have you noticed? Have you left a tip?), the workshop hosts, past attendees (Christian, Honor, Yasmin, Marcel, Charles and many more – know that you were missed!), the speakers and the organizers. People with very different backgrounds and characters, all meeting and interacting, being more or less shy – but similarly open-minded.
And the LIFT community is more than the sum of all people.
During three days, there is something in the air I’d like to call the LIFT mindset. Or the LIFT spirit.
And there was a lot of LIFT spirit in the air during Lift 13. A lot more than I expected in my worst nightmare scenarios beforehand where I pictured a new wave of first time lifters consisting of strictly business-oriented entrepreneurs, heads of business development and social media consultants discovering – and smothering – my favorite conference.
To be honest, I was even ready to declare that the LIFT spirit was as ubiquitous at Lift 13 as it was during previous editions. Until others (mostly not-first-time lifters) shared their experiences with me, and why they thought it wasn’t. Which has made me re-evaluate my Lift 13… and led to the present lines. All while appreciating Lift’s speed dating, some stated – and regretted – that they had made much fewer unstructured serendipity encounters. Some thought that fondue and coffee break discussions were more formal and utilitarian, in a careerist way, than before. Some found the overall mood among participants less friendly. Some simply miss Laurent.
But it is not about Laurent. It is about what people have found at LIFT that they haven’t found at other conferences: interaction. Ideas. Unplanned serendipity encounters in a friendly, informal ambiance, leading to seemingly off-topic – but highly inspiring – discussions. These are crucial because they are part of Lift’s successful DNA.
By the way: this is why the LIFT fondue is often quoted as the essential Lift moment. And I did enjoy this year’s LIFT fondue – despite the fact that the venue’s kicking out began quite early (at 10pm, with clearing the tables where people were still sitting, the refusal to serve any more drinks and obnoxiously loud music). Now let me tell you an anecdote: like in 2011, I deliberately chose to join a table where I didn’t know anyone yet. I understood quickly that the five(?) people already seated belonged to the same company, incl. spouses, and strangely enough, they would not only block empty seats around them (for colleagues who finally wouldn’t show up during the whole fondue), they also dodged every attempt by their table neighbors to start a conversation… Frankly, if you want to avoid talking to other people, maybe don’t come to the LIFT fondue. Never mind me or your other table neighbors. But it is contrary to the LIFT spirit. You basically hijacked a community event for your company outing.
To me, this anecdote remains exactly this: an anecdote. And please don’t get me wrong: at the fondue, I was more amused than irritated. But now I think it might be illustrative of that lack of LIFT spirit other lifters have expressed.
What if these apparent negligible experiences are the top of an iceberg which are the result of a less community-oriented conference design and ambiance?
Communities don’t just happen
Suddenly, along this line of thinking, I am able to find strikingly many separate examples of a rather careless handling of the LIFT community. Let’s start with the conference design, something Lift used to be – rightfully – proud of.
Well, the conference design of Lift 13 was practically a copy of Lift 12. But poorer. The conference layout hasn’t changed a bit – except for LIFT experience having become very very small and thus, sorry to say so but: almost irrelevant. (I remember spending so much time in the LIFT experience section I accidentally missed talks. No risk of this kind of immersion this year!) The name badges seem to have been standardized, whereas previously discovering your badge was part of the surprise, deciphering its meaning a playful challenge…
There was no omnipresent Lift 13 theme. (Remember Lift 11?) Actually, there was no theme at all. Only a gorgeous conference poster, left unused on its poster paper. True that I might have been spoilt by the PICNIC 12 experience. And true that this might sound like a “good ol’ times” rant. But I do recall the conference being more attentive to its overall design. Surprises and playfulness were part of LIFT and catered to the LIFT spirit.
Yes, I noticed – and loved – the post-it tribute to Aaron Swartz. And I liked the two white giants. They were great. They were a surprise. But this surprise was such an isolated experience that a first-time lifter asked me which sponsor had sent the giants. Because, unaware of the “no pitch” rule, he didn’t realize that LIFT was where the magic happens. Usually. All the time.
A propos “no pitch” rule – it is part of how Lift has managed to build trust. Trust is crucial. Lifters know that their time and attention will not be misused for advertising purposes. Some Lift 13 talks seem to have been gambling with that trust…
Also, I know I am not alone to miss the old website. The community platform was simple but efficient. I even linked to my Lift profile from my website (“I am a LIFTER”). No Facebook page or LinkedIn group can replace the great hub of people and ideas the old website used to be: its richness in terms of content, a readable participants’ list, the personalized participants’ profiles, a legible schedule, transparent workshop subscriptions, videos and line-ups of former editions easy to find (btw: the videos are here)… and above all a description of LIFT that resembled less the one of yet another agency – a description of LIFT that actually made me want to be part of it!
Let’s upgrade LIFT
In my favorite talk of Wednesday afternoon, Micah Daigle suggested to “upgrade democracy”: to innovate when it comes to our political structures, but to keep the old humanist values. Which corresponds probably quite exactly to the challenge LIFT is facing since its change of ownership a little more than a year ago (now belonging to LIFT President A.Oreibi, Agency Emakina.ch/Label.ch and LIFT CEO S.Reinhard): to move ahead without ignoring its DNA.
And as I said before, the unique essence of Lift’s DNA is the informal, friendly LIFT spirit. “A conference that acts as decompression.”
This is why there is not much point in arguing over the quality of the talks when describing Lift. (In my opinion, the speakers were all wonderfully chosen, but some did have some difficulty in getting their message across – a feedback Lift seems to have received in 2010 already and, well, remember how they geared up for Lift 11?) Or as a fellow lifter, coming from abroad, said: “I don’t care about the talks. I’m only here for the people anyway.”
Still, a few words about the talks: they will find their way into future articles. I’m still processing the three conference days. Many many impressions. Much information. And I do not wish to diminish their importance by trying to squeeze them into what has finally become a much longer article with a different focus than I originally intended to write.
I am very happy that there have been many new first time lifters at Lift 13. And I am even happier to read their positive experience when it comes to interactions with other lifters (thank you for blogging, Marcel and Rich).
Therefore I am convinced that an “upgraded” LIFT will keep on valuing the LIFT community, and not take it for granted.
Will I be back?
Yes. And you?