The readings about Turnitin was really surprising even though it really should be no surpise that Turnitin and other companies like a Turnitin have the power to exploit student work. What’s interesting is the reading offers ways to evaluate digital tools ad ideas to start thinking about. But what is also important to think about is the hypocrisy of implementing such a “third party technology solution” but as the reading addresses resistance, what are students considering? Furthermore, another issue to think about how did companies like Turnitin become a part of the norm as a solution in the first place? What if the workload is too blame? It may be hard to imagine alternative assignments compared to the traditional writing assignments like essays, so maybe there is a need for something different to contribute. Why not incorporate more creative projects and shorter assignments instead of just writing papers that companies like a Turnitin can exploit the work and the physical labor of those students? But the real question is, who is in cahoots with companies like Turnitin? The next reading about smart speakers in dorms connects to the reading about Turnitin because it is all about exploitation and manipulation, who knows what kind of conformist ideas smart speakers are spewing to those students and how this sort of technology is when dealing with mental health issues as if this sort of technology is the wave of the future. The reading about the use of Zoom to substitute classrooms connects to both readings by thinking of how did Zoom like Turnitin become the popular choice and why would it be recommended and catered towards students like these so-called smart speakers in dorms? How did Zoom become the appropriate solution for the substitution of classrooms? Maybe it was conformity? But there are so many other solutions that already being utilized by online schools with more experience and different resources.

 The reading’s focus is on controlling and owning information and how the use of archives is equivalent to possessing power but what is really interesting is the power dynamics that are created within the bigger power dynamic which is then created when whites present their ownership of archives and information especially pertaining to ethnic and racial “minorities” in a way that effortlessly reinforces the power dynamic when it comes to the relationship between whites and those who are socially perceived as others. So what is the social perception discussion wise of the ethnic relations and race relations when this sort of power dynamic is at the center of display and what else is being reinforced psychologically when there is an institutional parading of exploitation like in museums where interpretation is effortlessly so flaunted by someone with a title? The idea that a certain group can have their history rewritten and hidden all over again and again exposes another issue around vulnerability, but the lack of moral training within professionalism of their archival pursuits. Psychologically, what is this power dynamic reinforcing to younger generations now? What has it already done to those who were encouraged to support this normalized behavior as a rational educational and or an informational thing? What would a conversation about solutions look like when it comes to discussion on how this irrational behavior is so deeply rooted into the culture? Maybe all of this creates a different opportunity to study control and ownership of information as the subject, the idea of a museum of modern exploitation, commodification, and commercialization as a way to start reversing the normalization of this issue by creating a space for those to use their voice to discuss and aim to solve the problems around these particular issues that pertain to archives and ownership.  

The reading is a reminder of the ways in which white ideology behind white privilege deciphers historical content and the gatherings of historical artifacts by the practices of colonization, such as the discussion around archives addressed in the reading noted as “colonial logics” versus the cultural practices of indigenous peoples. An interesting quote from the reading “archives are physical reminders of colonial practices that once promoted the exclusion of minority and subaltern voices” which is basically describing archiving as a form of hunting and or pirating. Archives and the museum experience is intertwined with commercialization because it turns the works of indigenous peoples into commodities for white capitalism. The reading is a reminder of certain TV shows and programs that deal with deciphering history as a sort of digital technology and how their own bias psychedelic imagination is reapplied to the content of their assertion producing what they would consider quality and insightful entertainment of their theories and perspective which is arguably nonsense. White ideological interpretations are prejudice and arrogant assumptions of colonized material dominates indigenous groups all over again. Ownership of the materials is a huge part of the discussion. People have to really ask themselves “but yeah like how do they know that or where is this information coming from again?” instead of embracing nonsense especially the nonsense attached over and over to ancient materials of their assertion. It is ridiculously disturbing and bizarre but even more annoying because some if not most of these made up stories are really disrespectful. to the point that it is nothing but a parody of a groups’ culture. So why does this continue to keep happening? Are people that entertained by nonsense to the point that they do not even realize the difference between the difference of comical and historical or has it gotten that much harder that some people do not know the difference between comical and historical anymore or that there is  the practice of “colonial logics” honestly?

The chapter twelve reading Disability, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities by George H. Williams discusses ideas and options on how to cater a web experience and product to everybody including those with disabilities or without disabilities. Furthermore, the chapter twelve reading discusses the importance of a more adequate digital humanities through considerate universal designs by tailoring an experience for a larger diverse and more inclusive audience to provide assistive technology with digital knowledge tools and resources. With more digitally diverse platforms creating and or providing utility, the reader and digital humanities can start to think of different ways to create more inclusive experiences for those with disabilities. The reading aims to encourage readers to reconsider and think about the ways of how different technology and resources that may have offered a completely different experience for others or how it makes it more difficult for those with disabilities and those with different needs in general because these are issue people rarely consider especially around technology for those with certain disabilities or other needs to assist their experiences with technology. It is interesting to think about the big and small tech companies and their ad campaigns, but people should start to ask, well what is their role and what are they doing? Are they as inclusive as they should be? Because it is extremely rare to watch an ad that caters towards inclusivity in regards to universal designs for those with disabilities or those with other needs. So why is that then? Is it stigma? Plain oh simple discrimination? Why are those with different technological needs made invisible even when the technology for them may or may not exist assuming it would only make sense to advertise or promote these technological features to increase sales and brand awareness? What smart business would not make this move and why not?

The conclusion of Weapons of Math Destruction sums up the reading by explaining the intersectionality of WMDs and how they not only connect but work together to target marginalized groups into a cycle of oppression, oppression that feeds off of more oppression, where poverty only generates more issues around more poverty. It is as if the reading is arguing that WMDs were designed specially to keep the poor, poor and to make the poor even poorer than they are, WMDs profit from exploiting poor people and marginalized groups. Interestingly enough, the conclusion dives into how WMDs puppeteer society behind gentrified cities in the United States. Another interesting section in the conclusion deals with political agenda versus corporate power influence and how political issues can turn into trendy commodities in the world of commercialization. Cathy O’Neil introduces an interesting concept in the conclusion called “antipoverty strategies” and how some politicians victim blame the poor while promoting the idea of middle class. The idea of a middle-class is arguably nonexistent but it allows politicians to sell a distraction, a distraction from eradicating poverty but WMDs do not just discriminate, they manipulate the poor, they manipulate the so-called middle class, and they can manipulate rich. The conclusion continues, societal codependency on technology versus reimagining algorithm technologies and undoing WMDs through new ideas and regulation but the conclusion also discusses consumption of the products of modern slave labor. Cathy O’Neil’s afterword section deals with the wonky effects of feedback loops especially in polling for presidential elections she discusses briefly but she also introduces a term called “data quality” which is about accuracy and training algorithms. What is interesting about the conclusion and the afterword is that both contents deal with the overlapping layers of intersectionality and how weapons of math destruction creates inequality in society.

Chapter 7 deals with “big data” analytics in the workforce just to save a buck. Patterns and fixed schedules are used to manipulate workers on low wage, slave wage jobs but an interesting section in the reading, O’Neil discussed how “software choreographing” and the “surveillance” of workers enforced work productivity which should be considered excessive micromanagement through technology and it is a control tactic to manipulate workers. O’Neil also introduced interesting a term many are probably already familiar with called “clopening” which means working an opening shift and or closing shift on a job similar enough to working a double shift is quite dysfunctional. Not to mention how unethical and inconsistent scheduling and schedule conflicts are for workers. In addition, the reading discussed how companies argued that these “scheduling practices” intertwined with “fluctuating demands” were ways to increase sales but another issue is the shortage of staff. Furthermore, in the reading, O’Neil discusses the roots of scheduling technology known as “mathematics called operations research” from World War II and further back and this type of model is optimized for a capitalistic feedback loop as an opaque “arbitrary program” to the workers. Chapter 8 deals with the controlling effects of credit scores, the ways to achieve or maintain good credit scores, and the “WMD attributes” behind the credit scores and credit scoring systems. An interesting section from chapter 8 reading was the discussion around how credit scores contribute to the poverty cycle. Interestingly enough, Japan does not use a credit score system opposed to the United States of America. With current democratic candidates whose campaigns are all about education and health care, more Americans are arguing that some countries have free health care and free education but what about mentioning Japan’s no credit scoring system? What about eradicating poverty through the credit scoring system?

 Chapter two discusses the WMDs behind the algorithms behind the stock market and hedge funds, gambling on numbers and patterns. The WMDs behind the financial instruments behind mortgage banks and mortgage companies, the extremely high interest rates of subprime loans and foreclosures labeled with AAA ratings. The chapter continues, to discuss the global scale of the risk models and American desperation. As new regulations emerged. Cathy O’Neil talks about the effort behind fixing and or combating WMDs and the comparisons between big data industries, data science, and finance. As chapter two winds down, Cathy O’Neil discusses how data manipulates people basically manipulating people into conformity and commodifying their existence. The “journey to disillusionment” is interesting quote from chapter two. Another interesting section in Chapter two is Cathy O’Neil’s Occupy movement and blogging experiences, where she discusses the credit crisis, “a growing dystopia” and rising inequality. Chapter three addresses the WMDs behind college rankings and the loan debt but there’s an interesting connection between the occupy movement, chapter three, and the current democratic presidential candidates plans if they are elected and their so-called radical aim off the backs of occupy protesters to supposedly reduce cost of college one day.  As socialism is ever so effortlessly merged with communism in these recent discussions around the 2020 presidential candidates, it is important to remember the occupy protesters and what they were fighting for, fast forward politicians are trying to tap into the same occupy movement energy, as if the allure has some sort of mystic but it is the rebellious nature that 2020 democratic presidential candidates and their campaigns will be tested on and if they can dare to really challenge the system or other hypocrisies, if they are really ready to be the voice of change as they struggle to answer simple town hall questions and debate questions about reparations for African Americans.

The reading by Safiya Umoja Noble, A Society Searching addresses how there are algorithmic biases behind commercial search engines such as a Google and other search engines, the sort of algorithmic bias categorized as sexist and racist and yet profitable information which dominates search results and or top search results. Arguably, Safiya Umoja Noble is highlighting how white ideology dominates search results and that these dominant narratives fit into hegemonic frameworks. The reading discusses how there is basically a symbiotic codependency for Google’s algorithmic conceptualizations and commercial search engines in general of such corporate platforms. The reading also discusses the normalization of algorithmic bias behind the artificial intelligence or artificial whiteness and white data where marginalized groups become commodified and or hypersexualized as discussed in the Bell Hooks section of the reading, surveilled to be made invisible in those monopolies where paid advertising is the number one priority. Solution? The reading mentions how there is lack of algorithmic literacy and knowledge of technical aspects of how search and retrieval operate. So what if there was a nonconforming search engine and or nonconforming extension to commercial search engines? One of the biggest problems with symbiotic codependency to commercial search engines and the media’s influence is that a lot of people are conformist promoting conformity. Globally there is so much more to be explored and adored as appreciated but these top search results limit other potentially accessible information. People are being coerced and conditioned with these algorithmic top search results to internalize nonsense and hat is interesting is how that very process has become normalized as if people just appreciate to look at anything on a screen no matter how irrelevant the external information is to their initial search. Irrelevant bias. Is this search results segregation? Realistically it is digital technology by white men catered to other white men spewing white ideology. Conformity is being sold, repackaged and sold again.

The discussion questions:

Hoan Ton-That’s Clearview AI facial recognition company redefining facial recognition as techies can only imagine where such technology could lead the world and future generations but it may be redefining privacy and sovereignty. As facial recognition technology develops how does that change social media? Could facial recognition technology enhance the social media experience or would there be a dramatic shift in how people use their social media? How do people cope with facial recognition technology what are the solutions? Where is the conversation? Who will start the discussion? Is there even a need for a global conversation on facial recognition? How does facial recognition benefit besides safety? There are numerous questions to be asked and answered but now people should begin to think about where facial recognition technology will be implemented and where it should or should not be implemented. Is the future of technology going in the right direction?

There are many concerns over the accuracy of facial recognition technology and the issues around consent but if it is supposedly pretty accurate then when you think of the ways facial recognition technology could improve customer service, grocery shopping, ATM machine experiences, and whatever else to perhaps avoid germs then why is facial recognition not more popular yet for traditional commercial use? How are people supposed to trust facial recognition technology when this sort of technology that only seems to be lurking around in the shadows of the tech world for those in power? If facial recognition technology is what it says it is then there is a baffling hypocrisy to be amended. What else are they doing with these images and data? How else can these images and data be used and or used consumer wise? What if everyone starts wearing mask as unrealistic as it may seem? But there’ll be a few here and there. Facial recognition technology is not exactly new, these recognition systems and biometric technologies have been around for a while.

The readings for week 3 “Why is it OK for Employers to Constantly Surveil Workers?” by Gabrielle M. Rejouis and the introduction of the second reading by Simone Browne “Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness” are two very provoking readings which both simultaneously work together in the collective imagination of not only thinking diversity and equality in the digital world but on how to deal with or navigate a conversation on the translucent parallel between forms of control tactics of then and now, a conversation which calls into play the relationship between [to be a] subject and [to have or naturalized right] sovereignty in the space of digital technology.

The reading by Gabrielle M. Rejouis “Why is it OK for Employers to Constantly Surveil Workers?” Aims to address the immorality of work surveillance through a sort of historical context of social control in the workforce which will only continue to become more and more modern with sophisticated technology. The reading demands for change, so what is the solution for data privacy especially for workers? The solution is drawn somewhere between work surveillance and slave-wages meaning these tactics stem from slavery in the United States. Slave-wage jobs are conducted by slave owner mentality. Dehumanization.

Furthermore, in the next reading by Simone Browne “Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness” there are comparisons between slavery to contemporary surveillance technology and the effects of modernization, for instance, the numerous forms of biometric identification vs. branding slaves. But somewhere between social security numbers and credit scores could also, be noted for their utilization in social control. What is really interesting about the reading is how it incorporates the works of Frantz Fanon (psychiatrist and political philosopher) whose “Black Skin, White Masks” provides variety on such topic of racial surveillance, through the lens of the white gaze which is the objectification of blackness and if all space is white space, racialized surveillance also creates invisibility.