Shame, stigma, and free speech
In her first piece as a columnist for NYT Opinion, Tressie McMillan Cottom discussed the role of shame in our public conversation about free speech and the ways in which it’s conflated with stigma:
It isn’t shame but stigma that jeopardizes our constitutional rights, our human agency and our collective well-being. Stigma sorts and stratifies people, assigning them to categories against their will. Powerful forces then attach moral and political value to those categories that cut some people out of public life. If we ask not who is ashamed to speak but who is stigmatized for speech, it is easier to diagnose what is a crisis and what is fearmongering.
She appeared on MSNBC to elaborate on how shame can be a positive social force, and how recognizing the difference between shame and stigma helps us define what kinds of speech protections we most need to preserve a robust public square.
PIEGraph
At the Digital Data Conference (D2C) yesterday, Deen Freelon discussed the a new tool he’s designing, called the Personal Information Environments Graph (PIEGraph).
Much of our understanding of mis- and disinformation comes from tracing specific narratives across the communities and platforms where they’re distributed. That approach answers questions like “how do these messages spread?” and “how does disinformation target different groups based on their identity?”
That approach doesn’t help answer questions like how healthy is the typical social media user’s feed? What is the average trustworthiness level of the information we encounter online, and how much does that vary from user to user? What portion of social media users have built echo chambers in which the majority of their information comes from sources that affirm their views?
PIEGraph collects a ‘user-eye view’ of data from study participants’ Twitter feeds. The tool captures a user’s entire personal information environment on Twitter over a period of months or years and assesses the quality, partisanship, and frequency of news sources represented over a period of time. For each individual, PIEGraph can highlight role that false, biased, or otherwise low-quality information plays in their total consumption.
If you missed the conference, an earlier demo of the tool is available on YouTube.
On Race and Cyberculture
Last Thursday, CITAP hosted André Brock for his talk “On Race and Cyberculture.” If you weren’t able to join us in-person or on the livestream, the video is now available as well. Highlights:
Joy can be understood as digital practice without necessarily resorting to talking about resistance.
Just because you say you didn't have [racism] in your heart doesn't mean the practices or the products that you produce can’t then create racism for other people, right? If you talk for harms first, instead of goals, you get a different approach to designing these algorithmic processes, this artificial intelligence.
Clearing the Air
Missed Zeynep Tufekci’s appearance at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy event on ventilation and Covid? The video is now available.
Coming soon
April 21, 3:30pm: The CITAP spring speaker series will feature Jonathan Ong discussing “The Politics and Ethics of Representing ‘the Trolls’: Disinformation Research in the Shadows.” RSVP to join in-person or watch the livestream.
April 22, 11am: The Symposium on Information for Social Good will feature a keynote address from Anna Hoffmann on “‘Ethical Tech’ and the Politics of Potential, or: Algorithms Are Kid Stuff,” co-sponsored by CITAP.
April 28, 5:30pm: MIT Libraries are hosting an evening with Tressie McMillan Cottom. The event will be hybrid, with a livestream available.
May 1: Deadline to submit nominations for the Nancy Baym Book Award from AoIR.
May 5, 3:30pm: Catherine Knight Steele wraps up the CITAP spring speaker series! Details and RSVP to follow.
Rest of Web
Congratulations to the nine projects addressing the impact of disinformation on communities of color that received support from the Knight Foundation this week!