What is left of our data privacy and informational security just might depend on it. It concludes with the proposal that, as internet citizens, we must take responsibility for the kind of Web we envision in future. The article analyzes the increasing political and moral power of the algorithm through a comparison of initiatives to control AI use in the United States and within the European Union. They find that initiatives by Apple, Facebook, and Google to access our personal imprint on social media through our emoji choice significantly threaten our data privacy and informational security. The authors analyze how methods to increase inclusion, most notably through machine-learning, can actually encode and perpetuate bias. This article moves beyond law into the murkier terrain of ethical decision-making by social media companies to respond to criticisms that the emoji palette is too white, too male, too sanitized, too political, overly youth-focused, and preoccupied with western cultures. In two previous articles, however, authors Kirley and McMahon have discovered that, due to the accessibility of their design and the prodigious research they have inspired, emoji are uniquely placed to challenge our thinking about the role of nonverbal speech as evidence in court actions involving criminal, contract, and tort law. The humble emoji might seem to lack gravitas as a legal subject.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |