Algorithm as editor, curator, or benevolent dictator

Cory Doctorow makes a compelling point in The Guardian that today’s search engines provide essential functions, but also represent concentrations of opaque editorial power worthy of some pushback. Says he:

The question of what we can and can’t see when we go hunting for
answers demands a transparent, participatory solution. There’s no
dictator benevolent enough to entrust with the power to determine our
political, commercial, social and ideological agenda. This is one for
The People.

Put that way, it’s obvious: if search engines set the
public agenda, they should be public. What’s not obvious is how to make
such a thing.

Just as we would question an editorial or curatorial system with one or only a few decision-makers at the helm, he suggests that we should also question the absolute power afforded Google and its peers. The processes and rules by which these systems rank pages in their results has massive implications for the way traffic and attention flows around the web. Yet, the algorithms that drive these results are closely held and continually changing.

It’s a direct connection to the role (and responsibility) of the expert or gatekeeper in any knowledge system — whether for public information, news, or artistic content. We can all celebrate the flood of information and opportunity the web has brought. But we should also continue to question the filters that support or deflect our discovery.

I would certainly question any government’s or organized public agency’s ability to provide search and filtering that’s both transparent and productive. But there seems to be a need for at least some transparency in the flow of such public information.