PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 052
is given to the costs however, only the benefits. Moreover, if we look at the algorithm as it relates to its users, it is explicitly constructed as an empowering device, while on the same time stressing the user’s dependency. While on the surface Google seems to be cooperative, caring, and protective, on beneath this surface Google attempts to construct and control the needs of the user and thereby the user itself. Topics can be addressed without explicitly naming them. Especially ideological topics are not explicitly mentioned, since they are common sense and do not need to be explained or mentioned; yet, not mentioning them does not mean that they are not important. For instance, if it is stated that the husband was bad because he was intimate with a women other than his wife, this judgement is probably based on the underlying ideology that one should not have sex outside marriage. Yet, it is not explained why out of marriage sex is bad. The ideology itself is not mentioned and may thereby be accepted without question. Similarly, if Google claims that disclosure of the algorithm leads to abuse by spammers, this claim also seems to lean on an underlying belief: such as that spammers are bad, and that codes and scripts should be kept away from them. In the Google corpus it was not mentioned why spammers are bad, similarly to as why having sex outside marriage is bad. In fact, Google seems to reinforce the idea that there are Internet villains out there from whom the user needs Google’s protection. What this thesis adds to current debates on algorithms is an awareness of covert discursive constructions that can construct or reinforce common beliefs, thereby manipulating users and also scholars, who are not aware of covert discursive mechanisms. It seems that in discursive constructions of the algorithm certain ideas are presented in such a way that they might reinforce or even co-constitute common assumptions, such as that spammers are enemies, that the user needs Google’s protection and that keeping the algorithm is such a necessary way of protection. On the surface layer these discursive constructions are not visible. They seem to operate on a deeper level, which allows them to be passed unnoticed and unquestioned. We should be aware of such practices. Is disclosure really that bad? And what does Google ask in return for their protection? Is the cure better than the disease? In fact, is there really a disease? 5.2 Possible ways past the obstacles and suggestions for further research Firstly, I would suggest that there is much yet to be researched when it comes to algorithms. From the literature review it was found that benchmarks are needed to find standards by which issues such as bias can be measured, but also standards for audits are needed. Defining benchmarks or norms asks for a multidisciplinary approach in which academics, governments and other parties need to work together, since algorithmic bias and other issues concerning algorithms address matters that concern academics, regulation, law and ethics. Secondly, powerful companies such as Google need to use language that contains the same explicit as implicit meaning. This means that if there are general concerns regarding 52PDF Image | peek into the discursive construction of the Google Search Algorithm: A critical discourse analysis
PDF Search Title:
peek into the discursive construction of the Google Search Algorithm: A critical discourse analysisOriginal File Name Searched:
thesis-google-search-algotithm.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Cruise Ship Reviews | Luxury Resort | Jet | Yacht | and Travel Tech More Info
Cruising Review Topics and Articles More Info
Software based on Filemaker for the travel industry More Info
The Burgenstock Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
Resort Reviews: World Class resorts... More Info
The Riffelalp Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@cruisingreview.com (Standard Web Page)