Blog Post #10 - Week 13 due 11/21
Surveillance and Digital New Media
What role does the “neutrality” argument play in masking systems of racialized oppression to persist search engine results?
Safiya Noble (2018) argues that search engines like Google are not object information sources, often disproportionately centering the dominant social groups like white, male, and capitalist under the guise of “algorithmic objectivity.” She writes that “Records, in the form of websites, and their visibility are power” (p. 123) – asserting that particular identities are being presented as strategically organized, but structured by its profit-driven design. When the reduction of Black women gets reduced to hypersexualized search engine results, this results in a deliberate outcome of infrastructural racism coded into digital systems of racialized oppression that mirrors societal inequities. 2. How does the monetization of attention and emotion bring the nature of social media in ways that reinforce misinformation and division?
Siva Vaidhyanathan (2018) calls Facebook “the problem behind the amplifying effects, not the platform itself” (p. 10). Its platform design incentivizes emotional extremes, converting heightened user engagement into profit. This algorithmic incentive actively promotes harmful nationalist, racist, and sexist ideologies by falsely presenting it as “community connection”. What we share through social media platforms becomes a reflection of what the system amplifies these problems like misinformation and division, not what we value as truth. 3. Under what circumstances is online activism becoming criminalized, and who suffers the consequences for those involved?
The Mother Jones article (Power, 2010) displays how Twitter users supporting G20 protesters faced charges with “criminal use of a communication facility" for monitoring and relaying information about police movements (p. 2). This is a reminder that not all usage of “freedom of speech” treats it equally regarding the consequences for those involved in online activism. The state power leverages digital footprints through digital surveillance and prosecution, suppressing dissent, especially when the marginalized voices challenge institutional authority. 4. How does the intersection of surveillance and racial prejudice apply to institutional power dynamics that sustain institutional control?
Christian Parenti (2003) exposes how post-9/11 surveillance integrated a pervasive system of monitoring people of everyday life, normalizing “the soft cage of a surveillance society” (p. 200), highlighting that “national security” covers up discriminatory practices for the immigrants and other racialized groups as an ordinary justification. The “fear as institution” concept connects to Noble’s argument—data collection and profiling function to perpetuate racial control, going beyond mere privacy concerns for the individuals. Therefore, digital surveillance is under constant watch for monitoring digital lives, where power is veiled by the assurance of safety.
Word Count: 413
References:
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
Parenti, C. (2003). The soft cage: Surveillance in America from slavery to the war on terror. Basic Books.
Power, M. (2010, March/April). How your Twitter account could land you in jail. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/police-twitter-riots-social-media-activists/Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.














