#320critkats

[derricksdiariesblog]

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.

[derricksdiariesblog]

Blog Post #9 - Week 12 due 11/14

Creating Virtual Communities

To what extent do digital platforms that are marketed as “apolitical” or “fun” replicate existing racial and economical inequalities offline?

To a great extent, Steven McLaine (2001) displays that “profit and community make curious bedfellows” due to ethnic internet portals like BET, Yupi, and Space that claimed to be capitalizing on specific users’ data under the guise of ethnic empowerment (p. 234). His critique foresees how today’s “inclusive” social media world turns racial identity into a commodity for generating engagement and advertising revenue. What leaves the idea that digital platforms marketed as “apolitical” or “fun” is who truly benefits financially from “diversity” in tech spaces—the users or the platforms, especially the presence of exploitation that is coupled with online empowerment. 2. How does persistent gendered harassment within gaming cultures challenge the notion of the internet as a meritocratic, post-identity digital space?

Jay Hathaway’s Gamergate explainer reveals how participants challenge the notion of the internet through “ethics in game journalism”, which masked a campaign of misogyny against women in the gaming culture like Zoe Quinn, an independent developer who is frequently underrepresented for being a target of gendered harassment (2014, p. 5). The movement’s defensive rejection of “about women” exemplifies the male entitlement that is trying to protect its exclusive leisure territory from other marginalized voices entering in the meritocratic, post-identity digital space. The opposition women are facing in the gaming community exposes the ostensibly neutral “gamer culture” as a mechanism of patriarchal control for a male-dominated space through gatekeeping. 3. How do women of color use online solidarity to navigate and fight back against the policing of their physical selves?

Laotya Lee (2015) argues that “Black women’s hair blogs, websites and vlogs” serves as the “virtual homeplace” (p. 97), drawing on bell hook’s concept of a nurturing, resistant “homeplace” where Black women have to challenge Eurocentric ideas of beauty and respectability to reclaim their physical selves by navigating around online solidarity. Blogging platforms like CurlyNikki, Afrobella, and BlackGirlLongHair are driving consumption for the function of algorithms into sites of affirmation for collective cultural affirmation and community storytelling. The primary role of social media functions as a deliberate practice of identity formation, rather than escapist entertainment. 4. What insights into digital counter-publics can be gained in response to understanding the celebration of Hailey Bailey’s Ariel on Black Twitter?

According to Ms. Magazine (2023), the social media conversation surrounding The Little Mermaid transformed the discourse from theoretical importance to an emotional celebration, where Black Twitter “countered the notion that all Mermaids are white” to redefine the possibilities of cultural pride. This feeling of belonging mirrors Lee’s virtual homeplace – a protected online haven where happiness resists erasure. These insights into digital counter-publics remind us about the social media’s enjoyable aspects that function politically to allow the marginalized communities to collectively redefine visibility as belonging.

Word Count: 468

References:

Hathaway, J. (2014, October 10). What is Gamergate, and why? An explainer for non-geeks. Gawker Media. https://gawker.com/what-is-gamergate-and-why-an-explainer-for-non-geeks-1642909080

Lee, L. (2015). Virtual homeplace: (Re)constructing the body through social media. In K. E. Tassie & S. M. B. Givens (Eds.), Women of color and social media multitasking: Blogs, timelines, feeds, and community (pp. 91-101). Lexington Books.

McLaine, S. (2001). Ethnic online communities: Between profit and purpose. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice (pp. 233-243). Routledge. Ms. Magazine. (2023, April 17). The Little Mermaid, Halle Bailey, and Black Twitter. https://msmagazine.com/2023/04/17/the-little-mermaid-halle-bailey-black-twitter/

[derricksdiariesblog]

Blog Post #8 - Week 11 due 11/7

Digital Activism: Enacting Ethical and Transformative Frameworks

In what ways do “neutral” digital games and platforms perpetuate real-world systems related to labor, ownership, and social identity?

In Animal Crossing, players often call the game “cute escapism” as many of the Americans were settling into quarantine, yet Ian Bogost argues that the seemingly harmless ideas of debt, property, and constant work are deeply political and economical, reflecting the structures of capitalism that we experience in the real world (Bogost, 2020, pp. 2-3). When customizing an island that personalizes your preference of the landscape, there are times that game mechanics can quietly undermine the creative liberation by enforcing a real-world cycle of grinding, accumulating wealth, and socio-economic inequality. This underscores the fact that digital play promotes the domination of real-world systems that models capitalism. These power dynamics are entirely immune to our personal experiences, even in digital spaces. 2. Explain the role of Black Twitter transforming a digital playground towards its creation of a space for Black resistance and cultural production?

Latoya A. Lee characterizes Black Twitter as a “digital homespace” for Black users to actively “(re)construct their bodies and identities” against dominant narratives (Lee, 2017, p. 1). It is not just memes that exist everywhere—it is about social action and community resilience to spread the resistance in response to addressing discrimination issues like #APHeadlines (p. 2). When scrolling down Black Twitter through some of the posts, Black users transform casual interactions into acts of empowerment as its creation of space for cultural production. Therefore, humor serves as a tool for Black resistance for political commentary, expressions of joy, and hashtags forge community solidarity. 3. Can online activism represent a sufficient condition of being materially disruptive to social change beyond symbolic hashtag culture?

Sandor Vegh argues that online activism can range from advocating public awareness “relevant to the cause” to the “media-investigated” forms of direct digital action—like online attacks, mobilization, and other proactive efforts to bring more about change (Vegh, 2003, pp. 2-5). The humorous, viral spread of digital content acts as the importance of its initial phase of the internet memes, fueling people towards an actual, organized political action. This disproves that digital protests are not merely “slacktivism” as there are pathways to represent a deeper, real-world organization for being material disruptive to social change beyond symbolic hashtag culture. Thinking about the #ArabSpring memes from street protests to government responses displays that online activism is not linear, but rather humor and information are the catalysts for driving action. 4. In what ways do indigenous activists use social media platforms to challenge dominant colonial narratives and the pursuit of land reclamation both digitally and physically?

Nicholet A. Deschine Parkhurst displays that #NoDAPL uses Facebook livestreams and hashtags to assert community sovereignty beyond simple awareness (Parkhurst, 2021, pp. 33-35). Water protectors repurposed “fun” digital spaces so it can utilize platforms for serious activism, effectively transforming online timelines for its cultural practice, education, and resistance efforts for the public movement. This reminds me how the digital world persists online oppression parallel to the efforts of the indigenous resistance or revitalization. Therefore, the contemporary world of indigenous activists requires digital belonging and physical land defense as the modern foundation of political power so communities connect and operate themselves both digitally and physically.

Word Count: 538

References:

Bogost, I. (2020, April 15). Animal Crossing isn’t escapist; It’s political. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/04/animal-crossing-isnt-escapist-its-political/610012/

Lee, L. A. (2017). Black Twitter: A response to bias in mainstream media. Social Sciences, 6(1), 1–17.

Parkhurst, N. T. A. D. (2021). From #Mniwiconi to #StandwithStandingRock. In Indigenous Peoples Rise Up (pp. 32–37). Rutgers University Press.

Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying forms of online activism. In Cyberactivism. Routledge.

[derricksdiariesblog]

Blog Post #6 - Week 8 due 10/17

Formations of Digital Gender

How do claims of “neutral” online platforms perceived as objective reinforce the structures of white male dominance?

Jesse Daniels (2009) argues that digital platforms like Stormfront.org enable white supremacist beliefs through the exploitation of online “freedom,” dissembling “community discourse” and “free speech” (pp. 61–63). Despite the claims of online neutrality, the internet serves as a stage for racialized performances of gender and whiteness for women, often through reenacting patriarchal structures. This makes me imagine: how do the architectural choices of social media platforms already privilege certain voices in the first place—particular demographics like white, cisgender, and male users? The level of online toxicity, or “ironic” memes, that we visualize, like on Reddit, is a modern expression of Daniel’s concept of coded dominance.

2. Can technology be designed to escape the binaries that shape the social constructs of gender and race?

Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto challenges the purity of such categories by introducing a cyborg as a “hybrid of machine and organism, as well as a creature of fiction” that defies such classification and other boundaries (pp. 354-355). She advocates for “pleasure in the confusion of boundaries,” but I question whether social media algorithms—shaped by capitalism and patriarchy—can truly accomplish dismantling those boundaries. Are we cyborgs primarily for using technology as a tool for liberation and resistance, or does it more often than not reinforce the existing systems of control and power? On digital platforms like TikTok, “face filters” embedded with racial and gender biases are a modern infestation of Haraway’s “informatics of domination” (p. 357).

3. Why does the design and programming of virtual influencers continue to reproduce heteronormative gender ideals?

Kate O’Riordan (2006) presents that visual figures such as Ananova or Lara Croft are favored characters that represent the “friendly female face” through offline media designed to emphasize its combination of “reality aesthetic and the insistence of simulations” for the avatar of cyberspace (pp. 245-247). These cybercultural forms of virtual personae were marketed as groundbreaking, but they were repackaged in 20th-century ideals of beauty: white, youthful, and hypersexualized. Recently, the emergence of Instagram AI influencers like Lil Miquela has been a talking point that continues the trend of reproducing heteronormative gender ideals because the digital “illusion of diversity” conflicts with the approachability over empowerment for the feminine interface.

4. How do intersectional feminist and anti-racist frameworks reshape the power dynamics embedded within the digital “fun”?

When thinking about the digital “fun” of social media platforms that shape the participatory culture, such as memes, fandoms, and filters—I realize how rarely we interrogate their ideological undercurrents. Daniels dismantles how online whiteness operates as an invisible norm and, following Haraway, urges us to abandon our own perceived innocence (p. 356); and O’Riordan critiques how technological “friendliness” conceals the underlying systems and reinforces male dominance and traditional gender roles (p. 249). If we take both intersectional feminist and anti-racist frameworks seriously, perhaps digital “fun” itself becomes a political site—where the discursive functions of humor and irony resist in shaping power dynamics. My critical question is: How can we foster online joy that cultivates happiness and connection without reproducing oppression?

Word Count: 517

References:

Daniels, J. (2009). Gender, white supremacy, and the Internet. In Cyber racism: White supremacy online and the new attack on civil rights (pp. 61–73). Rowman & Littlefield.

Haraway, D. J. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149–181). Routledge. O’Riordan, K. (2006). Gender, technology, and visual cyberculture. In D. Silver & A. Massanari (Eds.), Critical cyberculture studies (pp. 243–249). New York University Press.

[velvetsociologist]

Digital Identities

1. In what ways do profile pictures, avatars, or handles function as “digital self-portraits,” and what do they communicate?

Your profile pictures, avatars, and handles act as digital self-portraits that communicate aspects of your personality, interests, and identity to others in online spaces. Because digital interactions lack many physical cues, these elements become symbolic markers of how you wish to be seen. For instance, a professional headshot on LinkedIn projects competence, while a cartoon avatar on a gaming site may express humor or creativity. Scholars note that online identity is a “configuration of defining characteristics” constructed and selectively presented to fit different digital contexts (Frontiers in Psychology, 2021). This self-presentation is both intentional and revealing, showing how individuals balance authenticity and impression management when curating their online selves (Frontiers in Psychology, 2021).

2. Do people maintain distinct digital “selves” across different platforms?

Most people maintain multiple digital “selves” across platforms because each space has different social norms and purposes. On professional sites like LinkedIn, users tend to emphasize career achievements and expertise, while on gaming or dating platforms, they may highlight humor, hobbies, or attractiveness. Research shows that individuals tailor their language, photos, and overall tone to align with the expectations of each audience, creating context-specific versions of themselves (ArXiv, 2017). The benefit is flexibility by being able to express different dimensions of identity safely, but the trade-off is fragmentation, as one’s online self becomes a collection of partial personas that can feel disconnected when viewed together (ArXiv, 2017).

3. How might discrepancies between one’s “digital identity” and your offline self affect your sense of authenticity or mental well-being?

When your digital identity differs significantly from your real-world self, it can lead to self-discrepancy, a psychological gap that may cause stress, anxiety, or lower self-esteem. Studies show that large differences between a person’s digital and offline identities are linked to negative emotional outcomes because maintaining a curated or idealized persona requires constant effort and comparison (ResearchGate, 2024). However, some level of experimentation online like such as trying out new interests or aesthetics, can be healthy and help people explore who they are in low-risk environments. The key is finding balance: embracing the freedom of digital spaces while ensuring your online identity still reflects core aspects of your authentic self (ResearchGate, 2024).

4. What role do anonymity, pseudonymity, or “masking” play in shaping how we behave online, and how does that compare with more “verified” or persistent online identities?

Anonymity and pseudonymity allow people to explore different aspects of themselves, voice opinions freely, or engage in communities without the pressure of being tied to their real identities. The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) explains that anonymity can reduce personal accountability while increasing identification with group norms, influencing how individuals act in online spaces. In contrast, verified or persistent identities, like those tied to real names or professional accounts, encourage more cautious and socially acceptable behavior due to the potential for reputational consequences. Both approaches have value: anonymity fosters creative and honest self-expression, while verified identities promote trust, continuity, and credibility in digital interactions (SAGE Journals, 2024).

References

Ferrara, E., & Yang, Z. (2017). Me, my echo chamber, and I: Introspection on social media polarization. arXiv. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04791

Frontiers in Psychology. (2021). Online identity: The construction, presentation, and perception of self in the digital space. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.696552/full

Sørensen, K. (2024). The datafied self: Digital identity and algorithmic life. Media, Culture & Society, 46(5). SAGE Journals. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01634437241282240

Zhou, X., & Yang, Y. (2024). Self-discrepancy: The discrepancy between digital identity and real identity on social media and its psychological impact. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391771721_Self-Discrepancy_The_Discrepancy_Between_Digital_Identity_and_Real_Identity_on_Social_Media_and_Its_Psychological_Impact

[velvetsociologist]

Technology Labor Unrecognition

1. How is digital labor made invisible in everyday technology use?

Digital labor is often hidden behind the interfaces we interact with daily. For example, when we scroll through Instagram, it looks effortless. However, the app's functionality depends on invisible labor like content moderation, algorithm training, and data labeling, which is outsourced to underpaid workers in the Global South. This invisibility creates the illusion that technology is neutral and self-sustaining, masking the exploitation that undergirds it (Nakamura, 2015). The "covert" nature of this work mirrors how certain marginalized groups (by race, gender, or class) are historically excluded from recognition as laborers because of typical assumptions. 

2. How do advertisements and marketing obscure digital labor's racial and gendered dynamics?

Tech marketing often promotes images of sleek innovation and progress, like Apple commercials that showcase creativity, individuality, and freedom. However, these ads rarely acknowledge the global labor chain that produces such products: factory workers in China under harsh conditions, or women workers in electronics assembly lines. The racial and gendered dynamics become invisible, even though they shape who is exploited and who benefits. As Daniels (2009) points out in White Supremacy in the Digital Era, digital platforms also sustain racial hierarchies secretly, even as marketing pretends to represent a universal, post-racial "future."

3. How do race and gender intersect with digital representations of labor in online media platforms?

Online spaces often reproduce stereotypes through representation. For example, in gaming, Ow's (1997) critique of the "yellowfaced cyborg" highlights how Japanese characters were reduced to violent, hypersexualized caricatures designed for white male audiences. This shows how "labor" in design and storytelling reinscribes racial and gender hierarchies. Meanwhile, women and people of color who perform digital labor as influencers or content creators often face harassment or are devalued compared to their white, male counterparts (Nakamura, 2015). This overt representation of race and gender contrasts with the covert invisibility of the workers behind the platforms.

4. What role does digital labor play in reinforcing or resisting systems like white supremacy online?

Digital labor both supports and resists systemic racism. On one hand, platforms rely on algorithms trained on biased data, which can amplify racist content. Daniels (2009) calls this "cyber racism." Content moderators, often people of color in the Global South, perform the labor of cleaning up harmful content for Western audiences, yet their work is hidden (Roberts, 2019). On the other hand, activists use digital labor to challenge white supremacy—organizing movements like #BlackLivesMatter, which make visible the injustices often obscured in mainstream media (Daniels, 2009). This shows how digital labor can reinforce systemic oppression or be mobilized as a tool for resistance.

References:

Daniels, J. (2009). Cyber racism: White supremacy online and the new attack on civil rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kolko, B., Nakamura, L., & Rodman, G. (2000). Race in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Nakamura, L. (2015). “5 Types of Online Racism and Why You Should Care.” TEDx Talk

Ow, J. (1997). The Revenge of the Yellowfaced Cyborg Terminator.

Roberts, S. T. (2019). Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. Yale University Press. #gsskittens

[derricksdiariesblog]

Blog Post #4 - Week 6 due 10/3

Formations of Digital Race: What does the complex relationship of Race bring to a disucssion on Society, Culture and Media?

How do games appearing to be “race-neutral” inadvertently reinforce and perpetuate racialized notions of space and safety?

Tara Fickle (2020) describes the “Race-neutral” games like Pokémon Go as being highly praised for bringing people together around the world to experience a sense of discovery and social connection, but reproduced de facto segregation into this notion of digital space and safety. The minority of the players who encountered this throughout playtime highlights the reasons why racial difference threatens them as the “target of suspicious glances once players crossed into predominantly white neighborhoods” (p. 2). For instance, a “neutral” game mechanic–traveling around areas to discover and catch Pokémon–can actually reinforce and perpetuate the racialized notions of space and safety due to the involvement of real-world inequalities and carrying social weight. Overall, this makes players racially uncomfortable in a way that creates this digital divide in access to gameplay elements.

2. Why is race framed as a “binary state” in cyberspace?

In Race in Cyberspace, Kolko, Nakamura, and Rodman explained how online communities have silenced themselves, often away from the productive means of race, treating it as irrelevant until conflict arises from the internet. This becomes a “controversial flashpoint for angry debate and overheated rhetoric" based on the internet’s reaction to the subject of race (p. 1). The binary switch reveals how the digital culture’s pretense of being “colorblind” can expose users, bringing their complexity of real-world identities and histories into virtual spaces. Looking at the socially constructed nature of race, they can be deeply tied to cultural experiences when facing the system of racial categorization. Therefore, it makes me reflect that online identities–even when disembodied–are never gonna escape the materiality of ethnic, racial, and power relations through personal and political terms.

3. How does the phenomenon of the digital yellowface reveal the endurance of colonial narratives?

Jeffrey Ow (2000) critiques the video game Shadow Warrior, in which the main character Lo Wang blends in with a caricatured “Asian” identity, along with being an architectural 80s action hero, performed in digital yellowface. The game mixes with the stereotypes for parody reasons, but reproduces in fantasies of white male cyborgs through “preestablished pathways of colonization, domination, and destruction” (p. 53). This makes me question the phenomenon of the digital yellowface that the colonial narrative of “It’s just for fun” perpetuates, which can result in unbelievable amounts of privilege for some groups to ignore harmful racialized representations, while others express the direct impact of being stereotyped and erased. Overall, it reveals the endurance of colonial narratives to be assured for those in power relations while being extracted and monetized from the aesthetics of marginalized communities.

4. How do Nakamura’s five types of online racism affect the marginalized groups’ experiences of power, visibility, and invisibility in ostensibly “fun” digital spaces like social media or gaming?

In the TEDx talk “5 Types of Online Racism and Why You Should Care” (2011), Lisa Nakamura outlines the five types of online racism that have emerged in digital contexts of the internet (e.g., visual profiling, voice profiling, racism against avatars, identity tourism, and anti-immigrant racism). She argues that these incidents are manifestations of broader power structures that have embedded themselves into platforms and media. In what ways can a user’s appropriation of a “race-neutral” avatar or digital persona underlie the modalities of racism from which it originated? These five types of online racism force us to reconsider what counts as “visible” racism, depending on how it is normalized through digital spaces, from social media or gaming, and therefore, more insidious.

Word Count: 591 References:

Fickle, T. (2020). The Race Card: Ludo-Orientalism and the Gamification of Race (Introduction). NYU Press. pp. 1–19.

Kolko, B. E., Nakamura, L., & Rodman, G. B. (2000). Race in Cyberspace (Introduction). Routledge. pp. 1–7.

Nakamura, L. (2011, October 11). 5 types of online racism and why you should care [Video]. TEDxUIllinois. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT-G0FlOo7g

Ow, J. A. (2000). The Revenge of the Yellow-Faced Cyborg Terminator. In B. E. Kolko, L. Nakamura, & G. B. Rodman (Eds.), Race in Cyberspace (pp. 51–60). Routledge.

[derricksdiariesblog]

Blog Post #3 - Week 4 due 9/19

Using Social Theory for Understanding Social Media

In what ways do cyberfeminist theories risk reinforcing racial and gender hierarchies in digital spaces rather than dismantling them?

Jessie Daniels (2009) displays some forms of cyberfeminism within the conceptualization of technology, given how “damaging universalism” relates to the “subversive potential of the Internet,” often excludes women from earlier forms of feminism, assuming that they heavily emphasize an “educated, white upper-middle-class, English-speaking, culturally sophisticated relationship” (p. 104). This framing shows that social media is the supposed openness for the public eye, with unseen limitations when it comes to a particular environment in which women moderately engage with feminist action. However, platforms like Instagram and TikTok faced specific issues through the language of digital empowerment, including data-driven algorithms that privilege influencer identities; masking power over those who are welcomed to the social media and those who are marginalized. Calling digital spaces “neutral” ignores the real-world inequities that contribute to disparity, ultimately shaping those who can access and participate online.

2. How do algorithmic biases in digital technologies, like facial recognition, result in discriminatory outcomes for minority communities, particularly within systems where digital spaces are promoted as neutral or efficient?

According to the New York Times (2020), facial recognition is not always accurate, disproportionately misidentifies the person behind it when it comes to a criminal case, like Nijeer Parks, a Black man, who was wrongfully jailed due to a false facial recognition match based on hundreds of algorithms (Hill, 2020, p. 1). The “neutral” claim of technology to determine the accused suspect exposes major flaws, such as how the algorithmic design inherently embeds racial prejudice. Social media platforms that proactively utilize AI moderation as their advocate have a recurring pattern through digital spaces: errors disproportionately affecting communities of color under the supposed neutral policies revolving around “safety” or “standards”. Therefore, neutrality becomes the deceptive nature of the systemic discrimination practices.

3. How do automated systems, built on historical data and biased assumptions, perpetuate the promise of fairness and deepen systemic inequality?

Virginia Eubanks (2018) describes automated systems like algorithms commonly used through welfare and healthcare that are built upon historical data and biased assumptions, often “red-flagging” marginalized communities to the point they are denied any resources available to them (pp. 15-16). These systems, which were thought to be presented with unbiased judgments, involve a false sense of punishing marginalized groups and intensifying the surveillance with proactive threat detections. Looking back to social media platforms that have predictive moderation tools trained to analyze and monitor specific behavioral areas, it is obvious that they silence activist speeches about race and gender, which incorrectly flag them as “harmful” content. Therefore, scrolling down the entertaining digital spaces for many is a threatening amount of intimate scrutiny and social exclusion as a result of the automated systems perpetuating the promise of fairness and deepening systemic inequality.

4. How do technological participation create a false sense of liberation while reinforcing real-world power imbalances? Nicole Brown’s talk on Race and Technology is a pivotal example that displays why the participation of technological use has grown in nearly all sectors, “fighting for racial justice” to justify the role of the algorithms and platforms reinforcing real-world power imbalances under a false sense of liberation (Brown, 2021). Daniels (2009) also mentions the “allure of disembodiment” that has gone across cyberfeminists engaging with the internet–seeking ways to escape the “absence of the body”-disregarding the continuing significance that remains a central component through practices like “pro-ana” websites and “tranny” hormone listservs (pp. 112-115). Despite appearances, social media platforms embed oppressive norms into “fun” features like filters, hashtags, or memes, perpetuating and covertly regulating the perceptions of race and gender altogether. Overall, this exaggerates the illusion of digital freedom in a way that amplifies existing inequalities for a more open society.

Word Count: 627 References:

Daniels, J. (2009, June 3). Rethinking cyberfeminism(s): Race, gender, and embodiment. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/266600 

Eubanks, V. (2019). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Picador, St. Martin’s Press. 

Hill, K. (2020, December 29). Flawed facial recognition leads to arrest and jail for New Jersey man - The New York Times. Another Arrest, and Jail Time, Due to a Bad Facial Recognition Match. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/technology/facial-recognition-misidentify-jail.html  Brown, N. (2021, March 16). Race and Technology [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8uiAjigKy8