Through assignment 3, where we classified a library, it was made apparent to me, that we were not in agreement in regards to heirarchy and meaning of tags
But if we as a small group of 3 were in such disagreement, what about the bigger picture, with all the classifications going on?
Stores are only an example, but you could also think macro level, where it becomes apparent, that not everything seems to fit in this convenient box called "classification".
This ties to the case with my assignment 1, where I digitalized plants, and also assigned them tags. Some of the tags I chose, I did not know could be tied to the plant before investigating. This underlines how situated knowledge is (Donna Harraway 1988), and how different tags would resonate with some, but not others, hence making it vital, to both understand the current and future need of the data set.
Personalized targeting has become a real buzz word inside marketing departments over the last few decades. In reality (and simplified), personalized targeting is nothing but curated data, used to persuade users into different things.
This is what is referred to as Surveillance Capitalism (Zuboff 2015), where companies use their large quantities of data, to nudge their customers into buying their products.
Through the lens of Surveillance Capitalism, it is made obvious, why our digital self is so important to understand, since it is the baseline of what we encounter online. At the moment you can render it rather harmless, but you would not have to think far into the future, before you realize what future these data hoarding companies could create.
Surveillance has become a large part of our society over the years, as technology has eased the act of surveilling citizens.
In Denmark it is law, that you are obliged to make it clear to the public, that they are being monitored, through this sign for instance.
This is however not only possible by actively monitoring anymore, as more and more companies has shifted into the "surveillance economy", making them increase the amount of data they collect from their users.
This could be done through cookies, where companies strive to make their "cookie policy" as complex and lengthy as possible, deeming the user incapable of actually understanding what they are clicking yes or no to.
It is however only one of many of the differences between digital and physical, though they are still obliged to inform. The issue could however be, that it could pay off to simply just ignore this, as the instance has been with major companies such as Google in the past.
A lawsuit in Arizona was filed, as Google had continued to store data of their users through Google Maps, even though they specifically had opted for the setting, to not send data to Google (Vaas, Lisa 2020).
More and more things are getting digitalized, and an increasing amount of mundane tasks now require the use of a cellphone.
Besides bicycles, I could mention paying at the grocerie's (COOP app), transferring money (MobilePay), paying for parking ticket (various parking apps), and the list continues.
Common for all these things are, that they are possible to do without the use of a smartphone, but require a vast amount of time. Of course these changes includes positives, since it often times are a lot faster with the smartphone, than the conventional way.
However, data are easier collected this way, which will only increase personalized targeting. This happens for two reasons, since first of all, the companies monitoring you get more data, making you get more personalized ads. Secondly, the sheer amount of data about consumers, will inevitably breed more targeting, since they increase this capital.
This is described by Shoshanna Zuboff (2015), and according to her, this will only increase, as companies try to expand their sources of data.
In assignment 1 I investigated how it was possible to "digitize" physical plants, or create them into data rather, as seen on the picture. This further led me thinking, what is not data then? If even our plants are data, what cannot be?
I came to the conclusion, that everything can be seen as data, and not just one dataset. As Gitelman & Jackson (2013) describes, raw data is an oxymoron. This must then mean, that all data is situated, meaning that every single one of us have a completely different way of making knowledge out of not just data, but physical objects as well.
Take for instance these plants. If I simply removed the image, what was then left of the plant? Would they not still be digitized? How many except for botanist could instantly make meaning of it? This underlines the importance of thinking about one's dataset, and facing one's prejudices.
When examining data, such as this picture, you are left wondering what data really represents. Same goes for every data set. Take for example my example from assignment 2 and 3, is this data really reality, or just a representation of something from my point of view? Am I really me in Facebook's dataset, or am I left being 1's and 0's. All that seems left, is the viewers interpretation, of something that once was me.
Time is relative, as a certain gentleman once said. This is true, not only in relation to physical objects, but moreso with knowledge. Donna Harraway (1988) call it situated knowledge, and though this also means, that knowledge is largely subjective, it would also seem as if knowledge were situated into a certain time, making it crucial to understand the purpose and timeframe of certain knowledge, as it can easily expire.
Entire branches of achademic studies has dwelled into this understanding, the hermeneutics, understanding the importance of not only unravelling the content of the text, but more so the time, the situation, around it, in order to fully grasp what resides within the text.
Through my 2nd assignment, I investigated what my data on Facebook said about me, or rather, I made a "Data Selfie".
This consisted of me scripting through all my Facebook messages, in order to see when I send the most. I mapped them as seen on the left.
The result led me to see all kinds of events, which caused a change in my behaviour. This made me think as to the reason I could see these changes.
Could I see them because I knew what has happened, and hence why the pattern changed, or were a similar or another motive hidden somewhere deep into the
algorithmic depths of Facebook?
Who has the power to see, or maybe even foresee such events. As Thylstrup, N. (2018) describes, this is an immense power. Many people do not have the capability
to see through these algorithms, and even more are not aware of them. This is the true power struggle happening on not only Facebook, but the shift towards IT as a whole.
This is only made more apparent, as Shoshanna Zuboff (2015) explains, as tech companies have realized, that it is far easier to change people's behaviors, rather than predicting it.
... to my Curatorial Statement. The way this statement works is, that I have hidden some of my discoveries, findings, assignments, and such in the images you are soon to see.
Move your mouse around, and if you find one, it will show by you just having your mouse over it.
For each finding you do, the progressbar will move. There are 4 findings in each level and 2 levels in total. When you have discovered all the findings in level 1, you can press the progressbar to continue. After all findings have been made in level 2, you can view my curatorial statement.
If you are having issues finding them, you can seek help with the questionmark in the upper right corner.
The reason for this way of presenting my curatorial statement is twofold.
First of all, I want all of you to explore the physical-digital space, as I have throughout the course, before reading my conclusions on it. Finding the digital within the physical world, which I have digitized for your ease.
Secondly, there is something fun about the gamification aspect of this, which both contributes to the engagement one has while reading the statement, and also this technique is also aplied by companies "harvesting" data from users.
To further enhance the above, I have chosen to use pictures taken within 300 meters of my own home, to further situate you in my "world", as Donna Harraway would put it. All people have however been blured. This is because of the ethical aspect,
of people not confirming the use of them in this situation, though it is legal, since all pictures has been taken publicly.
You can download my portfolio of the exam here, and you can also check out my appendix made of my other assignments through the course, by clicking the button "other assignments"
after you press "Continue". Assignment 4 is missing, since this webpage in and of itself is assignment 4.
This webpage was created during Aarhus University's course "Curating Data" by Jeppe Mark Vind.
To download my portfolio, simply click here. Throughout the semester, we have made 3 other assignments, which are referenced in the portfolio and this website (assignment 4). You can find the content of these assignments here:
You have found all of my pointers, meaning you can now check my curatorial statement.
Before you do though, make sure you have made up your mind in regards to my findings first!
Feel free to check some of the pointers, before clicking the highlighted button below,
which will show my curatorial statement.
You can now also change level on command, by using the two arrows in the upper left corner, if you would want to check out some of my findings in other levels, before reading my curatorial statement.
It appears to me, that we are all having a split personality. No, not on the mental level, but rather being different selves in different worlds, or platforms rather. We have become what I would describe as data subjects.
Though I will not rant about whether this is for the better or worse, I will however question: "Who am I in these different worlds and situations?".
One can understand, that global organizations has developed algorithms in order to understand who I am, but this only seems to create more unanswered questions. As to describing who I am, I will resort to Cooley (1902): "I am not what I think I am and I am not what you think I am; I am what I think you think I am" (Korgen & White 2011).
This quote meaning, that not only what I think is important, but my relation in the situation seems equally important, as to describing who I am. Actually, us humans, when interacting with both others and platforms, echo-locate in a way (Markham 2017), meaning I will try to identify with the content I face on the platform, which behind the scene has been created by the algorithm. The issue becomes, when I am no longer treated in a way, that I can identify with, creating a need for me to change my line of thoughts or my actions. This would seem quite easy in a normal setting, but proves more difficult facing a mere algorithm.
How would I know how to change my behavior, in order to being treated the way I seem fit, if the only response I get is hard to decrypt and out of sync?
This question is only going to become more urgent, as the Surveillance Capitalism (Zuboff 2015) increase its span, and more sources are created for data generation and exploitation. A few of the different sources has been made apparent through the categories in this statement, and some of the concerns I have in regards to this phenomena as well.
What I am arguing today is not that algorithms are stupid nor evil, on the far opposite in fact, they seem quite smart. I am merely arguing for a change in the way we perceive data, not that data is untruthful, but that it is to be taking into account the situation, and hereby goals, of which the data are created in, the expiration date of the data, and last but not least, the opportunity for the individual to freely interact and understand their digital self.
Shoshana Zuboffs' Surveillance Capitalism also ties nicely together with John Cheney-Lippold (2017) explanation of dividuals, where our digital selves (dividual) controls how we are going to perceive the world around us. As Cheney-Lippold and Zuboff states, these data can (and will) be used to manipulate individuals in favor of the companies controlling the data. This is very much in line with how I have created this curatorial statement, where I guide you through my
process through a pre-determined path. And truthfully, you can variate from it, but not everyone will. So not only is the data capable of changing who I perceive me, but it can also change my behavior.
My question to you then: How long will it be, before the dividual becomes the individual?
