De- and recoding algorithmic systems: The case of fact checkers and fact checked users
| Authors |
|
|---|---|
| Publication date | 12-2024 |
| Journal | Convergence : The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies |
| Volume | Issue number | 30 | 6 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1919-1938 |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract |
With the recent development of debunking on social media as a dominant
agenda, fact checkers have increasingly used machine learning (ML) to
identify, verify and correct factual claims, as ML promises the scaling
of fact checking practices. However, it also places a new actor in
between the fact checkers and the fact checked users. In this paper, we
conducted a contrasted analysis of how fact checkers and fact checked
users understand, evaluate and act towards the algorithmic system and
the data flows in Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program: We did
ethnographic fieldwork in the fact checking newsroom and interviewed and
did protocol analysis with the fact checked. For both professional
users and end users, the algorithmic system is experienced as a black
box in which they have limited insight, and their sense-making practices
happen based on the data and metrics that are made visible to them. In
the paper, we draw on and expanded theory on decoding algorithms by not
only exploring how the two user groups engage in decoding the
algorithmic system, but also actively engage in forms of recoding
by attempting to adapt or modify the algorithmic system to better fit
within their cultural and social context, which is characterised by both
varying epistemic cultures and societal positions. While the fact
checkers from their hegemonic (sometimes negotiated) position understand
the program as a (sometimes stupid) tool and primarily engage in
passive acts of recoding, fact checked users, from their oppositional
position, understand the program as an unpredictable censoring machine
and engage primarily in more active acts of recoding. Based on the
analysis, we end the paper with a discussion in which we argued for
understanding data reflexivity as highly relational and processual.
|
| Document type | Article |
| Note | In special issue: Data Reflectivity: New Pathways in Bridging Datafication and User Studies |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241289233 |
| Downloads | |
| Permalink to this page | |