skip to main content
10.1145/3511265.3550450acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescslawConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Case for Establishing a Collective Perspective to Address the Harms of Platform Personalization

Published: 01 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Personalization on digital platforms drives a broad range of harms, including misinformation, manipulation, social polarization, subversion of autonomy, and discrimination. In recent years, policymakers, civil society advocates, and researchers have proposed a wide range of interventions to address these challenges. In this article, we argue that the emerging toolkit reflects an individualistic view of both personal data and data-driven harms that will likely be inadequate to address growing harms in the global data ecosystem. We maintain that interventions must be grounded in an understanding of the fundamentally collective nature of data, wherein platforms leverage complex patterns of behaviors and characteristics observed across a large population to draw inferences and make predictions about individuals. Using the lens of the collective nature of data, we evaluate various approaches to addressing personalization-driven harms currently under consideration. This lens also allows us to frame concrete guidance for future legislation in this space and advocate meaningful transparency that goes far beyond current proposals. We offer a roadmap for what meaningful transparency must constitute: a collective perspective providing a third party with ongoing insight into the information gathered and observed about individuals and how it correlates with any personalized content they receive-across a large, representative population. These insights would enable the third party to understand, identify, quantify, and address cases of personalization-driven harms. We discuss how such transparency can be achieved without sacrificing privacy and provide guidelines for legislation to support the development of this proposal.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (Collective Perspective.mp4)
Personalization on digital platforms drives a broad range of harms, including misinformation, manipulation, social polarization, subversion of autonomy, and discrimination. In recent years, policymakers, civil society advocates, and researchers have proposed a wide range of interventions to address these challenges. In this article, we argue that the emerging toolkit reflects an individualistic view of both personal data and data-driven harms that will likely be inadequate to address growing harms in the global data ecosystem.

References

[1]
Adam Satariano. 2021. Facebook Hearing Strengthens Calls for Reg- ulation in Europe. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/technology/ facebook-european-union-regulation.html.
[2]
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). 1968. 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., 623(e).
[3]
Alexandra Stevenson. 2018. Facebook Admits It Was Used to In- cite Violence in Myanmar. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/ technology/myanmar-facebook.html.
[4]
Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act. 2021. S. 1896, 117th Cong. (1st Sess. 2021).
[5]
Muhammad Ali, Piotr Sapiezynski, Miranda Bogen, Aleksandra Ko- rolova, Alan Mislove, and Aaron Rieke. 2019. Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook's Ad delivery can lead to biased out- comes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--30.
[6]
Muhammad Ali, Piotr Sapiezynski, Aleksandra Korolova, Alan Mis- love, and Aaron Rieke. 2019. Ad delivery algorithms: The hidden arbiters of political messaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04255 (2019).
[7]
Kristen M Altenburger and Johan Ugander. 2018. Monophily in social networks introduces similarity among friends-of-friends. Nature human behaviour 2, 4 (2018), 284--290.
[8]
Jafar Alzubi, Anand Nayyar, and Akshi Kumar. 2018. Machine learn- ing from theory to algorithms: an overview. In Journal of physics: conference series, Vol. 1142. IOP Publishing, 012012.
[9]
Amanda Taub & Max Fisher. 2018. Where Countries Are Tinderboxes and Facebook Is a Match. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/ world/asia/facebook-sri-lanka-riots.html.
[10]
American Civil Liberties Union. 2019. Charge of Discrimina- tion. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/facebook-eeoc- complaint-charge-discrimination.
[11]
American Civil Liberties Union. 2019. In Historic Decision on Digital Bias, EEOC Finds Employers Violated Federal Law when they Excluded Women and Older Workers from Facebook Ads. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/historic-decision-digital- bias-eeoc-finds-employers-violated-federal-law-when-they.
[12]
Andrew Hutchinson. 2021. YouTube Tests New 'Engagement Graph' Insights on Videos, Adds New Member Acknowledgement Feature. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/youtube-tests- new-engagement-graph-insights-on-videos-adds-new-member- ac/607819/.
[13]
Andrew Hutchinson. 2022. Twitter Tests New Placement for the Tweet Composer to Encourage More Activity. https: //www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-tests-new-placement- for-the-tweet-composer-to-encourage-more-activi/616798/.
[14]
Ashley Carman. 2019. Instagram will test hiding public like counts in Canada. https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/30/18523847/instagram- hide-likes-test-canada.
[15]
Joshua Asplund, Motahhare Eslami, Hari Sundaram, Christian Sand- vig, and Karrie Karahalios. 2020. Auditing race and gender discrimi- nation in online housing markets. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 14. 24--35.
[16]
Ian Ayres and Alan Schwartz. 2014. The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stan. L. Rev. 66 (2014), 545.
[17]
Christopher A Bail, Lisa P Argyle, Taylor W Brown, John P Bum- pus, Haohan Chen, MB Fallin Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 37 (2018), 9216-- 9221.
[18]
Yannis Bakos, Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, and David R. Trossen. 2014. Does Anyone Read the Fine Print? Consumer Attention to Standard- Form Contracts. The Journal of legal Studies 43, 1 (2014), 1--35.
[19]
Solon Barocas and Karen Levy. 2020. Privacy Dependencies. Wash- ington Law Review 95 (2020), 555--616.
[20]
Solon Barocas and Helen Nissenbaum. 2014. Big data's end run around anonymity and consent. Privacy, big data, and the public good: Frameworks for engagement 1 (2014), 44--75.
[21]
Shmuel I Becher and Tal Z Zarsky. 2019. Minding the Gap. Conn. L. Rev. 51 (2019), 69.
[22]
Uri Benoliel and Shmuel I Becher. 2019. The duty to read the unread- able. BCL Rev. 60 (2019), 2255.
[23]
Josep Lluis Berral-García. 2016. A quick view on current techniques and machine learning algorithms for big data analytics. In 2016 18th international conference on transparent optical networks (ICTON). IEEE, 1--4.
[24]
Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse M Shapiro. 2017. Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.
[25]
John Braithwaite and Brent Fisse. 1987. Self-regulation and the control of corporate crime. Private policing 21 (1987).
[26]
Brian Chen. 2018. I Downloaded the Information That Facebook Has on Me. Yikes. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/technology/ personaltech/i-downloaded-the-information-that-facebook-has- on-me-yikes.html.
[27]
California Consumer Privacy Act. 2018. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100.
[28]
California Privacy Rights Act of 2020. 2020. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100
[30]
Cecilia Kang. 2021. Lawmakers See Part to Rein in Tech, But It Isn't Smooth. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/technology/facebook- big-tobacco-regulation.html.
[31]
Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA) Act. 2021. S. 971, 117th Cong. (2021--2022).
[32]
Julie E Cohen. 2016. The regulatory state in the information age. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 17, 2 (2016), 369--414.
[33]
Julie E. Cohen. 2017. Law for the Platform Economy. University of California, Davis Law Review 51 (2017), 133--204.
[34]
Julie E. Cohen. 2019. Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism. Oxford University Press.
[35]
Julie E. Cohen. 2019. Turning Privacy Inside Out. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 20, 1 (2019), 1--31.
[36]
Colorado Privacy Act. 2021. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6--1.
[37]
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 1986. 18 U.S. Code § 1030).
[38]
Deceptive Experiences to Online Users Reduction (DETOUR) Act. 2019. S. 1084, 116th Cong. (2019--2020).
[39]
Sylvie Delacroix and Neil D Lawrence. 2019. Bottom-up data Trusts: disturbing the "one size fits all'approach to data governance. Interna- tional data privacy law 9, 4 (2019), 236--252.
[40]
Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2006. Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis. Theory of Cryptography Conference (2006), 265--284.
[41]
Eur. Comm'n. 2020. Commission Staff working Document, Assess- ment of the Code of Practice on Disinformation - Achievements and Areas for Further Improvement, SWD.
[42]
Eur. Comm'n, Proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC. 2020. COM/2020/825.
[43]
European Commission. 2018. EU Code of Practice on Disinforma- tion. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice- disinformation.
[44]
European Data Protection Board. 2020. Guidelines 8/2020 on the targeting of social media users. ACM Symposium on Computer Science and Law, 2022, Nov. 01-02, 2022, Washington DC. Gordon-Tapiero, Wood, and Ligett
[45]
European Data Protection Supervisor. 2021. Opinion 1/2021 on the Proposal for a Digital Services Act.
[46]
Fair Housing Act. 1968. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601--3619, 3604(c).
[47]
Federal Trade Commission. 2020. FTC Issues Orders to Nine Social Media and Video Streaming Services Seeking Data About How They Collect, Use, and Present Information, Press re- lease. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc- issues-orders-nine-social-media-video-streaming-services.
[48]
Federal Trade Commission. 2020. Social Media Bots and Deceptive Advertising, Report to Congress.
[49]
Federal Trade Commission Act. 2012. 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1), 46(b).
[50]
Filter Bubble Transparency Act. 2019. 116th Cong. (2019--2020).
[51]
Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Adam Poulsen, Roger Andre Søraa, and BHM Custers. 2021. A little bird told me your gender: Gender infer- ences in social media. Information Processing & Management 58, 3 (2021), 102541.
[52]
Francis Fukuyama. 2021. Making the Internet Safe for Democracy. Journal of Democracy 32, 2 (2021), 37--44.
[53]
Francis Fukuyama, Barak Richman, Ashish Goel, Roberta R. Katz, A. Douglas Melamed, and Marietje Schaake. 2020. Middleware for Dominant Digital Platforms: A Technological Solution to a Threat to Democracy. Stanford University Policy Paper (2020).
[54]
Gabriel J. X. Dance, Nicholas Confessore & Michael LaForgia. 2018. Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/ technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html.
[55]
Clayton P Gillette. 2004. Rolling contracts as an agency problem. Wis. L. Rev. (2004), 679.
[56]
Woodrow Hartzog. 2018. The case against idealising control. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. 4 (2018), 423.
[57]
Health Misinformation Act of 2021. 2021. S. 2448, 117th Cong. (2021- 2022).
[58]
Ori Heffetz and Katrina Ligett. 2014. Privacy and Data-Based Research. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, 2 (2014), 75--98.
[59]
Simon Hegelich. 2020. Facebook needs to share more with researchers. Nature 579, 7800 (2020), 473--474.
[60]
David A Hoffman. 2018. Relational contracts of adhesion. U. Chi. L. Rev. 85 (2018), 1395.
[61]
Honest Ads Act. 2017. H.R. 4077, 115th Cong. (1st Sess. 2017).
[62]
Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Bart van der Sloot, and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius. 2019. The European Union general data protection regula- tion: what it is and what it means. Information & Communications Technology Law 28, 1 (2019), 65--98.
[63]
Basileal Imana, Aleksandra Korolova, and John Heidemann. 2021. Auditing for Discrimination in Algorithms Delivering Job Ads. Pro- ceedings of the Web Conference (2021), 3767--3778.
[64]
Jeff Horowitz. 2021. The Facebook Files. https://www.wsj.com/ articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039.
[65]
John D. McKinnon & Brent Kendall. 2021. Federal Trade Commission Scrutinizing Facebook Disclosures. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ facebook-ftc-privacy-kids-11635289993.
[66]
Julia Angwin & Terry Parris, Jr. 2016. Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race. https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook- letsadvertisers-exclude-users-by-race.
[67]
Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act of 2021. 2021. H.R. 5596, 117th Cong. (2021--2022).
[68]
Kalev Leetaru. 2018. The Data Brokers So Powerful Even Face- book Bought Their Data - But They Got Me Wildly Wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/04/05/the-data- brokers-so-powerful-even-facebook-bought-their-data-but-they- got-me-wildly-wrong.
[69]
Kashmir Hill. 2012. Facebook Is Tracking What Users Buy In Stores To See Whether Its Ads Work. https: //www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/09/26/facebook-is- tracking-what-users-buy-in-stores-to-see-whether-its-ads-work.
[70]
Kashmir Hill. 2014. Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users' Emotions for Science. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/ facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science.
[71]
Lina M Khan. 2016. Amazon's antitrust paradox. Yale lJ 126 (2016), 710.
[72]
Lina M Khan and David E Pozen. 2019. A skeptical view of informa- tion fiduciaries. Harv. L. Rev. 133 (2019), 497.
[73]
Pauline T. Kim and Sharion Scott. 2018. Discrimination in Online Employment Recruiting. St. Louis University Law Journal 63, 1 (2018), 93--118.
[74]
Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, and Thore Graepel. 2013. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 110, 15 (2013), 5802--5805.
[75]
Adam D.I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2014. Ex- perimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 24 (2014), 8788--8790.
[76]
Anja Lambrecht and Catherine E Tucker. 2020. Apparent algorithmic discrimination and real-time algorithmic learning in digital search advertising. Available at SSRN 3570076 (2020).
[77]
Laura Edelson & Damon McCoy. 2021. We Research Misinformation on Facebook. It Just Disabled Our Accounts. https://www.nytimes. com/2021/08/10/opinion/facebook-misinformation.html.
[78]
Simon A Levin, Helen V Milner, and Charles Perrings. 2021. The dynamics of political polarization.
[79]
Feng Lin, Yingxiao Wu, Yan Zhuang, Xi Long, and Wenyao Xu. 2016. Human gender classification: a review. International Journal of Bio- metrics 8, 3--4 (2016), 275--300.
[80]
Yehuda Lindell. 2020. Secure Multiparty Computation (MPC). Cryp- tology ePrint Archive, Report 2020/300. https://ia.cr/2020/300.
[81]
Kevin Litman-Navarro. 2019. We Read 150 Privacy Poli- cies. They Were an Incomprehensible Disaster. https: //www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/12/opinion/facebook- google-privacy-policies.html.
[82]
Alessandro Mantelero. 2017. From group privacy to collective privacy: towards a new dimension of privacy and data protection in the big data era. In Group privacy. Springer, 139--158.
[83]
Jonathan R Mayer and John C Mitchell. 2012. Third-party web track- ing: Policy and technology. In 2012 IEEE symposium on security and privacy. IEEE, 413--427.
[84]
Meta for Business. 2022 [last visited]. About Lookalike Audiences. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/164749007013531.
[85]
Meta Journalism Project. 2021. Meta's Third-Party Fact-Checking Program. https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/ third-party-fact-checking.
[86]
Mike Clark. 2021. Research Cannot Be the Justification for Com- promising People's Privacy. https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/ research-cannot-be-the-justification-for-compromising-peoples- privacy/.
[87]
Mozilla. 2021. Take Control Over Your Data with Rally, A Novel Privacy-First Data Sharing Platform. https: //blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/take-control-over-your-data-with- rally-a-novel-privacy-first-data-sharing-platform.
[88]
Mozilla. 2022 [last visited]. It's Your Data. Use It For a Change. https://rally.mozilla.org.
[89]
Nicholas Confessore. 2018. Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/ 04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html.
[90]
Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. 1996. 47 U.S.C. § 230.
[91]
Office of Congresswoman Lori Trahan. 2021. Fact Sheet: The Social Media DATA Act of 2021. https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ Collectively Addressing Harms of Personalization ACM Symposium on Computer Science and Law, 2022, Nov. 01-02, 2022, Washington DC. social_media_data_act_two-pager.pdf.
[92]
Oversight Board. 2022 [last visited]. Ensuring Respect for Free Expres- sion, through Independent Judgment. https://www.oversightboard. com.
[93]
Nizan Geslevich Packin. 2020. Show Me the (Data About the) Money! Utah L. Rev. (2020), 1277.
[94]
Platform Accountability and Transparency Act (PATA). 2021. S. ___, 117th Cong. (1st Sess. 2021).
[95]
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act). 2020. COM/2020/842.
[96]
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Data Governance (Data Governance Act). 2020. COM/2020/767.
[97]
Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act. 2021. H.R. 2154, 117th Cong. (2021--2022).
[98]
RadicalXChange Foundation. 2020. The Data Freedom Act, Working paper. https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/papers/data-freedom- act.pdf.
[99]
K Sabeel Rahman. 2017. The new utilities: Private power, social infrastructure, and the revival of the public utility concept. Cardozo L. Rev. 39 (2017), 1621.
[100]
Priscilla M. Regan. 2020. A Design for Public Trustee and Privacy Protection Regulation. Seton Hall Legislative Journal 44, 3 (2020), 487--513.
[101]
Regulation 2016/679 of the Eur. Parl. & Council of Apr. 27, 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the process- ing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. 2016. COM/2012/010 final -- 2012/0010 (COD).
[102]
Joel R Reidenberg, Travis Breaux, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Brian French, Amanda Grannis, James T Graves, Fei Liu, Aleecia McDonald, Thomas B Norton, and Rohan Ramanath. 2015. Disagreeable privacy policies: Mismatches between meaning and users' understanding. Berkeley Tech. LJ 30 (2015), 39.
[103]
Kimberly Rhum. 2021. Information Fiduciaries and Political Micro- targeting: A Legal Framework for Regulating Political Advertising on Digital Platforms. Northwestern University Law Review 115 (2021), 1829--1874.
[104]
Robert S. Mueller. 2019. Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, U.S. DEP'T OF JUST.
[105]
Jessica Romero. 2020. Taking Legal Action Against Data Scrap- ing. https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/taking-legal-action-against- data-scraping.
[106]
Sheera Frenkel. 2021. The Storming of Capitol Hill Was Organized on Social Media. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/ protesters-storm-capitol-hill-building.html.
[107]
Ashley Smith-Roberts. 2018. Facebook, fake news, and the first amend- ment. In Denver Law Review Forum, Vol. 95. 21.
[108]
Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act (SMART) Act. 2019. S. 2314, 116th Cong. (2019--2020).
[109]
Social Media Disclosure and Transparency (DATA) Act. 2021. H.R. 3451, 117th Cong. (1st Sess. 2021).
[110]
Daniel J Solove. 2002. Conceptualizing privacy. Calif. L. Rev. 90 (2002), 1087.
[111]
Till Speicher, Muhammad Ali, Giridhari Venkatadri, Filipe Nunes Ribeiro, George Arvanitakis, Fabrício Benevenuto, Krishna P Gum- madi, Patrick Loiseau, and Alan Mislove. 2018. Potential for dis- crimination in online targeted advertising. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 5--19.
[112]
Dominic Spohr. 2017. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review 34, 3 (2017), 150--160.
[113]
Dina Srinivasan. 2019. The antitrust case against Facebook: A monop- olist's journey towards pervasive surveillance in spite of consumers' preference for privacy. Berkeley Bus. LJ 16 (2019), 39.
[114]
Daniel Susser, Beate Roessler, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2019. Tech- nology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review 8, 2 (2019).
[115]
The World Staff. 2017. In Myanmar, Fake News Spread on Facebook Stokes Ethnic Violence. https://www.pri.org/stories/2017--11-01/ myanmar-fake-news-spread-facebook-stokes-ethnic-violence.
[116]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 2000e-3(b).
[117]
Zeynep Tufekci. 2015. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo. Tech. LJ 13 (2015), 203.
[118]
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2019. Charge of Discrimination, FHEO No. 01--18-0323--8.
[119]
Giridhari Venkatadri, Piotr Sapiezynski, Elissa M Redmiles, Alan Mislove, Oana Goga, Michelle Mazurek, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2019. Auditing Offline Data Brokers via Facebook's Advertising Platform. In The World Wide Web Conference. 1920--1930.
[120]
Salome Viljoen. 2021. A Relational Theory of Data Governance. Yale Law Journal 131 (2021), 573--654.
[121]
Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act. 2021. Va. Code Ann. § 59.1.
[122]
Sandra Wachter. 2020. Affinity Profiling and Discrimination by Asso- ciation in Online Behavioral Advertising. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 35 (2020), 367--430.
[123]
Sandra Wachter and Brent Mittelstadt. 2014. A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI. Columbia Business Law Review (2014), 494--620.
[124]
Samuel D Warren and Louis D Brandeis. 1890. Right to privacy. Harv. L. Rev. 4 (1890), 193.
[125]
Alexandra Wood, Micah Altman, Aaron Bembenek, Mark Bun, Marco Gaboardi, James Honaker, Kobbi Nissim, David R. O'Brien, Thomas Steinke, and Salil Vadhan. 2018. Differential Privacy: A Primer for a Non-Technical Audience. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology 21, 1 (2018), 209--275.
[126]
Moran Yarchi, Christian Baden, and Neta Kligler-Vilenchik. 2021. Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over- time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication 38, 1--2 (2021), 98--139.
[127]
Tal Z Zarsky. 2016. Incompatible: The GDPR in the age of big data. Seton Hall L. Rev. 47 (2016), 995

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Break It 'Til You Make It: An Exploration of the Ramifications of Copyright Liability Under a Pre-training Paradigm of AI DevelopmentProceedings of the Symposium on Computer Science and Law10.1145/3614407.3643707(64-72)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2024
  • (2023)An Epistemic Lens on Algorithmic FairnessProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3617694.3623248(1-10)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2023
  • (2022)Toward User Control over Information Access: A Sociotechnical ApproachProceedings of the 2022 New Security Paradigms Workshop10.1145/3584318.3584327(117-129)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2022

Index Terms

  1. The Case for Establishing a Collective Perspective to Address the Harms of Platform Personalization

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CSLAW '22: Proceedings of the 2022 Symposium on Computer Science and Law
        November 2022
        202 pages
        ISBN:9781450392341
        DOI:10.1145/3511265
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 01 November 2022

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. algorithmic decision making
        2. discrimination
        3. echo chamber
        4. filter bubble
        5. polarization

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Funding Sources

        • Simons Foundation Collaboration
        • Sloan Foundation
        • Israel Science Foundation (ISF)

        Conference

        CSLAW '22
        Sponsor:
        CSLAW '22: Symposium on Computer Science and Law
        November 1 - 2, 2022
        Washington DC, USA

        Upcoming Conference

        CSLAW '25
        Symposium on Computer Science and Law
        March 25 - 27, 2025
        M?nchen , Germany

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)74
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
        Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Break It 'Til You Make It: An Exploration of the Ramifications of Copyright Liability Under a Pre-training Paradigm of AI DevelopmentProceedings of the Symposium on Computer Science and Law10.1145/3614407.3643707(64-72)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2024
        • (2023)An Epistemic Lens on Algorithmic FairnessProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3617694.3623248(1-10)Online publication date: 30-Oct-2023
        • (2022)Toward User Control over Information Access: A Sociotechnical ApproachProceedings of the 2022 New Security Paradigms Workshop10.1145/3584318.3584327(117-129)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2022

        View Options

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Figures

        Tables

        Media

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media