ProPublica’s “Machine Bias” article, ACM’s “Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning” conference paper, and Julia Stoyanovich and Falaah Arif Khan’s “We are AI” comic series each introduce radically different approaches to discussing Artificial Intelligence from a Public Technology perspective.

The “We are AI” comics helped to depict the foundational principles of AI in a visual medium that helped elucidate analogies that were being used. Stoyanovich and Khan’s comics serve as accessible resources for teaching the basics of AI. Given the prevalence of algorithmic systems in our daily lives, the “We are AI” comics series brings into focus some of those systems that we interact with both invisibly and visibly. While teaching some of the key terms related to algorithms, Stoyanovich and Khan also go beyond to raise questions about algorithmic morality and our role in engaging critically with these systems. I believe that the value of the comic approach in “We are AI” is powerful in lowering the educational barrier to learning about AI in a way that takes away the mystery and perceived objectiveness often present when discussing AI. Of course, given the comic medium, Stoyanovich and Khan are not able to provide an in-depth investigation into the examples they discuss – and I think that while this is not one of their goals, it can be considered a potential pitfall. As someone with an educational background in computer science, I see “We are AI” as a great resource that helped me better adjust my own understanding of AI and introduced relevant concepts related to morality that often get excluded in computer-science focused educational spaces.

For more in-depth investigations into the huge impact of algorithmic systems in people’s lives, ProPublica’s article serves as an alternative point of entry that calls for accountability in the use of risk assessments throughout the criminal justice system. In the ProPublic article written by Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu and Lauren Kirchner, the authors provide an extensive examination currently lacking from regulatory bodies, such as the U.S. Sentencing Commission. ProPublica’s approach is compelling in showing what accountability can look like, rooted in real-life examples of bias as observed in Northpointe’s COMPAS risk assessment software. One of the pitfalls from ProPublica’s article is the lack of introduction to the building blocks of AI – there is somewhat of an underlying assumption of AI comprehension. Similarly, the paper “Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning” by A. Feder Cooper, et. al, is aimed at an audience of experts attending the annual ACM Computer and Communications Security Conference. For their intended audience, Cooper’s article is effective at providing a robust introduction to the concepts of accountability in AI and new developing frameworks for navigating accountability in an increasingly complex algorithmic society. As such, the ACM conference paper introduces some actionable potential through the relational accountability framework – however it remains a bit more disconnected from the real-world experiences of the impact of algorithmic bias.

Each of these approaches are tailored to the audiences they are meant to serve – and while they may each contain some pitfalls, alongside one another they serve as a sturdy, multi-faceted body of work for learning about AI, thinking about our role as humans in calling for and understanding what accountability can look like, and implementing frameworks of accountability to the algorithmic systems we build and engage with.

Data journalism has an important role in redefining data as non-neutral, and therefore assumes a huge responsibility to the public. Nikki Stevens discusses the lack of “neutrality” inherent to data in their article “Data Set Failures and Intersectional Data” – even in cases where data is collected for more ethical and intersectional goals. Stevens asks us to consider if data can itself be intersectional – to which I say that data as it interacts with other data can perhaps be intersectional, but likely not on its own. In “Moving Targets: Collecting Queer Data,” Kevin Guyan raises some critical questions related to the data collection process in writing about the necessary contextual framing and interpretation of data with regards to space, time, other participants, and researchers.  In their piece, Guyan asks: “in moments when data is captured, whose interests are prioritized? The interests of individuals or groups about whom the data relates (in other words LGBTQ people) or the interests of those who possess the power and resources to collect the data?” I believe that more times than not, data is captured and shaped by the interests of those who possess the power and resources to collect the data.  The mere act of collecting the data leads many to assume that therefore the interests of the groups about whom the data relates to is reflected in the data, even if that may not be the case… which can have dangerous implications in attempts to relay an “objective truth” that is at the same time being constructed and self-validated. There is no denying that data is always situated in the context of the collector. The “queering” of collection methods in data journalism involves redefining the relationship between researcher and participant, through communal and consensual processes of building knowledge in non-hierarchical ways. It also asks for more fluidity in the “moving targets” of identity, reinforcing the dynamic nature of who we are and how we change as humans throughout our life. Above all, data journalism has a responsibility in taking time to think and share about how journalistic intent shapes the data collected. It’s crucial to be honest about positionalities when presenting a data journalism project, and to consider the context in which participants may view themselves in relation to others in the act of attempting to codify one’s own identity. Given the ability of data to not only shape our reality but also present itself as “natural”, there is immense responsibility to the public needed for accountability when we realize failures in data collection practices. Steven’s article is an example of what this accountability can look like. “One Size Fits Man” by Caroline Criado-Perez exemplifies the wide-ranging consequences of misogyny and patriarchy as it relates to women’s experiences with technology that was simply not built for them. The power dynamics of domination are reinforced in datasets that center men more than women, and misrepresent women in the representation that does exist. Sometimes, the existence of data at all creates attitudes that disregard the very real critiques made in hopes of data collection that enables building technology for all people,as shown in the example given by Criado-Perez about Tom Schalk’s offensive and lazy response to reports of faulty voice technology in car navigation systems. A nuanced approach in data journalism is essential to reinforcing the importance of intersectional voices.

I felt particularly inspired by Noortje Marres’ guiding critical question with regards to data journalism: “What are the methods, materials, techniques and arrangements that we curate in order to create spaces where problems can be addressed differently?” The research agency Forensic Architecture has been involved in investigations into human rights violations through a deeply collaborative and situated practice of blending architectural analysis techniques, immersive technologies, and testimonial interviews. From their website, Forensic Architecture’s mandate is “to develop, disseminate, and employ new techniques for evidence gathering and presentation in the service of human rights and environmental investigations and in support of communities exposed to state violence and persecution… [a]rchitectural analysis and digital modelling techniques enable us to unravel that complexity, and to present information in a convincing, precise, and accessible manner–qualities which are crucial for the pursuit of accountability.”

Before I talk about Forensic Architecture’s investigation “Dispossession and the Memory of the Earth: Dispossession in Nueva Colonia”, I wanted to highlight two other data journalism investigations that I highly recommend to read about with regards to Israeli settler colonial occupation of Palestine, and the historical and ongoing violent displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians: Living Archaeology in Gaza, and Sheikh Jarrah: Ethnic Cleansing in Jerusalem. Both of these investigations are incredibly relevant and can help us all learn more about the genocidal oppression of Palestinians in Gaza. It’s crucial that we be critical of the propaganda-filled news cycles that continue to circulate in mainstream media in the Global North. Similar questions raised in The Data Journalism Handbook can be applied to thinking critically about the news we consume: Which news do we continue to see, and whose news? Whose narratives are being pushed forward, and whose are being ignored? Remember… [news] are not “neutral and straightforward representations of the world, but [are] rather entangled with politics and culture, money and power” (Jonathan Gray and Liliana Bounegru, “Introduction” in The Data Journalism Handbook).

“Dispossession and the Memory of the Earth: Dispossession in Nueva Colonia” focuses on the violent and hidden dispossession of campesino land in the Colombian region of Urabá Antioqueño. The purpose of the project is to show the various actors involved in land dispossession through concerted efforts of “armed repression, massacres, and terror spread by private paramilitary forces, serving local and international banana producers under the protection of the Colombian military.” Forensic Architecture used 3D architectural technologies to digitally reconstruct 100 km² of stolen and threatened land through situated testimony. The immersive nature of the technologies used help to provide affected campesinos an opportunity to archive and re-experience temporalities of “not only places that were lost, but also their farms which they have struggled to hold on to.” The lack of focus on purely quantitative data (from aerial and satellite imagery + financial data from 1955 to present) through interviews serves to empower disenfranchised campesinos, reinforces their humanity and embodied presence on their dispossessed land, and places value on their testimonies as a foundation for data journalism investigations. Forensic Architecture’s investigation is placed within the context of oppression on global scales, as shown in the following quote highlighting the role of the Israeli Defense Forces in developing techniques for violent policing and surveillance: “We interviewed a judge who investigated the massacres, and who was forced into exile after identifying the former paramilitaries who committed the massacre, and Yair Klein, a former Israeli military officer who trained them.” “Dispossession and the Memory of the Earth: Dispossession in Nueva Colonia” is a powerful investigation that exposes the “agricultural canal systems of banana businesses and other environmental elements… used by landowners to flood the fields of campesinos, and contribute to the destruction of their fields, and eventual dispossession,” both through a comprehensive 24-minute video shared through exhibitions, events, and press, and an interactive web platform containing a cluster visualizations, timeline, and map for multiple ways of engaging with the scale of land dispossession that took place.

“The public” is grass-roots community, through which collective survival and flourishing is accomplished, when we as individual people are able to balance our personal desires for thriving with an interest in prospering as a collective. In its very nature, the public is experimental, existing in a state of constant evolution rather than stable configuration.

I’m particularly drawn to Dewey’s interpretation of “the public” as “consist[ing] of all of those who are affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that it is deemed necessary to have those consequences systematically cared for.”  In the age of rapidly evolving technology, “the public” continues to expand beyond the local as our digital lives intertwine and entrench the consequences of our actions on a potentially global scale. A single human being’s desires and interests are furthermore reflective of “the public” in increasingly subtle and elusive ways due to the overwhelming mass-production of connection and association to others in our technological age. Technology complicates our formulation and understanding of “the public” as the state of the world changes faster than we are able to envision new social contracts for how we treat others. Dewey notes that “American democratic polity was developed out of genuine community life, that is, association in local and small centers where industry was mainly agricultural and where production was carried on mainly with hang tools” – despite the historic origin of our local democratic model of self-governing government, industrialization has transformed our community life towards one of global breadth rather than local depth, with little changes to our formulations of what community could look and a lack of true acceptance that the world has evolved beyond what once was.

In “The Public and its Problems,” Dewey implicitly refers to the accountability carried out for matters concerning “the public.” I believe that accountability is a critical component of any public, representing a blend of personal and public desire to act with greater camaraderie, both for ourselves individually and for the community as a whole. Without trusted avenues for accountability, “the public” is destroyed through a disillusionment that others will also sacrifice their own personal interests for the collective good.

Although “the commons” has persisted as a tragedy, and at times served as a solution, I believe it exists as a site for political and social contest. In “The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study” by Stefano Harney and Fred Moten, the undercommons is described as a space of resistance, of questioning, of connecting with others communally and perpetually rebuilding visions for the world. I would like to live in a world where we are able to re-imagine “the commons” by recognizing and dismantling historical power structures that form it. There is no denying the oppressive forces employed in the war for resources in the name of protecting “the commons” – and tragedy as it is, it is through intentional accountability in political and social contest that we ensure that we learn and grow from past mistakes in reconceptualizing a more just world for us all.