算法介导的判断:社交媒体中政治主体性的arendtian视角

IF 4.7 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Anthony Longo
{"title":"算法介导的判断:社交媒体中政治主体性的arendtian视角","authors":"Anthony Longo","doi":"10.1007/s00146-025-02230-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article examines how algorithms mediate the human faculty of judgment within the context of social media. Challenging the common view that algorithms ‘undermine’ or ‘eliminate’ human judgment, I argue instead that they mediate the human-world relations in which judgments emerge. Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s phenomenological approach to identity and judgment, the article deconstructs prevailing assumptions about ‘human judgment’ and ‘algorithmic judgment’ and proposes a different approach to understand user-algorithm relations as co-constitutive rather than oppositional. In line with the ‘empirical turn’ in the philosophy of technology, which emphasizes the importance of grounding philosophical inquiry in lived experience, the proposed philosophical approach is developed and illustrated through a case study of ADHD-related content on TikTok. The case study demonstrates how algorithmic amplification becomes part of self-apprehension and public discourse. Through this lens, the article explores the interplay between self-disclosure, judgment, and the collective formation of political subjectivity, revealing the productive and disruptive roles algorithms play in these processes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"40 6","pages":"4905 - 4918"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Algorithmically mediated judgment: an arendtian perspective on political subjectivity in social media\",\"authors\":\"Anthony Longo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00146-025-02230-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article examines how algorithms mediate the human faculty of judgment within the context of social media. Challenging the common view that algorithms ‘undermine’ or ‘eliminate’ human judgment, I argue instead that they mediate the human-world relations in which judgments emerge. Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s phenomenological approach to identity and judgment, the article deconstructs prevailing assumptions about ‘human judgment’ and ‘algorithmic judgment’ and proposes a different approach to understand user-algorithm relations as co-constitutive rather than oppositional. In line with the ‘empirical turn’ in the philosophy of technology, which emphasizes the importance of grounding philosophical inquiry in lived experience, the proposed philosophical approach is developed and illustrated through a case study of ADHD-related content on TikTok. The case study demonstrates how algorithmic amplification becomes part of self-apprehension and public discourse. Through this lens, the article explores the interplay between self-disclosure, judgment, and the collective formation of political subjectivity, revealing the productive and disruptive roles algorithms play in these processes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AI & Society\",\"volume\":\"40 6\",\"pages\":\"4905 - 4918\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AI & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02230-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02230-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了算法如何在社交媒体的背景下调解人类的判断能力。对于算法“破坏”或“消除”人类判断的普遍观点,我提出了挑战,相反,它们调解了判断产生的人类与世界的关系。借鉴汉娜·阿伦特(Hannah Arendt)对身份和判断的现象学方法,本文解构了关于“人类判断”和“算法判断”的流行假设,并提出了一种不同的方法来理解用户-算法关系是共同构成的,而不是对立的。根据技术哲学的“经验转向”,强调以生活经验为基础的哲学探究的重要性,提出的哲学方法是通过对TikTok上adhd相关内容的案例研究来发展和说明的。案例研究展示了算法放大如何成为自我理解和公共话语的一部分。通过这一视角,本文探讨了自我披露、判断和政治主体性集体形成之间的相互作用,揭示了算法在这些过程中所扮演的生产性和破坏性角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Algorithmically mediated judgment: an arendtian perspective on political subjectivity in social media

This article examines how algorithms mediate the human faculty of judgment within the context of social media. Challenging the common view that algorithms ‘undermine’ or ‘eliminate’ human judgment, I argue instead that they mediate the human-world relations in which judgments emerge. Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s phenomenological approach to identity and judgment, the article deconstructs prevailing assumptions about ‘human judgment’ and ‘algorithmic judgment’ and proposes a different approach to understand user-algorithm relations as co-constitutive rather than oppositional. In line with the ‘empirical turn’ in the philosophy of technology, which emphasizes the importance of grounding philosophical inquiry in lived experience, the proposed philosophical approach is developed and illustrated through a case study of ADHD-related content on TikTok. The case study demonstrates how algorithmic amplification becomes part of self-apprehension and public discourse. Through this lens, the article explores the interplay between self-disclosure, judgment, and the collective formation of political subjectivity, revealing the productive and disruptive roles algorithms play in these processes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AI & Society
AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
257
期刊介绍: AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信