Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.

P318


Opaque APIs: biases, blind spots, and instability 
Convenors:
Christian Bitar Giraldo (Universidad Javeriana)
Jaime Cuellar (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana)
Send message to Convenors
Chair:
Óscar Moreno-Martínez (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana)
Format:
Traditional Open Panel
Location:
NU-6A52
Sessions:
Wednesday 17 July, -
Time zone: Europe/Amsterdam

Short Abstract:

How opaque can the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) be? Do they camouflage human biases or blind spots? How do their instability, contingency and differentiated access influence the communication process they facilitate? This panel aims to understand APIs as political technologies.

Long Abstract:

How opaque can the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) be? Do they camouflage human biases or blind spots? How do their instability, contingency and differentiated access influence the communication process they facilitate? Do their artificial limits set social limits? APIs are usually defined as intermediary languages, or common codes between systems/applications that work, for example, to extract data from social networks, connect with Chat GPT-style artificial intelligence models or link companies with on-demand workers. Usually, APIs allow researchers or programmers to communicate with companies or designers such as Meta, X, Tik Tok, Reddit, Wikipedia, Google Play, or Open AI, among others. This process of communication, like any other, is not neutral. Following Winner (1987), Verbeek (2011), O’Neil (2016), Weltevrede (2016), and Eubanks (2018), this panel aims to understand APIs as political technologies. Moreover, APIs can be conceived as governance methods much more than simple information intermediaries.

The kind of formats that are welcomed in the panel: papers, dialogue sessions, and workshops.

References:

Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter, 1980), pp. 121-136. The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652

Verbeek, P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press.

O’Neil, Cathy. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown Publishers.

Weltevrede, E. J. T. (2016). Repurposing digital methods: The research affordances of platforms and engines. University of Amsterdam. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=aaaa9bb3-8647-41df-954c-2bb1e9f15d77

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality. How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: ST. Martin´s Press.

Accepted papers:

Session 1 Wednesday 17 July, 2024, -