data voids
EARLY DRAFT
Similar terms
- "evil unicorns"
Related topics
- autocomplete in web search
- null results
- search directives
- ‘Trending’ in search
- warnings in search results
Research, Reporting, and other Writing
- @golebiewski2018data
- @golebiewski2018data
- @caulfield2019data
- @boyd2020questioning
- @tripodi2022propagandists
- @flores-saviaga2022datavoidant
- @brandt2022winning
- @haider2023google
@norocel2023google
Google, data voids, and the dynamics of the politics of exclusion
Authors: Ov Cristian Norocel and Dirk Lewandowski
Journal: Big Data & Society
Volume: 10 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 205395172211490
Year: 2023
DOI: 10.1177/20539517221149099
Keywords: Critical data studies, data void, Germany, politics of exclusion, search engines, Sweden
Abstract
This study deploys a critical approach to big data analytics to gauge the tentative contours of data voids in Google searches that reflect extreme-right dynamics of exclusion in the aftermath of the 2015 humanitarian crisis in Europe. The study adds complexity to the analysis of data voids, expanding the framework of investigation outside the USA context by concentrating on Germany and Sweden. Building on previous big data analytics addressing the politics of exclusion, the study proposes a catalogue of queries concerning the issue of migration in both Germany and Sweden on a continuum from mainstream to extreme-right vocabularies. This catalogue of queries enables specific and localized queries to identify data voids. The results show that a search engine’s reliance on source popularity may lead to extreme-right sources appearing in top positions. Furthermore, using platforms for user-generated content provides a way for localized queries to gain top positions.
@tripodi2023do
‘Do your own research': affordance activation and disinformation spread
Authors: Francesca B. Tripodi, Lauren C. Garcia, Alice E. Marwick
Journal: Information, Communication & Society
Volume: 0 | Number: 0 | Pages: 1-17
Year: 2023
Publisher: Routledge
DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869
Keywords: Affordance theory, platform studies, participatory disinformation, media manipulation
Abstract
Affordances are the perception of what a technical artifact can do. They bridge a technically-determinist perspective with social constructivist theory, acknowledging the material aspects of technology while allowing for user agency. Yet most affordance theory separates out the engagement process into producers and consumers. On one hand, this lens is essential because it considers how an end user interprets, engages, and utilizes technology through their social structure. It highlights how engagement is both constrained and enabled by the creator, but also documents how such engagement might differ from a creator’s intention(s) completely. On the other hand, this framework doesn’t consider the _interactional dimensions_ of affordances theory. This paper fills this gap, relying on sociotechnical theory to analyze three case studies across three different platforms (Twitter, Google Scholar, and Yandex). In doing so, we explain how pundits, propagandists, and conspiracy theorists ‘activate affordances’ to validate their claims. When audiences are primed to ‘do their own research,’ disinformation becomes a more entangled, participatory process.
Public-facing and public service writing
- @tripodi2019testimony
- @tripodi2019devin