5 changed files with 61 additions and 33 deletions
@ -1,12 +1,14 @@ |
|||
Title: Introduction: Bot Logic |
|||
Slug: 01-s4-introduction |
|||
Date: 2020-11-01 12:00 |
|||
Summary: |
|||
Summary: Bots as computational infrapunctures |
|||
|
|||
## Bots as infrapunctures |
|||
*Infrapuncture* is a helpful term at a time when there is a lot of discussion around the political roles of automated agents in digital infrastructures. |
|||
|
|||
Infrapuncture is a helpful term at a time when there is a lot of discussion around the political roles of automated agents in digital infrastructures. |
|||
Many online communities engage with bots, for example the editor community of English Wikipedia, which consists of both humans and bots. The interactions between them go beyond the maintenance of Wikipedia. Instead, affective relations are formed wherein the bots are anthropomorphised. |
|||
|
|||
Many online communities engage with bots, for example the editor community of English Wikipedia, which consists of both humans and bots. The interactions between them go beyond the maintenance of Wikipedia. Instead, affective relations are formed wherein the bots are anthropomorphised. So writing a bot implies not only to understand the API (Application Programming Inferface) of the platform, what determines the possibilities of interaction, but also the social norms established within the community of editors and users of Wikipedia. |
|||
Making a bot can also be a way to probe and understand potential forms of interventions, create new imaginaries or deflate existing hegemonic structures. |
|||
|
|||
And that's of course just one example. Bots act differently depending on the platform on which they are running. |
|||
Before launching a bot into a digital environment, the bot maker needs find both a technical and a social entry point. Writing a bot does therefor not only imply technical knowledge about an API (Application Programming Inferface) of a platform. It also implies a thorough understanding of what determines the possibilities of interaction and the social norms established within a social environment. In the case of Wikipedia, it means that a bot maker needs to develop an understanding of the social dynamics of the community of editors and users of Wikipedia. And that's of course just one example. Bots act differently depending on the platform on which they are running. |
|||
|
|||
By introducing this as *bot logic*, the aim is to highlight the sociality that shapes (or is shaped by) bots. |
|||
|
|||
@ -1,35 +1,52 @@ |
|||
Title: Bot Logic |
|||
Slug: 01-s4-bot-logic |
|||
Date: 2020-11-01 11:59 |
|||
Summary: |
|||
Title: Bot Logic vs. Platform Logic |
|||
Slug: 02-s4-bot-logic |
|||
Date: 2020-11-01 12:01 |
|||
Summary: What kind of logics do bots use to operate? |
|||
|
|||
## Bot logic |
|||
What kind of logics do bots use to operate? |
|||
|
|||
What kind of puncturing logics might bots enable in digital platforms? |
|||
*Bot logic* refers to the situational effect of bots upon a socio-technical ecology and their potential to infiltrate and co-exist with server-side conditions. The term *bot logic* is phrased as a response to *platform logic*, which Jonas Andersson Schwarz describes as |
|||
|
|||
Bot logic is phrased as a response to platform logic, which Jonas Andersson Schwarz describes as "digital platforms enacting a twofold logic of micro-level technocentric control and macro-level geopolitical domination, while at the same time having a range of generative outcomes, arising between these two levels". |
|||
> digital platforms enacting a twofold logic of micro-level technocentric control and macro-level geopolitical domination, while at the same time having a range of generative outcomes, arising between these two levels[^platformlogic]. |
|||
|
|||
'Bot logic' refers to the situational effect of bots upon a socio-technical ecology and their potential to infiltrate and co-exist with server-side conditions. Perhaps we can move our attention to these few points. When referring to platform logic in the points below, we refer to commercial infrastructures, not federated and free software platforms such as those present in the Fediverse, which have a different kind of dynamics[^theses]. |
|||
What are the differences between *bot logic* and *platform logic*? |
|||
|
|||
* Where platform logic accumulates, bot logic disperses |
|||
---------- |
|||
|
|||
* On commercial platforms, the engagement of users equals economic value that is translated through data capture and organisation. Metadata is extracted from users that then through pattern matching can be used to target users for advertisements. While bots can and do participate in this economy, they can also enable its sabotage. In the case of buying bot followers, this can be a means to generate noise in the collected dataset and blur the perception of the user as a set of behaviours that the platform has. |
|||
* Where platform logic accumulates, *bot logic* disperses |
|||
|
|||
* Where platform logic centralises, bot logic fragments |
|||
On commercial platforms, the engagement of users equals economic value that is translated through data capture and organisation. Metadata is extracted from users that then through pattern matching can be used to target users for advertisements. While bots can and do participate in this economy, they can also enable its sabotage. In the case of buying bot followers, this can be a means to generate noise in the collected dataset and blur the perception of the user as a set of behaviours that the platform has. |
|||
|
|||
* Platforms such as Twitter or Facebook use a centralised system, in the sense that the servers on which our information is stored are owned by their company. Bots, on the other hand, do not require a lot of computational power in order to run. They can be simply run from the computers of the persons who wrote the code themselves. In fact, bots really point to the materiality of the structures on which they run, as researcher Stuart Geiger also points out when he talks about 'bespoke code' as code that extends or transforms the operations of software platforms, but "runs on top of or alongside existing systems instead of being more directly integrated into and run on software-side codebases". |
|||
* Where platform logic centralises, *bot logic* fragments |
|||
|
|||
* Where platform logic creates distance between user and infrastructure, bot logic develops an intimate knowledge of the platform |
|||
Platforms such as Twitter or Facebook are built as centralized systems: the servers on which information is stored are owned by these companies. The servers are triggering the need for immensive datacenter infrastructures throughout the world. Bots, on the other hand, do not require a lot of computational power in order to run. They can be simply executed from the computers of the bot-makers themselves. In fact, bots really point to the materiality of the systems on which they run, as researcher Stuart Geiger also points out when he talks about *bespoke code*: |
|||
|
|||
* If we consider means of communication as means of production (Williams, 2005), there is a certain alienation that happens on commercial centralised platforms, where the user has no stake in the development of the material conditions of the platform on which they communicate. From this point of view, the making of bots implies a closeness to the platform that is indicated through the understanding of both the sociological and technical systems that determine the usership of a platform. In order to code a bot, you need to know what kind of actions are allowed and how the bot would be received by the community. |
|||
> [code that] runs on top of or alongside existing systems instead of being more directly integrated into and run on software-side codebases[^geiger]. |
|||
|
|||
* Where platform logic reinforces habitual behaviour, bot logic encourages new habit formation |
|||
* Where platform logic creates distance between user and infrastructure, *bot logic* develops an intimate knowledge of the platform |
|||
|
|||
* If we think about a commercial platform as a structure or surface on which actions can take place, these actions are often predefined by the affordances of the platform. However, as was mentioned in the beginning, bots are the automation of certain actions and behaviours. To be able to define these behaviours as a user can mean an alteration of the socialities embedded in a platform. |
|||
If we consider means of communication as means of production[^means], there is a process of alienation that happens on commercial centralised platforms, where the user has no stake in the development of the material conditions of the platform on which they communicate. From this point of view, the making of bots implies a closeness to the platform that is indicated through the understanding of both the sociological and technical systems that determine the usership of a platform. In order to write a bot, as mentioned before, you need to know what kind of actions are allowed and how the bot would be received by the community. |
|||
|
|||
All of these points were written with commercial platforms in mind, however, exciting developments are happening in federated platforms such as Mastodon, where users are part of defining features and possibilities of interaction. There, the norms of the platform and the way they are codified into the technical structure are more often revised and reformulated together with the user base. This in itself creates a different space for bots, which are still active contributors in the way sociality is imagined on these platforms. However, on platforms like Mastodon, bots don't only comply to the terms of services of the API but also to the code of conduct, for example. |
|||
* Where platform logic reinforces habitual behaviour, *bot logic* encourages new habit formation |
|||
|
|||
If we think about a commercial platform as a structure or surface on which actions can take place, these actions are often predefined by the affordances of the platform. However, bots are the automation of certain actions and behaviours. To be able to define these behaviours, a user needs to be provided with the means to alternate the socialities of a platform. |
|||
|
|||
<!-- It is good to note however, that by referring to *platforms* in the points below, we refer to commercial infrastructures (not federated and free software platforms such as those present in the Fediverse, which have a different kind of dynamics[^theses]). --> |
|||
|
|||
--------- |
|||
|
|||
API, Stuart Geiger |
|||
All of these points were written with commercial platforms in mind, however, exciting developments are happening in federated platforms such as Mastodon, where users are part of defining features and possibilities of interaction. There, the norms of the platform and the way they are codified into the technical structure are more often revised and reformulated together with the people using the platform. |
|||
|
|||
This in itself creates a different space for bots, which are still active contributors in the way sociality is imagined on these platforms. However, on platforms like Mastodon, bots don't only need to comply to the terms of services of the API, but also to collective agreements such as a code of conduct. |
|||
|
|||
<br> |
|||
|
|||
# Footnotes |
|||
|
|||
[^geiger]: Stuart Geiger |
|||
|
|||
[^platformlogic]: ... |
|||
|
|||
[^theses]: ... |
|||
|
|||
[^means]: (Williams, 2005) |
|||
@ -1,16 +1,20 @@ |
|||
Title: Bot behaviour |
|||
Slug: 01-s4-bot-behaviour |
|||
Date: 2020-11-01 11:58 |
|||
Slug: 03-s4-bot-behaviour |
|||
Date: 2020-11-01 12:02 |
|||
Summary: |
|||
|
|||
As programmable objects, bots have particular action modes. Below some examples (although this is a non-exhaustive list) |
|||
As programmable objects, bots have particular action modes. Below some examples (although this is a non-exhaustive list). |
|||
|
|||
- repetition: bot code can be run repeatedly |
|||
- condition: bot code often is written in response to a particular condition |
|||
- iteration: bot code can be run multiple times |
|||
- memory: bots can rely on a database |
|||
- tempo: bots can operate at a specific time frame as described by the programmer |
|||
- *repetition*: bots can be run repeatedly |
|||
- *condition*: bots are often written in response to a particular condition |
|||
- *iteration*: bots can be used multiple times |
|||
- *memory*: bots can rely on a database |
|||
- *tempo*: bots can operate at a specific time frame as described by the programmer |
|||
|
|||
Of course, these action modes can also be "executed" by humans. It is by no means surprising that many Twitter users are mistaken for bots, or that the term itself has attained a derogatory meaning. However, an interesting phenomenon can be observed on platforms such as Twitter, where human users have adopted a type of bot behaviour to create networks of dissent and to push activist counter-narratives. Such a moment happened recently on Dutch Twitter. In response to the Black Lives Matter protests, extreme right wing politician Geert Wilders posted an image on Twitter on June 5th 2020 using the hashtag #ZwartePietMatters.[^zwartepiet] Following this post, a wave of from the k-pop community |
|||
Of course, these action modes can also be *executed* by humans. |
|||
|
|||
It is by no means surprising that many Twitter users are mistaken for bots, or that the term itself has attained a derogatory meaning. However, an interesting phenomenon can be observed on platforms such as Twitter, where human users have adopted a type of bot behaviour to create networks of dissent and to push activist counter-narratives. |
|||
|
|||
Such a moment happened recently on Dutch Twitter. In response to the Black Lives Matter protests, extreme right wing politician Geert Wilders posted an image on Twitter on June 5th 2020 using the hashtag #ZwartePietMatters.[^zwartepiet] Following this post, a wave of ... from the k-pop community ... |
|||
|
|||
[^zwartepiet]: Zwarte Piet is a ... |
|||
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in new issue