The document discusses human agency in algorithmic systems, particularly focusing on user perceptions and control over social media algorithms, like those used by Facebook. It highlights a lack of user awareness regarding algorithmic curation and presents recommendations for creating fair algorithms that balance individual and cultural values, ensure system reliability, and afford users greater control over their data. The findings stem from workshops and surveys involving various stakeholders, emphasizing the need for transparency and options for users in navigating algorithmic content.

1. Human Agency on
Algorithmic Systems
ANSGAR KOENE & ELVIRA PEREZ VALLEJOS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
HELENA WEBB & MENISHA PATEL, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
AOIR 2017

2. User experience satisfaction on social
network sites
2

3. Human attention is a limited resource
Filter3

4. Good information service = good filtering
4

5. Sacrificing control for Convenience
5

6. Sacrificing control for Convenience
6

7. Personalized recommendations
 Content based – similarity to past results the user liked
 Collaborative – results that similar users liked
(people with statistically similar tastes/interests)
 Community based – results that people in the same social
network liked
(people who are linked on a social network e.g. ‘friends’)
7

8. How do the algorithms work?
8

10. User understanding of social media
algorithms: Facebook News Feed
Of 40 interviewed participants more than 60% of Facebook users
are entirely unaware of any algorithmic curation on Facebook at
all: “They believed every single story from their friends and
followed pages appeared in their news feed”.
Published at: CHI 2015
10

11. Pre-workshop survey of 96 teenagers
(13-17 years old)
 No preference between the internet experience to be more personalised or more
‘organic’: A.: 53% More personalised, 47% More ‘organic’
 Lack of awareness about the way search engines rank the information but
participants believe it’s important for people to know
• How much do you know?- A.: 36% Not much, 58% A little, 6% Quite a lot
• Do you think it’s important to know?- A:. 62% Yes, 16% Not really, 22% Don’t know
 Regulation role: Who makes sure that the Internet and digital world is safe and
neutral? A:.4% Police, 23% Nobody, 29% Government, 44% The big tech companies

12. Multi-Stakeholder Workshop,
Multiple stakeholders: academia, education, NGOs, industry
30 participants
Fairness in relation to algorithmic design and practice
Four key case studies: fake news, personalisation, gaming the system, and
transparency
What constitutes a fair algorithm?
What kinds of (legal and ethical) responsibilities do Internet companies have,
to ensure their algorithms produce results that are fair and without bias?

13. Fairness in relation to algorithmic design and
practice - participant recommendations
 Criteria relating to social norms and values:
 Criteria relating to system reliability:
 Criteria relating to (non-)interference with user control:

14. Criteria relating to social norms and values:
(i) Sometimes disparate outcome are acceptable if based on
individual lifestyle choices over which people have control.
(ii) Ethical precautions are more important than higher accuracy.
(iii)There needs to be a balancing of individual values and socio-
cultural values. Problem: How to weigh relevant social-
cultural value?

15. Criteria relating to system reliability:
(i) Results must be balanced with due regard for trustworthiness.
(ii) Need for independent system evaluation and monitoring over
time.

16. Criteria relating to (non-)interference
with user control:
(i) Subjective fairness experience depends on user objectives at
time of use, therefore requires an ability to tune the data and
algorithm.
(ii) Users should be able to limit data collection about them and
its use. Inferred personal data is still personal data. Meaning
assigned to the data must be justified towards the user.
(iii)Functioning of algorithm should be demonstrated/explained in
a way that can be understood by the data subject.

17. Criteria relating to (non-)interference
with user control:
(iv) If not vital to the task, there should be option to opt-out of
the algorithm
(v) Users must have freedom to explore algorithm effects, even
if this would increase the ability to “game the system”
(vi)Need for clear means of appeal/redress for impact of the
algorithmic system.

18. Take (some) control of News Feed priorities
18

19. Letting users choose the Algorithm

20. Evaluating fairness from outputs only
Most preferred
Least preferred

21. Evaluating fairness with knowledge
about the algorithm decision principles
 A1: minimise disparity while
guaranteeing at least 70% of
maximum possible total
 A2: maximise the minimum
individual outcome while
guaranteeing at least 70% of
maximum possible total
 A3: maximise total
 A4: maximise the minimum
individual outcome
 A5: minimise disparity
Most preferred
Least preferred

22. Conclusion
Algorithmic mediation (can) plays an important role in improving
the usefulness of online services.
Users want more options to understand, adjust or even opt-out of
algorithmic mediation
Users do not agree on a single option when choosing a ‘best’
algorithm for a given task.

23. Thank you!
http://unbias.wp.horizon.ac.uk/
Open invitation to join the P7003 working group
http://sites.ieee.org/sagroups-7003/

25. 25
Revealing News Feed behaviour

26. Participants indicate desired changes
26

27. 27

29. Machine learning principles
Classifiers
Clustering
29

30. E. Bakshy, S. Medding & L.A. Adamic, “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook” Science, 348, 1130-1132, 2015
Echo-chamber enhancement by NewsFeed
algorithm
10.1 million active US Facebook users
Proportion of content that is cross-cutting
30

31. E. Bakshy, S. Medding & L.A. Adamic, “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook” Science, 348, 1130-1132, 2015
Positioning effect in NewsFeed
31