Hi! I prepared slides for each chapter of my book 'Algorithmic gatekeeping for professional communicators - power, trust and legitimacy'. (OPEN ACCESS: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375258) These are the slides for chapter 5 discussing ways towards trusted and legitimate algorithmic gatekeeping. The slides can be used in teaching, since they provide: -summary of the main points of the chapter -discussion questions -suggestions for further reading (open access resources)

1. Chapter 5:
Algorithmic Power,
Trust and Legitimacy

2. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Findings 1: Algorithmic gatekeeping
power
 Findings challenge strong technological deterministic discourse
Algorithms not only negative forces
Algorithmic power situated in the interplay between platforms, audiences, and professional
communicators
 Mediating power
Algorithms affect and limit spread of misinformation
 Structuring power
Professional communicators adapt behaviour to what is rewarded by algorithms
Resistance within boundaries set by algorithms

3. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Findings 2: Algorithmic gatekeeping:
trust, and legitimacy
 Distrust
General population distrusts algorithms selecting and creating news
Skepticism about the possibility that algorithms can provide objective, balanced, and diverse
information
People want humans in the loop
Younger generations more positive
 Lack of legitimacy
Character of persons behind algorithms not a source of legitimacy
Algorithms perceived as not living up to key democratic values
Skeptical that algorithms benefit ordinary people
Algorithms perceived as having negative impact on community, connection, diverse and open debate

4. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Implications: towards trusted and
legitimate algorithmic gatekeeping
 Transparency
 Regulation
 Human in the loop (elevator operators)
 Principled or consequential approach to countering biases in algorithm design
 Effects for trust in news and public information in general?

5. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Algorithm literacy
What kind of understanding of algorithms in required?
Theory of machine mind
“Human-algorithm coordination needs not human agents who grasp the code behind the algorithmic
aid, but rather a high-level model of its purpose and perception.” (Burton et al. 2020, p. 227)

6. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Discussion questions
 Do you think that transparency and regulation can be a way towards trusted and legitimate
algorithmic gatekeeping?
 The book argues that journalists could function as elevator operators to build trust towards
algorithmic gatekeeping. What would that look like?
 The book argues that human journalists in the loop could be a way towards more trusted and
legitimate algorithmic gatekeeping. Explain that this is most likely to work in Northern European
media systems. What about other media systems?
 Which values should guide (1) a principled and (2) a consequential approach to countering biases
in the design of algorithmic gatekeeping?
 Do you think algorithmic gatekeeping could function without humans (like elevators today without
elevator operators), or do you think that professional communicators should stay in the loop (like
pilots in highly automated planes)?
 “Human-algorithm coordination needs not human agents who grasp the code behind the
algorithmic aid, but rather a high-level model of its purpose and perception.” (Burton et al. 2020, p.
227). What could such a high-level model look like?

7. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Recommended reading (open access)
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and
its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3): 973–989.
(http://ananny.org/papers/anannyCrawford_seeingWithoutKnowing_2016.pdf)
Van Dalen, A. (2019a). Journalism, Trust, and Credibility. In: K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.).
The Handbook of Journalism Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 356–371.
(https://findresearcher.sdu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/155570015/Journalism_trust_and_credibility.pdf)
Cobbe, J. (2021). Algorithmic censorship by social platforms: Power and resistance. Philosophy &
Technology, 34(4): 739–766. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-020-00429-0)
Helberger, N., Karppinen, K., & D’acunto, L. (2018). Exposure diversity as a design principle for
recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society, 21(2): 191–207.
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900)

8. Van Dalen, Arjen (2023). Algorithmic Gatekeeping for Professional Communicators: Power, Trust and Legitimacy.
Available Open Access: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375258
About: