In Chapter 1 of “Toward the Rhetorical Study of Code”, Brock argues that algorithms are not just a technical structure but a rhetorical device. He challenges the common assumption that algorithms are neutral. The algorithm is skewed by every choice embedded in it; no matter if it’s logic or its implementation, it reflects human values, priorities, and assumptions. When code includes algorithms, it becomes a form of communication. This is what makes it capable of influencing behavior, guiding decisions, and shaping outcomes, much like traditional rhetoric. Which is why being careful of what you watch online is so important. One second you’re watching cat videos, the next you’re on the red pill side of the internet because you watched one video a second too long. That extra second communicated that videos similar to that one could be something that you would like to watch, so puff, now here they are. Algorithms are a powerful tool that can ripple through society, affecting trust, security, and interactions at a global scale. They are nowhere near a neutral tool. They, like humans, have to carry ethical and persuasive weight with it, whether it’s intentional or not.
One idea that tripped me up was how algorithms communicate indirectly. I think they communicate directly. I understand that algorithms do not speak, but there are so many other ways to communicate directly without using speech. Their communication is that they guide user behavior, prioritize certain actions or content, and even establish subtle social norms among people. Brock’s example of the Heartbleed Bug shows the large impact small algorithmic decisions have. Made me think of direct communication instead of indirect communication.
Leave a Reply