Ad series for UN Women by Memac Ogilvy & Mather Dubai

Ad series for UN Women by Memac Ogilvy & Mather Dubai

In my previous posts here and here I have lamented how mainstream advertising agencies most often perpetuate the stereotypes when portraying women so lo and behold when I see a mainstream advertising firm taking up the issue of stereotyping I was excited to see it but unfortunately that was short-lived. This recent campaign by UN Women using Google’s instant search tool box to “reveals widespread sexism” has stirred many an emotion. They range from disbelief to evidence of what they knew already.

But is Google telling the truth? Google Instant is an “autocomplete” feature – which, according to their site is:” a search enhancement that shows results as you type.”

It is based on the company’s careful mining of hundreds of billions of searches performed each month. For anyone who wants to know how Google describe how it works here’s the official blog explaining during its launch. It is important to understand how this works before we use its results and say its telling the truth. Perhaps its seemless-ness in our daily search imparts the impression that its the truth. Google seems to know most often what I am looking for when I start typing in the search box, hence my conclusion is that it knows what I want – and when what it throws up as result is exactly what I wanted – I begin to feel that it is telling me “the truth”. I am exaggerating the chain of thought but in a sense the UN Women campaign is basing it on this principle – What google search is showing is the “truth”.

The campaign though powerful misses the important consideration which is that Google instant is based on an algorithm that uses important factors such as your location, your search history, your language, your timing, your browsing history, the “freshness” of any topic in determining what text to complete your sentence with. Here’s a dated but useful article to show how it works in detail. All these factors including Google’s policy on what it censors influences what shows up.

From a campaign point of view its capitalizing on 1 factor: shock factor, not just the shock of how deeply rooted sexism is but the shock of seamless integration of Google instant search box in our lives. Which is a good campaign but it is also using incorrectly the public perception that there is a direct linearity of relationship between what Google autocomplete throws up with what we all really think (ie is the truth). The bigger problem for me is not what this campaign is subtly but definitely using but rather the ability of a company to use its algorithmic prowess to feed us what we should be believing as the truth. The great danger this poses is that we are stuck in a loop of information that reinforces incorrect information for all future searches. One way, at least for me, was to turn autocomplete off just by changing one setting. I recommend trying it then perhaps we will really search for what we wanted rather than be sucked into believing what is being fed to us is what we were looking for.

Let this post not confuse you that I am saying sexism does not exist, let it not be misread for one minute that we are not surrounded by injustice towards women. That is the truth. But this post is not about that and if you did not understand that well then this post was lost on you.

Image from Dan Hodges blog on telegraph.co.uk

When I read this news the first time, I read it with little discomfort. I realized there is nothing much I can do to change it so it didn’t bother me. Till I read it again this morning when it appeared on my feed. This time I read it while I was reading the recent debate going on between Sen-Bhagwati, here’s a good piece to get updated on whats happened so far. In a nutshell its about two views on India’s economic reform policy from two leading economists. Amartya Sen’s view is more investment in social infrastructure boosts the productivity of a nations people and thereby raises growth, Bhagwati on the other hand views that only a focus on growth can yield enough resources for investing in social sector schemes. Both may disagree on what is more important but it cant be denied that Sen weds his conception of enhancing the poor’s capabilities to the presence and expansion of capitalist markets. Lets leave this thought for a moment, and come back to why the gmail news bothered me today.

I adopted gmail because it was free (well not really, but you know what I mean), new and the invite was a birthday gift in 2004. So I dropped all previous email clients, (yahoo, rediffmail, hotmail) and moved lock stock and barrel to gmail. The adoption came easy, everyone who was internet savvy at the time had a gmail address. I joined in the exclusive category, even offered to forward invites when I was bestowed with them to my select few. This modus operandi can be applied to adoption of other free internet based platforms to meet various social needs, to name a few: facebook, orkut, twitter etc. Disguised as free these are all fruits of capitalism. They are funded by venture capitalists, though they may have been started by young innovators in their dorm rooms initially but they all have very deep pockets behind them that want them to make their pockets deeper. In our society today, capitalism defines every aspect of our social being and that applies profoundly to the internet. In fact this gmail news was a huge reality check of sorts and that bothered me.

I, like many others am interested in social change and social good. I like many others have seen the potential benefits of technology in changing power dynamics for the better. Not naive about it, I have also been aware of the negative implications. But at the same time the crude capitalistic undertones had not become more obvious than now [partly because am slow :)]. But the complete unfazed profit motive of today’s corporates is a matter of both grave concern not just for those online but those offline as well. When Herbert Marcuse wrote in his 1964 book One-Dimensional Man: “The traditional notion of the ‘neutrality’ of technology can no longer be maintained. Technology as such cannot be isolated from the use to which it is put; the technological society is a system of domination which operates already in the concept and construction of techniques.”

As I ranted in my other post, “The effects of a technology are a product of the interaction of its components with other components, where each component has a purpose and is a technology in itself.” the Internet and the companies that provide services on it are shaped by how we as society opt to develop them. When we as a society are driven by our capitalist, profit driven agenda then it is no wonder that the Internet itself becomes a capitalist’s ultimate tool. So whether one agrees with Sen or Bhagwati economic reform policy in either cases seems to lead us to greater presence and expansion of capitalism.

Post Navigation