In More than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech, Meredith Broussard scrutinises bias encoded into a range of technologies and argues that their eradication should be prioritised as governments develop AI regulation policy. Broussard’s rigorous analysis spotlights the far-reaching impacts of invisible biases on citizens globally and offers practical policy measures to tackle the problem, writes Fabian Lütz.

More than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech. Meredith Broussard. MIT Press. 2023. 

Find this book: 

As the world witnesses advancements in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and new technologies, governments around the world such as the UK and US the EU and international organisations are slowly starting to propose concrete measures, regulation and AI bodies to mitigate any potential negative effects of AI on humans. Against this background, More than a Glitch offers a timely and relevant contribution to the current AI regulatory debate. It provides a balanced look at biases and discriminatory outcomes of technologies, focusing on race, gender and ability bias, topics that tend to receive less attention in public policy discussions. The author’s academic and computer sciences background as well as her previous book Artificial Unintelligence – How Computers Misunderstand the World make her an ideal author to delve into this important societal topic. The book addresses algorithmic biases and algorithmic discrimination which not only receives increasing attention in academic circles but is of practical relevance due to its potential impacts on citizens and considering the choice of regulation in the coming months and years.

[More than a Glitch] provides a balanced look at biases and discriminatory outcomes of technologies, focusing on race, gender and ability bias, topics that tend to receive less attention in public policy discussions

The book’s cornerstone is that technology is not neutral, and therefore racism, sexism and ableism are not mere glitches, but are coded into AI systems.

Broussard argues that “social fairness and mathematical fairness are different. Computers can only calculate mathematical fairness” (2). This paves the way to understand that biases and discriminatory potential are encoded in algorithmic systems, notably by those who have the power to define the models, write the underlying code and decide which datasets to use. She argues that rather than just making technology companies more inclusive, the exclusion of some demographics in the conceptualisation and design of frameworks needs to stop. The main themes of the book, which spans eleven short chapters, are machine bias, facial recognition, fairness and justice systems, student grading by algorithms, ability bias, gender, racism, medical algorithms, the creation of public interest technology and options to “reboot” the system and society.

Biases and discriminatory potential are encoded in algorithmic systems, notably by those who have the power to define the models, write the underlying code and decide which datasets to use.

Two chapters stand out in Broussard’s attempt to make sense of the problems at hand: Chapter Two, “Understanding Machine Bias” and more specifically Chapter Seven “Gender Rights and Databases”. Both illustrate the author’s compelling storytelling skills and her ability to explain complex problems and decipher the key issues surrounding biases and discrimination.

Chapter Two describes one of the major applications of AI: machine learning which Broussard defines as to take

“..a bunch of historical data and instruct a computer to make a model. The model is a mathematical construct that allows us to predict patterns in the data based on what already exists. Because the model describes the mathematical patterns in the data, patterns that humans can’t easily see, you can use that model to predict or recommend something similar” (12).

The author distinguishes between different forms of training a model and discusses the so called “black box problem” – the fact that AI systems are very often opaque – and explainability of machine decisions. Starting from discriminatory treatment of bank loan applications, for example credit score assessment on the basis of length of employment, income or debt, the author explains with illustrative graphs how algorithms find correlations in datasets which could lead to certain discriminatory outcomes. She explains that contrary to humans, machines have the capacity to analyse huge amounts of datasets with data points which enable for example banks to make predictions on the probability of loan repayment. The mathematics underlying such predictions are based on what similar groups of people with similar variables have done in the past. The complex process often hides underlying biases and potential for discriminations. As Broussard points out,

“Black applicants are turned away more frequently than white applicants [and] are offered mortgages at higher rates than white counterparts with the same data […]” (25).

The book also demonstrates convincingly that the owners or designers of the model wield a powerful tool to shape decisions for society. Broussard sums up the chapter and provides crucial advice for AI developers when she states, advice for AI developers when she states,

“If training data is produced out of a system of inequality, don’t use it to build models that make important social decisions unless you ensure the model doesn’t perpetuate inequality” (28).

Chapter Seven looks at how databases impact gender rights, starting with the example of gender transition which is registered in Official Registers. This example illustrates the limitations of algorithmic systems as compared to humans, not only in light of the traditional binary system for assigning gender as male and female, but more generally the binary system that lies at the heart of computing. Both in the gender binary and computer binary framework, choices need to be made between one or the other leaving no flexibility. Broussard describes the binary system as follows:

“Computers are powered by electricity, and the way they work is that there is a transistor, a kind of gate, through which electricity flows. If the gate is closed, electricity flows through, and that is represented by a 1. If the gate is open, there is no electricity, and that is represented by a 0” (107).

When programmers design an algorithm, they “superimpose human social values onto a mathematical system.” Broussard urges us to ask ourselves, “Whose values are encoded in the system?” (109).

The resulting choices that need to be made within AI systems or forms used in administration often do not adequately represent reality. For people who do not feel represented by the options of male and female, such as gender non-conforming people, they are asked to make the choice in which category they fall even though this would not reflect their gender identity. Here again, Broussard reminds us of the importance of design choices and assumptions of coders which impact people’s everyday life. When programmers design an algorithm, they “superimpose human social values onto a mathematical system.” Broussard urges us to ask ourselves, “Whose values are encoded in the system?” (109). The chapter concludes with the challenge of making “technological systems more inclusive” (116) and argues that computers constitute not only mathematical but sociotechnical systems that need to be updated regularly in order to reflect societal change.

Computers constitute not only mathematical but sociotechnical systems that need to be updated regularly in order to reflect societal change.

The book successfully describes the invisible dangers and impacts of these rapidly advancing technologies in terms of race, gender and ability bias, making these ideas accessible through concrete examples. Ability bias is discussed in Chapter Seven, “Ability and Technology”, where she gives several examples, how technology companies try to provide technology to serve the disabled community in their daily jobs or lives. She gives the example of Apple shops where either sign language interpreters are available or where Apple equips employees with an iPad to communicate with customers. For consumers, she also highlights Voiceover screen reader software, auto-captioning and transcripts of audio or read-aloud functions of newspaper sites. Broussard points both to the advantages and the limitations of those technological solutions.

She also introduces the idea of tackling biases and discrimination with the help of audit systems

Readers are invited to reflect on concrete policy proposals and suggestions, on the basis of some ideas sketched out in last chapter, “Potential Reboot” where she shows her enthusiasm for the EU’s proposed AI Act and the US Algorithmic Accountability Act. She also introduces the idea of tackling biases and discrimination with the help of audit systems and presents a project for one such system based on the regulatory sandbox idea, which is a “safe space for testing algorithms or policies before unleashing them on the world” (175). The reader might wish that Broussard‘s knowledge of technology and awareness of discrimination issues could have informed the ongoing policy debate even further.

In sum, the book will be of interest and use to a wide range of readers, from students, specialised academics, policy makers and AI experts to those new to the field who want to learn more about the impacts of AI on society.

This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.

Image Credit: Vintage Tone on Shutterstock.

Dozens of prominent investors and business leaders traveled to Israel this week to show solidarity with Israel amid its war on Hamas, according to documents from the junket obtained by The Intercept.

The trip included top officials from private equity firms like Bain Capital; leaders from the tech industry, like a Patreon executive; and a managing director at the endowment investment firm of Harvard University, a school riven by political clashes around the Israeli war on Gaza.

“In every war there are multiple fronts. The attendees of this mission are here to help counter the war’s economic disruption.”

The documents, which include an itinerary and list of attendees, provide details about the weeklong meeting taking place in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, called the Israel Tech Mission. Beginning on Sunday, the meeting includes panels like “Tech in the Trenches: Supporting an ecosystem during wartime.”

Participants will hold meetings with top Israeli officials, like President Isaac Herzog, along with opposition leader and former military chief of staff Benny Gantz, who joined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet after the October 7 attack.

Shoring up investor confidence would be welcome news in Israel. The Israeli stock exchange — whose chair Tech Mission participants are slated to meet with on Thursday — suffered billions in losses after the Hamas attack on October 7, though it has gradually recovered. The market losses came in the wake of the reported withdrawal from Israel of some foreign investors when the country was roiled by Netanyahu’s controversial attempt to roll back judicial independence.

The Israel Tech Mission is explicit in its support for the Israeli war effort.

“In every war there are multiple fronts,” Ron Miasnik, a co-organizer of the Israel Tech Mission who invests for Bain Capital, told the Israeli business website CTech. “The attendees of this mission are here to help counter the war’s economic disruption. We are focused on supporting and helping rebuild Israel’s world-class tech industry.”

According to an online application for the trip, a screenshot of which was obtained by The Intercept, attendees on the trip will have to pay their own way. “Attendees will organize their own travel,” the application says. “Participants will cover their own trip cost.”

Israel Defense Forces and Right-Wing Politicians

On the trip, the delegation will spend time with Israel’s senior political leadership as well as military figures. The online trip application says attendees will “receive confidential military and political briefings from former Israeli Prime Minister Nafatali Bennett, as well as current Members of Knesset and senior military leaders.”

The group, according to the itinerary, is scheduled to meet with Israel Defense Forces, or IDF, soldiers on Tuesday before taking part in a “solidarity tech reception” drawing on figures as diverse as the Israeli NBA player and venture capitalist Omri Casspi to the CEO of Goldman Sachs Israel. (In response to a request for comment, Goldman Sach’s U.K. office said it had not heard back from its Israeli office.)

The Israel Tech Mission appears to have been organized by Itrek, a nonprofit based in New York whose logo appears on the itinerary and list of attendees. Itrek sponsors weeklong “Israel Treks” to build “appreciation for Israel among present and future leaders” so they can understand its “complex reality,” according to the group’s website. (Itrek did not respond to a request for comment.)

Israel boasts a robust tech sector. While pro-Israel figures have long touted the country’s reputation as a “start-up nation,” criticisms have emerged in recent years pointing to the role of Israel’s defense sector in creating talent and funding research that becomes the locus of tech projects — effectively profiting off Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The cyber specialists of the Israeli army’s Unit 8200, for instance, are known for creating successful start-ups, sometimes involved in security work and even alleged rights abuses.

Close relationships between Israel’s security state, its tech sector, and the U.S. technology community are common. Tesla CEO Elon Musk met with Netanyahu and top IDF officials last month to discuss “the security aspects of artificial intelligence,” according to a readout of the conversation. The Israeli–Palestinian magazine +972 reported last month that advances in artificial intelligence have allowed the Israeli military to generate targets more rapidly than ever before.

Israel Tech Mission attendees, for their part, are looking to support Israel’s tech sector.

“After October 7th, we feel it is critical for venture capital and technology business leaders to stand with Israel,” David Siegel, CEO of Meetup and co-organizer of the mission, said in a press release. “Our trip was oversubscribed for attendees. The technology community recognizes the heightened need for support as many Israeli entrepreneurs and their workforces are on the front lines as reservists.”

Harvard’s Massive Endowment

The attendee list for the Israel Tech Mission includes a diverse roster of investors and business leaders. Among those listed are top officials at companies working in stock trading such as Vstock Transfer, a stock transfer firm, and TIFIN, a financial technology investment firm that employs artificial intelligence. Investors from private equity funds like Apollo Global Management and Entrepreneur Partners are also slated to participate.

The attendee list also includes business officials like Ariel Boyman, a vice president at Mastercard; Steve Miller, chief financial officer at the glasses retailer Warby Parker; Michael Kohen, who leads the autonomy and automation platform at John Deere; and Jeffrey Swartz, the former CEO of Timberland. (Vstock, TIFIN, Apollo, Entrepreneur Partners, Mastercard, Warby Parker, John Deere, and Swartz did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Read our complete coverage

Israel’s War on Gaza

Also listed as an attendee is Adam Goldstein, managing director at Harvard Management Company, which helps oversee Harvard University’s over $50 billion endowment — the largest on Earth. The endowment investment fund has been accused in the past of investing nearly $200 million in companies that profit off Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. (The Harvard Management Company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Elite Ivy League colleges have become a flash point in the U.S. debate about Israel’s war on Gaza. Harvard has faced a backlash from donors. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman, for instance, has become a strident critic of pro-Palestine students and what he says is the school’s lackluster response to them — a battle fueled by years of resentment. And Harvard President Claudine Gay has faced, and resisted, calls to resign because of her response to pro-Palestinian activism and alleged antisemitism on campus.

In recent years, the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel has gained steam at the university. Last year, the student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, faced a backlash for its endorsement of the BDS campaign — which, if successful, would see Goldstein’s Harvard Management Company divest from Israel.

While Israel Tech Mission delegates are looking to boost the tech sector in Israel, the Israeli war on Gaza is also being used as a pitch for tech firms like NSO Group to improve their image back in the United States. The company was blacklisted by the U.S. when its phone-hacking software Pegasus was shown to be involved in rights abuses.

Lobbyists in Washington working for the company, which has faced cash shortages, have been using the Israeli war on Gaza to refurbish the company’s reputation. In November, the NSO lobbyists wrote to the U.S. State Department to make the case for “the importance of cyber intelligence technology in the wake of the grave security threats posed by the recent Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel and their aftermath.”

The post Harvard Endowment Investor and Other Business Leaders Take a Solidarity Trip to Israel appeared first on The Intercept.

In a letter sent Thursday to Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., calls on the Facebook and Instagram owner to disclose unreleased details about wartime content moderation practices that have “exacerbated violence and failed to combat hate speech,” citing recent reporting by The Intercept.

“Amidst the horrific Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, a humanitarian catastrophe including the deaths of thousands of civilians in Gaza, and the killing of dozens of journalists, it is more important than ever that social media platforms do not censor truthful and legitimate content, particularly as people around the world turn to online communities to share and find information about developments in the region,” the letter reads, according to a copy shared with The Intercept.

Since Hamas’s October 7 attack, social media users around the world have reported the inexplicable disappearance of posts, comments, hashtags, and entire accounts — even though they did not seem to violate any rules. Uneven enforcement of rules generally, and Palestinian censorship specifically, have proven perennial problems for Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, and the company has routinely blamed erratic rule enforcement on human error and technical glitches, while vowing to improve.

Following a string of 2021 Israeli raids at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem, Instagram temporarily censored posts about the holy site on the grounds that it was associated with terrorism. A third-party audit of the company’s speech policies in Israel and Palestine conducted last year found that “Meta’s actions in May 2021 appear to have had an adverse human rights impact … on the rights of Palestinian users to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, political participation, and non-discrimination, and therefore on the ability of Palestinians to share information and insights about their experiences as they occurred.”

Users affected by these moderation decisions, meanwhile, are left with little to no recourse, and often have no idea why their posts were censored in the first place. Meta’s increased reliance on opaque, automated content moderation algorithms has only exacerbated the company’s lack of transparency around speech policy, and has done little to allay allegations that the company’s systems are structurally biased against certain groups.

The letter references recent articles by The Intercept, the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets’ reporting on the widespread, unexplained censorship of Palestinians and the broader discussion of Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza. Last month, for instance, The Intercept reported that Instagram users leaving Palestinian flag emojis in post comments had seen those comments quickly hidden; Facebook later told The Intercept it was hiding these emojis in contexts it deemed “potentially offensive.”

“Social media users deserve to know when and why their accounts and posts are restricted, particularly on the largest platforms where vital information-sharing occurs.”

These “reports of Meta’s suppression of Palestinian voices raise serious questions about Meta’s content moderation practices and anti-discrimination protections,” Warren writes. “Social media users deserve to know when and why their accounts and posts are restricted, particularly on the largest platforms where vital information-sharing occurs. Users also deserve protection against discrimination based on their national origin, religion, and other protected characteristics.” Outside of its generalized annual reports, Meta typically shares precious little about how it enforces its rules in specific instances, or how its policies are determined behind closed doors. This general secrecy around the company’s speech rules mean that users are often in the dark about whether a given post will be allowed — especially if it even mentions a U.S.-designated terror organization like Hamas — until it’s too late.

Read our complete coverage

Israel’s War on Gaza

To resolve this, and “[i]n order to further understand what legislative action might be necessary to address these issues,” Warren’s letter includes a litany of specific questions about how Meta treats content pertaining to the war, and to what extent it has enforced its speech rules depending on who’s speaking. “How many Arabic language posts originating from Palestine have been removed [since October 7]?” the letter asks. “What percentage of total Arabic language posts originating from Palestine does the above number represent?” The letter further asks Meta to divulge removal statistics since the war began (“How often did Meta limit the reachability of posts globally while notifying the user?”) and granular details of its enforcement system (“What was the average response time for a user appeal of a content moderation decision for Arabic language posts originating from Palestine?”).

The letter asks Meta to respond to Warren’s dozens of questions by January 5, 2024.

The post Sen. Elizabeth Warren Questions Meta Over Palestinian Censorship appeared first on The Intercept.

In The Future of Geography: How Power and Politics in Space Will Change Our World, Tim Marshall analyses the geopolitical dynamics and consequences of space exploration. According to Gary Wilson, the book is an illuminating insight into the political geography of space and the dynamics between world powers as they continue to expand the space frontier.

The Future of Geography: How Power and Politics in Space Will Change Our World. Tim Marshall. Elliott & Thompson. 2023.

Find this book: 

While Tim Marshall’s previous works have firmly established him as a prominent authority on the politics of geography, in this new book he enters uncharted territory: an appraisal of the geopolitical dynamics and consequences of space exploration. In a series of earlier books Marshall considered the impact of geography on the possibilities and limitations of the projection of national power in some of the world’s political hotspots. The Future of Geography breaks new ground by probing how major world powers’ activities in space may come to shape the future of world politics in (until recently) ways which could not have been envisaged.

The Future of Geography begins with the premise that space is rapidly becoming an extension of earth, representing the latest arena for intense human competition. Although the book explores the space activities and objectives of a wide spectrum of states and other actors, Marshall makes clear from the outset that there are three main players to be aware of: China, the US and Russia.

Space is rapidly becoming an extension of earth, representing the latest arena for intense human competition.

The book is structured into three parts. The first of these is relatively brief and consists of two chapters which serve to provide useful context for the more substantive treatment of space activity found in part two. In chapter one Marshall traces interest in space back to the earliest recorded historical periods, noting that there is a long history of “studying stars,” stone circles and similar (phenomena perceived as otherworldly or mysterious). Beginning with the Babylonians, he charts astronomical advances through Greek and Roman times into the twentieth century, referencing the scientific contributions of the likes of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton along the way. In the second chapter, Marshall identifies the origins of modern space exploration in Germany’s wartime rocket development programme, before proceeding to explain the importance of the Cold War in generating further advances in space as part of the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. A string of Soviet “firsts” in the 1950s and early 1960s, culminated in Yuri Gagarin being the first man in space, which lead to huge surges in American space budgets as they raced to put the first man on the moon.

A string of Soviet “firsts” in the 1950s and early 1960s, culminated in Yuri Gagarin being the first man in space, which lead to huge surges in American space budgets as they raced to put the first man on the moon.

Part Two of the book represents its substantive core. In its six chapters, Marshall first explores some of the general difficulties and tensions generated by modern space exploration, before appraising the space policies of the world’s major players in this arena. The geography of space cannot be understood in earthly terms and scales, but in chapter three Marshall presents a series of numerical markers which permit the reader to gain some sense of the enormity of distances in space. Although NASA regards space as beginning at 80 km, the International Space Station is located 400km into space, while medium and higher earth orbit extend the area for potential exploration yet further. Noting that over 80 countries have satellites in space, Marshall posits that “the idea that space is a global common is disappearing.”

Most existing international space treaties are regarded as outdated, products of the Cold War that fail to account for technological advances and the expansion of states with space-related aspirations.

This leads into chapter four’s consideration of efforts to regulate space by legal mechanisms. Most existing international space treaties are regarded as outdated, products of the Cold War that fail to account for technological advances and the expansion of states with space-related aspirations. At best, current space activity is governed by a series of non-binding, ad hoc agreements. Marshall lays out the various sources of potential scope for conflict or disagreement, including questions raised by the activities of private bodies in space and increased space debris from the deployment and destruction of satellites. While the need for new legal regimes to regulate and foster cooperation in space activity is accepted, such developments are hindered by the fact that the major three space powers agree on little.

China’s space programme is more militarised than the others and, despite being a slower starter in space exploration, now seeks to rival the International Space Station.

The following three chapters consider in turn the space policies of the three big space powers. China’s space programme is more militarised than the others and, despite being a slower starter in space exploration, now seeks to rival the International Space Station. It is the only country operating its own space station and is working with Russia on the creation of moon base. China established various “firsts” in space during the first decades of the twenty-first century, is home to over a hundred private space companies and has developed plans for the years ahead, including launching over 1,000 satellites within a decade. Within the US, space investment has fluctuated over time in accordance with its relative popularity. However, in 2019 the US launched a 16,000 strong Space Force and has invested heavily in early-warning satellites and laser weapons. While planning a lunar gateway space station, the US has collaborated increasingly with private firms such as Space X, the first company into space and which was contracted to build a lunar landing module. In contrast to initiatives taking place in China and the US, Marshall suggests that Russia’s “best days in cosmology look to be behind it.” However, Putin has sought to reinvigorate Russia’s space programme as tensions have increased between Russia and the West in recent years. Its efforts depend heavily on its cooperation with China, with Russia regarded as the junior partner in the alliance to undermine US superiority.

Putin has sought to reinvigorate Russia’s space programme as tensions have increased between Russia and the West in recent years. Its efforts depend heavily on its cooperation with China.

The emphasis on the big three powers should not overlook the fact that an increasing number of states have invested to some extent in space activity. A brief survey of some of these takes place in chapter eight, which considers the move towards regional space blocs, such as the US allied European Space Agency, within which Italy, Germany and France have all been major players. While states as varied as Japan and India, Israel and the UAE are all referenced in this overview, Marshall notes that nobody comes close to challenging the big three.

In the book’s final part Marshall ponders some of the possibilities for the future of space exploration. The penultimate chapter sees him present some hypothetical scenarios, which illustrate some of the potential sources of future conflict. He highlights the danger of pre-emptive strikes in space and potential for escalation of conflict in such a scenario, while the biggest threat is considered most likely to arise from competition between the US and China. The book concludes by acknowledging the commercial opportunities which exist in space, while observing the various practical difficulties which may limit the extent to which they represent realistic propositions.

The Future of Geography makes an important contribution to understanding the political geography of space exploration and its impact on relationships between the world’s major powers.

The Future of Geography makes an important contribution to understanding the political geography of space exploration and its impact on relationships between the world’s major powers. It is not always easy to engage with some of the space jargon deployed, which presumes a certain amount of knowledge of space terminology and factual knowledge. There is also scope for the impact of space activity on international relations to be drawn out in more specific terms on occasion, to more effectively illustrate the possible real-world effects it may come to have. However, in a challenging and problematic arena of international political activity, the book offers insights which further the appreciation of the political geography of space exploration and provide illuminating food for thought as to what the future of space may hold.

This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.

Image Credit: Artsiom P on Shutterstock.