Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The danger of technology discrimination

technology discrimination
Two technology balancing acts
d3sign/Getty Images

Stefflbauer is a Middle East expert and the founder and CEO of FrauenLoop, a computer programming school for resident, immigrant and refugee women in Germany. She is a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.

If you’re tired of hearing individuals weakly apologize for racism, then you’re probably exasperated by technology companies that do the same thing. The latest technology bias story has Instagram apologizing for adding “terrorist” to some Palestinian user profiles. That news provides another example of how tech companies regularly amplify social discrimination. Rather than being an alleviator of racial bias and a tool of racial justice, online technologies have the power to super-charge the dissemination of dehumanizing stereotypes and racist, sexist labels. Whereas, previously, you might have risked facing one person’s biased opinions off-line, online technologies can now reduce millions of people to stereotypes and caricatures that its victims are powerless to fight.

Black people already know that technology can be discriminatory, whether it identifies a person as an ape or fails to work altogether when dark-skinned people use it. Women have been raising alarms about bias in tech for years, as was the case when a secret Amazon hiring algorithm was found to discriminate against women. Or when Apple Pay’s credit algorithm awarded women lower credit scores than men. But women and Black people aren’t alone: In 2017, Chinese customers received refunds from Apple after claiming that the iPhone X face recognition couldn’t tell them apart. These examples show that technology is able to replicate human biases, in part, because discrimination by humans is restricted by law, while discrimination via computerized technologies oftentimes is not.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


The public is quick to assign blame when it comes to people who are found to behave in a discriminatory manner. However, when technology products encourage discrimination, the public response may be too little, or come too late. For Rohingya, Turkish, Uighur and now Palestinian Muslims, a legal settlement after the fact may not be as effective as proactive regulations that prevent discrimination in the first place.

As a Black American, I am witness to repeated discrimination in our country by police and educational figures who choose to treat people differently based solely on their race. As a scholar of Middle East history who spent years studying in North Africa and the Arab Levant, I see the same type of bigotry encoded into popular technologies. To be sure, you don’t need to personally suffer discrimination in order to recognize that it’s wrong. Many American Jews, for example, protested against the discriminatory treatment of Black Americans during the U.S. civil rights era. Today, Jewish Voice for Peace is publicly taking a stand against bigotry towards other groups. You don’t need to be Arab or a Muslim to recognize that tech companies discriminating against those groups leads us to becoming a two-class society — something this country has seen before.

It’s time for unequal treatment of consumers by the largest tech companies on earth to end. Remember the fictional country Wakanda depicted in the movie “Black Panther”? That film drew millions of viewers worldwide in 2018, partly because audiences of color knew that they would visit a place where racial stereotypes would not appear. Tech companies have been promising people of color an online Wakanda for years, but none of them — not even Mark Zuckerberg’s immersive Metaverse — have delivered. We never know when harmful social or cultural biases will show up, but whether it is chatbots, algorithmic photo filters or predictive algorithms, examples of tech-enabled discrimination still abound.

When we have leaders in Congress who either don’t understand tech or don’t care, and a tech industry that seemingly is more concerned with profits than justice, it is up to citizens to make a difference. We can speak up in protest, the way that people all over the world are protesting against the spread of offline ethnic and racial discrimination and violence. We can also write to elected representatives to demand appropriate regulation, audits and heavy fines for companies whose technology biases harm us all by stereotyping us or by arbitrarily labeling us as “undesirables.”

With the integration of artificial intelligence into our lives at an ever increasing rate, now is the time to take action to prevent human biases getting regurgitated by technology. As the latest Instagram example proves, that future may already be here.

Read More

Young adults shopping for clothes

Members of Gen Z consume at an unsustainable rate: clothes, makeup, technology and every other imaginable product.

RyanJLane/Getty Images

Mass consumerism and the hypocrisy of Gen Z

Pruthi is a professor of entrepreneurship at San Jose State University, where she is a co-founder and director ofHonorsX, and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project. Kharbanda is a senior at Presentation High School in San Jose, Calif.

California lawmakers recently approved two bills banning grocery and convenience stores statewide from offering customers reusable plastic bags. These bills are the next step in combating plastic waste, but what about the waste from mass consumerism that has come to pervade our lives?

Through the past decades, we have been trained to shop, purchase and consume products to solve our problems. While mending old clothing or refurbishing used goods have become things of the past, new products that are ubiquitously promoted are cramming our stores, screens, mailboxes and nearly every aspect of our lives.

Growing up in the digital age, Gen Z is the prime target for this consumerist culture. Their lives are catered toward finding flaws with what they currently own and buying the next best thing. In the process, our world lays waste, proving the disastrous effects of those spending habits.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.

Keep ReadingShow less
hand reaching out over an American flag
Nikolay Ponomarenko/Getty Images

Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.

Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.

As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.

The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”

Keep ReadingShow less
American flag and business imagery
Sean Gladwell/Getty Images

How your company can follow the model for political spending

Freed is president and co-founder, Hanna is research director, and Sandstrom is strategic advisor at the Center for Political Accountability.

With corporate political disclosure and accountability accepted as the norm, the next step for responsible companies is to put in place a framework for approaching, governing and assessing their election-related spending. The framework would establish policies for when or whether to spend and a process for evaluating the benefits and risks associated with a decision to use corporate resources to advance a political cause or candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less
Superhero businessman revealing American flag
BrianAJackson/Getty Images

Are U.S. companies living up to their commitments to democracy?

Fordham is a PhD student in political science at the University of Washington. Brumbach is an associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

“[A]s a company, we have a responsibility to engage. For this reason, we are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote.”

These were the words of AT&T CEO John Stankey, responding to a Georgia law that limited absentee voting. A similar bill proposed in Texas prompted Dell CEO Michael Dell to issue the following statement: “Free, fair, equitable access to voting is the foundation of American democracy. Those rights — especially for women, communities of color — have been hard-earned. Governments should ensure citizens have their voices heard. HB6 does the opposite, and we are opposed to it.”

The pattern is clear: U.S. business leaders are increasingly vocal in support of democratic institutions.

Keep ReadingShow less