Are you sure about that?

I noticed a particularly clear, which is unusual for me in this class, shared theme between some of the reading material this week. The Illiadis and Russo reading, as well as the introduction chapter from Mark Andrejevic, both addressed the idea of certainty in the world of ubiquitous media.

In breaking down Critical Data Studies (CDS), Illiadis and Russo illustrate Big Data as not just the environment of information, but more realistically as an archive of fiction and fact. They present the idea of data disorder, a multiplicity and subsequent conflict of primary, secondary derivative and meta data. The central point being that the infinite broadness of a big data world creates a lack of clarity and, in doing so, a lack of substantive conclusions. Going on to point out how, under the veil of "openness", such a multitude of supposed information (the word itself placing outside the idea of fact and fiction in published content) can be counter-intuitively weaponised in a war against absolute understanding.

The article, overall, illustrates a causative relationship between big data and uncertainty. Uncertainty discerned from a growing inability to make absolute conclusions, stemming from an increasing multitude of conflicting statements facilitated by modern media.

Andrejevic takes this a bit further. He more directly discusses this idea established here by labelling it as a paradox. The paradox itself being expressed as: "increased access to information means it becomes impossible to comprehend it all", or "all the info means no info."

This continues into a lack of trust in news media because of an increase in counter news, as well as the peoples distrust in mainstream media based on the idea of partiality; this reflexive awareness of incompleteness. He also directly discussed the "borrowed kettle" media metaphor. The metaphor referring to confusing stories by using multiple narratives. A culture of multiple, intended-use instructive narratives rather than a dominant narrative.

One thing Andrejevic does say that I'm not sure I agree with is his discussion of decision "paralysis." David Shenk makes this claim that there is a paralysis of decisions in the world we live in, essentially that people are avoiding conclusions because the amount of information available is too daunting. Andrejevic goes on to try debunking this with the claim that people continue to draw decisions all the time, especially given pressure to do so.

He misses Shenk's underlying point. The "paralysis" refers to the idea of being uncertain of any decision we make, questioning if there are even real decisions made in big data era, not the actual making of decisions. Essentially, we are paralysed in our decision making because we are uncertain if our decisions matter because we can't be sure of any information we are exposed to's authenticity.

For example, the scarcity of information in Athenian democracy lead to certainty. One source, one understanding.