It seriously annoys me how much tech cos and those representing them are valued in tech policy conversations.
It speaks to the prevalence of the false "prodigal tech bro" narrative that only those who participated in creating the harm, once reformed, will be able to stop it.
Also undermines the value of those with non-tech co experience. I want to see those that have been fighting to protect people for year to be the top candidates considered.
Regulation is supposed to be our way of forcing companies to work against their own interests for the sake of justice. Instead, we keep getting policy that works to protect the tech and the profits it brings in, rather than prioritizing the well-being of people. This is why! 😒
This is actually unbelievable. In the UK, students couldn't take A-level exams due to the pandemic, so scores were automatically determined by an algorithm.
As a result, most of the As this year - way more than usual - were given to students at private/independent schools. 😩
Looks like @ICOnews has some guidance for how students can access information about their scores and contest results. h/t @mikarv for bringing this into my timeline.
This happened to International Baccalaureate (IB) scores earlier this year - in the US & abroad, students could not take exams + had their scores assigned by an algorithm.
This algo yielded unexpected results, jeopardizing student admissions to college.
I think there's something specifically disturbing about the fact that there are deployed technologies of any sort that are not built for or tested on black people (or any other minority population). That puts these populations at risk & is a problem worth addressing specifically.
That being said - for technologies that are problematic even when they *do* work, such as facial recognition, the goal of auditing for fairness is to open the dialogue, and lead to the more important conversation of the other risks and concerns that ultimately invalidate its use.