In Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sorting of the Past, Ben Jacobsen and David Beer explore how social media platforms are reshaping our processes of memory-making, with algorithms increasingly determining what is memorable to us. This exciting new book offers valuable insight into the implications of putting the production of our memories into the hands of automated systems, finds Matt Bluemink. Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sorting of the Past. Ben Jacobsen and David Beer. Bristol University Press. 2021

Bluemink, Matt

English

In Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sorting of the Past, Ben Jacobsen and David Beer explore how social media platforms are reshaping our processes of memory-making, with algorithms increasingly determining what is memorable to us. This exciting new book offers valuable insight into the implications of putting the production of our memories into the hands of automated systems, finds Matt Bluemink

LSE Research Online

What	does	COVID-19	mean	for	the	evaluation	of	theImpact	criterion	in	REF2021?The	concept	of	research	impact	represents,	to	a	degree,	a	formal	way	of	understanding	the	productive	relationshipsforged	between	academic	research	and	the	wider	world.	Unsurprisingly,	these	relationships	took	on	entirely	newdimensions	as	the	COVID-19	pandemic	changed	the	world.	In	this	post,	Gemma	Derrick	and	Julie	Bayleyconsider	how	COVID-19	is	potentially	influencing	the	ongoing	2021	Research	Excellence	Framework	cycle	and	itsanalysis	of	UK	research	impact.	Pointing	to	the	ways	in	which	the	pandemic	may	have	differentially	influencedresearch	and	impact	activities,	they	suggest	this	cycle	could	also	hold	lessons	for	the	future	in	relation	tolongstanding	inequalities	within	the	REF.As	the	world	continues	to	adapt	to	COVID	and	find	ways	to	return	to	some	degree	of	pre-pandemic	normality,	theUK	research	sector	is	quietly	being	scrutinised.	The	Research	Excellence	Framework	(REF)	assessment	process	iswell	underway,	with	panels	of	experts	reviewing	volumes	of	outputs,	environment	statements	and	impact	casestudies,	with	results	determining	the	funding	allocation	and	‘rank’	of	our	institutions	for	the	next	few	years.What	is	perhaps	overlooked,	is	that	each	submission	to	this	periodic	exercise	was	subject	to	an	extended	deadlinebecause	of	the	first	wave	of	COVID	in	2020,	and	then	finalised	and	submitted	during	the	height	of	the	secondCOVID	wave	in	early	2021.		It	may	be	convenient	to	assume	that	the	evaluation	part	of	this	process	will	be“business	as	usual”,	but	accommodating	how	the,	very	legitimate	interruptions,	caused	by	the	COVID-19	crisis,influenced	Unit	of	Assessment	(UoA)	submissions	is	one	of	the	major	challenges	to	the	value	of	the	UK’s	2021Research	Excellence	Framework.Whereas	this	damage	is	likely	to	be	less	pronounced	for	the	assessment	of	the	outputs,	the	material	consequencesfor	the	university	environment	and	sectoral	impact	present	a	risk	for	up	to	40%	of	the	assessment	for	each	UoAsubmission	(25%	for	Impact,	and	15%	for	Environment).	A	major	challenge	therefore	facing	REF2021	panels,	andresearch	assessment	processes	more	generally,	is	how	to	fairly	and	justly	accommodate	for	variably	interruptedaccounts	whilst	maintaining	commitment	to	creating	a	more	equitable	and	diverse	research	culture.	Furthermore,with	the	legacy	of	COVID-19	on	research	culture	and	production	unlikely	to	be	short-lived,	lessons	learned	for	thiscycle	provide	important	groundwork	for	accommodating	for	individual	and	organisational	(including,	but	notrestricted	to	gender,	and	disciplinary	differences)	disparities	in	future	REF	exercises	as	they	continue	to	manifestover	the	next	5,	or	even	10	years.COVID-19	and	the	REF2021	Impact	criterionThe	2021	REF	cycle	is	the	second	round	of	national	research	assessment	with	a	core	impact	component.	The	2014impact	case	study	database	has	arguably	become	one	of	the	most	visible	expressions	of	research-led	change,forming	the	basis	for	many	research	projects,	commentary	pieces	and	decision	making	about	institutional	strategiesto	‘have	the	biggest	impact’.	Impact	is,	undoubtedly,	big	business,	and	the	need	to	optimise	submissions	hasgenerated	an	industry	of	labour,	which	peaked	at	the	point	of	submission	(March	2021).		Indeed,	as	expert	panelsreview	case	studies,	institutions	are	already	strategically	regrouping	to	gain	ground	on	a	future	assessment	forwhich	the	rules	are	as	yet	unknown.COVID	has	affected	every	aspect	of	life.	Within	academia,	it	impelled	a	shift	to	fully	virtual	environments,	with	vastlyincreased	workloads	to	convert	in-person	learning	to	accessible	online	formats	and	reconfigure	research	plans	toavoid	in-person	contact.	For	impact	more	specifically,	COVID	altered	the	paths	of	impact-in-progress,	with	impactssuddenly	halted	(eg.	businesses	needing	to	stop	operating),	blocked	(eg.	the	health	system	needing	to	divert	allresources	to	the	pandemic),	or	even	lost	(eg.	where	plans	had	to	be	shelved).		Arguably	the	effect	of	COVID	wasparticularly	potent	for	the	Impact	criterion,	as	the	only	aspect	of	REF	dependent	on	the	world	outside	the	university,and	a	world	in	the	grips	of	an	unprecedented	global	crisis.Are	the	provisions	made	to	the	REF2021	because	of	COVID-19	adequate?Impact of Social Sciences Blog: What does COVID-19 mean for the evaluation of the Impact criterion in REF2021? Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-11-24Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/11/24/what-does-covid-19-mean-for-the-evaluation-of-the-impact-criterion-in-ref2021/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/Provision	was	made	by	REF	to	accommodate	the	challenges	of	the	pandemic	in	two	primary	ways;	(1)	extensionsto	the	submission	deadline;	and	(2)	the	opportunity	to	provide	a	statement	to	explain	how	cases	were	affected	byCOVID,	where	such	explanations	were	necessary	for	panels	to	make	a	fair	judgement.	Both	provisions	areextremely	sensible,	and	address	key	practicalities	of	finalising	a	case	study	in	this	environment,	but	the	COVID-19crisis	did	not	simply	add	a	time	lag	to	cases,	nor	can	the	full	extent	of	mitigating	circumstances	be	fairlycommunicated	in	a	short	accompanying	statement.	Although	extensions	helped	the	university	sector	preparesubmissions,	they	did	not	acknowledge	how	COVID-19	may	have	fundamentally	changed	the	narrative	(andassociated	evidence)	within	the	case	study.	We	conceptualised	three	‘Types’	of	case	study	arising	from	these	newcircumstances,	and	have	illustrated	their	impact	trajectory	in	Figure	1:A.	Those	unaffected	by	COVID-19,	having	been	completed	before	or	unaltered	by	the	pandemic	and	needing	noevaluation	adjustment;B.	Those	continuing	through	the	pandemic,	which	required	authors	to	react	to	changing	circumstances,	andbringing	to	bear	evaluative	challenges	in	compensating	for	evidence	no	longer	available	(corroboration	uncertainty)and	comparisons	to	the	counterfactual	(‘what	would	have	been’)	against	the	claims	within	the	ICS.C.	Those	arising	because	of	COVID-19,	such	as	research	being	used	in	support	of	public	health,	requiringevaluative	regulation	on	biasing	topically	compelling	cases.	Impact of Social Sciences Blog: What does COVID-19 mean for the evaluation of the Impact criterion in REF2021? Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-11-24Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/11/24/what-does-covid-19-mean-for-the-evaluation-of-the-impact-criterion-in-ref2021/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/This	newly	injected	variability	means	that	just	judgingwhat	is	on	the	page	without	considering	how	casesneed	to	be	differentially	mitigated	will	introduceinequalities	into	the	assessment	process.In	addition,	the	challenges	associated	with	fairly	accommodating	the	effect	of	COVID-19	on	ICS	is	made	moredifficult	by	the	practical	changes	to	accommodate	social	distancing	and	other	practical	restrictions.	A	shift	to	virtualassessments	–	however	appropriate	–	risks	undermining	the	sufficiency	of	panel	deliberations,	with	peerinteractions	necessarily	altering	from	more	naturally	emerging	in-person	interactions.	This	combination	of	the	needto	evaluate	more	varied	types	of	ICS,	accommodate	new	dimensions	of	topicality	and	‘course	changed’	cases,	anddo	so	in	a	virtual	environment,	is	further	compounded	by	the	potential	for	evaluators	to	introduce	their	own	bias	on‘what	counts’	based	on	their	individual	experiences	of	the	pandemic.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: What does COVID-19 mean for the evaluation of the Impact criterion in REF2021? Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-11-24Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/11/24/what-does-covid-19-mean-for-the-evaluation-of-the-impact-criterion-in-ref2021/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/We	do	not	suggest	that	the	REF	assessment	process	is	ignorant	or	dismissive	of	these	aspects,	simply	that	it	isessential	for	these	issues	to	be	foregrounded	in	evaluation	mechanisms	as	the	assessment	process	is	underway.Whereas	the	effect	that	these	additional	challenges	placed	on	the	REF2021	Impact	assessment	will	not	be	knownwith	any	certainty	until	after	the	evaluation	takes	place	(results	are	expected	May	2022),	it	is	important	that	thesepotential	risks	to	fair	review	and	evaluation	legitimacy	are	highlighted	now,	not	when	it	is	too	late.		Only	byhighlighting	these	risks	now,	can	we	empower	current	and	future	evaluators/evaluation	panels	to	take	reasonableaction	to	mitigate	any	unintended	negative	effects	that	a	COVID-blind	‘business	as	usual’	approach	to	evaluationmay	have	on	evaluation	outcomes	and	the	allocation	offunding	to	UK	HEIs	for	the	next	5-8	years.	This	post	draws	on	the	authors’	paper,	The	Corona-Eye:Exploring	the	risks	of	COVID-19	on	fair	assessments	ofimpact	for	REF2021,	published	in	Research	Evaluation.Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	authors,	and	notthe	position	of	the	LSE	Impact	Blog,	nor	of	the	LondonSchool	of	Economics.	Please	review	our	commentspolicy	if	you	have	any	concerns	on	posting	a	commentbelow.Image	Credit:	Adapted	from	Markus	Spiske	viaUnsplash.		Impact of Social Sciences Blog: What does COVID-19 mean for the evaluation of the Impact criterion in REF2021? Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-11-24Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/11/24/what-does-covid-19-mean-for-the-evaluation-of-the-impact-criterion-in-ref2021/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

Book review: Social media and the automatic production of memory: classification, ranking and the sorting of the past by Ben Jacobsen and David Beer

Book	Review:	Social	Media	and	the	AutomaticProduction	of	Memory:	Classification,	Ranking	andthe	Sorting	of	the	Past	by	Ben	Jacobsen	and	DavidBeerIn	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory:	Classification,	Ranking	and	the	Sorting	of	thePast,	Ben	Jacobsen	and	David	Beer	explore	how	social	media	platforms	are	reshaping	our	processes	of	memory-making,	with	algorithms	increasingly	determining	what	is	memorable	to	us.	This	exciting	new	book	offers	valuableinsight	into	the	implications	of	putting	the	production	of	our	memories	into	the	hands	of	automated	systems,	findsMatt	Bluemink.	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory:	Classification,	Ranking	and	the	Sorting	of	the	Past.Ben	Jacobsen	and	David	Beer.	Bristol	University	Press.	2021.Find	this	book	(affiliate	link):	In	1932,	the	German	philosopher	Walter	Benjamin	produced	a	short	fragment	on	theway	memory	operates.	Benjamin’s	piece	looked	at	memories	as	a	kind	of	excavation,an	active	unearthing	of	a	past	that	has	been	buried	in	the	depths	of	our	minds.	Hewrote:	‘[Memory]	is	the	medium	of	that	which	is	experienced,	just	as	the	earth	is	themedium	in	which	ancient	cities	lie	buried.	He	who	seeks	to	approach	his	own	buriedpast	must	conduct	himself	like	a	man	digging.’Benjamin	understood	that	authentic	memory	is	not	a	passive	store	of	past	events	thatwe	can	access	as	and	when	we	choose;	it	must	be	actively	mined	from	the	ever-growing	debris	of	day-to-day	life.	But,	if	experiencing	an	authentic	memory	requires	usto	actively	dive	into	the	past,	what	happens	when	we	put	the	production	of	ourmemories	in	the	hands	of	automated	systems?	What	happens	when	technologycompanies	use	algorithms	to	determine	what	should	and	shouldn’t	be	memorable	forus?	These	are	the	questions	that	this	exciting	new	book	from	Ben	Jacobsen	and	DavidBeer,	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory,	attempts	to	answer.In	recent	years,	David	Beer’s	research	into	data	analytics	and	algorithms	has	been	at	the	forefront	of	the	field,	andthis	short	volume	co-authored	with	PhD	supervisee	Ben	Jacobsen	is	no	different.	The	book	starts	with	an	importantdistinction.	The	authors	claim	that	social	media	companies	such	as	Facebook	have	long	since	moved	beyond	theirinitial	role	as	communication	and	networking	platforms.	They	are	now	extensive	memory	devices	which	capturesnapshots	of	users’	lives	and	recirculate	them	back	to	the	user,	freshly	labelled	as	‘memory’.	It	is	this	recirculationof	digital	content	that	marks	an	important	aspect	of	what	the	authors	term	‘the	automatic	production	of	memory’.Following	a	concise	but	extremely	thorough	introductory	chapter	which	summarises	much	of	the	underlying	logic	ofsocial	media	throwback	features,	the	authors	dig	into	the	conceptual	frameworks	which	underpin	their	analyses.Throughout	the	next	three	chapters	they	trace	a	path	which	shows	how	particular	data	is	partitioned	andsubsequently	promoted	to	the	status	of	‘memory’	on	sites	such	as	Facebook,	before	bringing	to	light	potentialissues	this	raises	for	the	users	of	these	platforms	and	for	society	in	general.This	path	begins	with	an	analysis	of	the	classification	processes	that	define	and	partition	these	social	media‘memories’.	Here	the	authors	turn	to	Jacques	Derrida’s	Archive	Fever	(1996)	to	show	how	social	media	archives,and	the	throwback	processes	within	them,	no	longer	passively	record	events,	but	actively	produce	them.	As	Derridawrote:	‘there	is	no	political	power	without	control	of	the	archive,	if	not	of	memory.	Effective	democratization	canalways	be	measured	by	this	essential	criterion:	the	participation	in	and	the	access	to	the	archive,	its	constitution,and	interpretation.’	Therefore,	if	we	are	to	understand	social	media	as	archives	which	have	an	active	impact	onmemory	formation,	it’s	important	to	scrutinise	exactly	how	their	classification	systems	emerge.LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sorting of the Past by BenJacobsen and David BeerPage 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-01Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/01/book-review-social-media-and-the-automatic-production-of-memory-classification-ranking-and-the-sorting-of-the-past-by-ben-jacobsen-and-david-beer/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/Photo	by	Nathana	Rebouças	on	UnsplashTo	exemplify	this	point	the	authors	turn	to	Facebook’s	own	research	which	lays	out	precisely	how	the	companydeveloped	the	classificatory	systems	behind	its	‘memories’	feature.	Along	with	Derrida,	they	draw	on	JacquesRanciere’s	notion	of	the	‘partition	of	the	sensible’	from	his	‘Ten	Theses	on	Politics’	(2010)	to	analyse	this	research.Jacobsen	and	Beer	state	that:	‘For	Ranciere,	when	any	given	area	is	partitioned	off,	the	frontiers	of	the	sensible	arere-formed	and,	crucially,	the	fundamental	relationship	between	the	sensible	and	non-sensible	is	reconfigured’	(39).The	important	claim	here	is	that	the	way	in	which	our	social	media	content	is	partitioned	and	classified	has	aninherent	effect	on	the	way	we	experience	the	world.	In	other	words,	Facebook	Memories	reconfigure’s	Ranciere’spartition	of	the	sensible	as	the	partition	of	the	memorable:	it	determines	the	nature	of	what	should	and	shouldn’t	bememorable	for	us.However,	it	is	not	only	the	partitioning	of	data	that	impacts	the	way	we	remember;	it	is	also	how	that	data	is	rankedand	promoted	in	order	to	solidify	its	status	as	‘memory’.	Analysing	further	research	from	Facebook	through	the	lensof	the	work	of	French	sociologist	Pierre	Bourdieu,	the	authors	argue	that	nostalgic	content	is	being	‘ontologicallypromoted’	by	algorithms	in	order	to	maximise	engagement	and	participation	with	the	platform.	They	suggest	that	thealgorithms	which	determine	what	content	is	promoted	to	‘memory’	status	have	a	performative	impact	on	how	usersinteract	with	the	site,	and	therefore	how	they	remember	the	past.This	brings	the	authors	to	an	important	conclusion	which	emphasises	the	pressing	dangers	of	a	practice	thatJacobsen	argues	has	remained	virtually	unresearched:	‘Through	processes	of	classification	and	ranking,	Facebookis	extending	its	powerful	reach	backwards	in	time,	drawing	not	only	on	real-time	data	but	also	real-timeengagements	with	a	resurfaced	and	targeted	past	in	order	to	predict	and	shape	the	future’	(55).	Thus,	we	start	tosee	how	small	changes	in	the	availability	of	certain	social	media	content,	and	the	way	that	this	content	is	promoted,could	have	a	significant	impact	on	the	way	our	memories	are	created.	It	is	this	the	authors	term	the	promotion	of	thememorable.As	we	come	to	the	latter	half	of	the	book,	the	authors	turn	to	the	way	these	targeted	memories	are	received	andnegotiated	by	users	in	everyday	life.	Indeed,	one	of	the	book’s	strong	suits	is	that	it	draws	together	a	wide	variety	ofnormative	analyses,	whilst	also	providing	original	empirical	research	to	back	these	up.	This	is	made	evident	througha	series	of	interviews	the	authors	conducted	with	social	media	users	which	highlighted	the	tensions	that	arose	as	aresult	of	these	‘memory’	features.	This	friction	between	the	promoted	‘memory’	and	the	real	memory	isdemonstrated	in	a	salient	statement	by	one	of	the	participants:LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sorting of the Past by BenJacobsen and David BeerPage 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-01Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/01/book-review-social-media-and-the-automatic-production-of-memory-classification-ranking-and-the-sorting-of-the-past-by-ben-jacobsen-and-david-beer/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/I	know	that	Facebook	does	it.	I	see	the	notifications,	like	it	says	you	have	memories	with	this	person!	Ijust	don’t	understand	it	[…]	There’s	no	real	memories	associated	with	the	memories	that	Facebook	saysI	have	[…]	it’s	trying	to	get	me	to	use	Facebook.	That’s	the	whole	point	of	it	is	for	me	to	use	Facebook(76).The	results	of	the	study	therefore	back	up	the	authors’	thesis	that	the	memories	feature	serves	as	a	tool	tomaximise	engagement	with	a	particular	platform.	Moreover,	what	is	important	here	is	that	the	passive	‘memories’which	are	suggested	by	the	algorithms	lacked	the	authenticity	that	is	implicit	in	the	active	excavation	that	Benjaminsaw	as	so	important.	Indeed,	as	the	authors	write:when	this	digging	and	marking	out	are	automated	and	targeted	at	users,	the	tensions	of	authenticity	andvalue	are	likely	to	arise.	Redefining	what	is	a	memory	and	where	it	comes	from	is	always	likely	to	befraught	with	discomforts	and	disjunctures	of	different	sorts	[…]	we	have	tried	to	bring	to	the	surface	howthese	insights	give	glimpses	into	the	very	redefinition	of	memory	as	a	concept	(88-89).In	conclusion,	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory	raises	a	number	of	questions	that	are	likely	tobecome	increasingly	important	in	the	coming	years.	Although	the	utilisation	of	memory	features	on	social	media	is	afairly	new	and	perhaps	under-researched	topic	for	media	theorists,	it’s	symptomatic	of	a	wider	trend	of	automationthrough	algorithmic	systems	that	is	prevalent	across	social	media	today.	Jacobsen	and	Beer’s	book	thereforeprovides	a	valuable	insight	into	an	issue	that	has	drastic	implications	not	only	for	how	we	come	to	understand	ourown	memories,	but	also	for	how	the	individual	is	to	act	within	a	supposedly	free	society:	‘The	past	is	now	beingsorted	and	targeted	by	social	media;	this	is	not	something	that	should	be	overlooked’	(98).Note:	This	review	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Review	of	Books	blog,	or	of	theLondon	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.	The	LSE	RB	blog	may	receive	a	small	commission	if	youchoose	to	make	a	purchase	through	the	above	Amazon	affiliate	link.	This	is	entirely	independent	of	the	coverage	ofthe	book	on	LSE	Review	of	Books.	Banner	Image	Credit:	Photo	by	James	Baldwin	on	Unsplash	LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sorting of the Past by BenJacobsen and David BeerPage 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-01Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/01/book-review-social-media-and-the-automatic-production-of-memory-classification-ranking-and-the-sorting-of-the-past-by-ben-jacobsen-and-david-beer/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/

Book	Review:	Social	Media	and	the	AutomaticProduction	of	Memory:	Classification,	Ranking	andthe	Sorting	of	the	Past	by	Ben	Jacobsen	and	DavidBeerIn	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory:	Classification,	Ranking	and	the	Sorting	of	thePast,	Ben	Jacobsen	and	David	Beer	explore	how	social	media	platforms	are	reshaping	our	processes	of	memory-making,	with	algorithms	increasingly	determining	what	is	memorable	to	us.	This	exciting	new	book	offers	valuableinsight	into	the	implications	of	putting	the	production	of	our	memories	into	the	hands	of	automated	systems,	findsMatt	Bluemink.	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory:	Classification,	Ranking	and	the	Sorting	of	the	Past.Ben	Jacobsen	and	David	Beer.	Bristol	University	Press.	2021.Find	this	book	(affiliate	link):	In	1932,	the	German	philosopher	Walter	Benjamin	produced	a	short	fragment	on	theway	memory	operates.	Benjamin’s	piece	looked	at	memories	as	a	kind	of	excavation,an	active	unearthing	of	a	past	that	has	been	buried	in	the	depths	of	our	minds.	Hewrote:	‘[Memory]	is	the	medium	of	that	which	is	experienced,	just	as	the	earth	is	themedium	in	which	ancient	cities	lie	buried.	He	who	seeks	to	approach	his	own	buriedpast	must	conduct	himself	like	a	man	digging.’Benjamin	understood	that	authentic	memory	is	not	a	passive	store	of	past	events	thatwe	can	access	as	and	when	we	choose;	it	must	be	actively	mined	from	the	ever-growing	debris	of	day-to-day	life.	But,	if	experiencing	an	authentic	memory	requires	usto	actively	dive	into	the	past,	what	happens	when	we	put	the	production	of	ourmemories	in	the	hands	of	automated	systems?	What	happens	when	technologycompanies	use	algorithms	to	determine	what	should	and	shouldn’t	be	memorable	forus?	These	are	the	questions	that	this	exciting	new	book	from	Ben	Jacobsen	and	DavidBeer,	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory,	attempts	to	answer.In	recent	years,	David	Beer’s	research	into	data	analytics	and	algorithms	has	been	at	the	forefront	of	the	field,	andthis	short	volume	co-authored	with	PhD	supervisee	Ben	Jacobsen	is	no	different.	The	book	starts	with	an	importantdistinction.	The	authors	claim	that	social	media	companies	such	as	Facebook	have	long	since	moved	beyond	theirinitial	role	as	communication	and	networking	platforms.	They	are	now	extensive	memory	devices	which	capturesnapshots	of	users’	lives	and	recirculate	them	back	to	the	user,	freshly	labelled	as	‘memory’.	It	is	this	recirculationof	digital	content	that	marks	an	important	aspect	of	what	the	authors	term	‘the	automatic	production	of	memory’.Following	a	concise	but	extremely	thorough	introductory	chapter	which	summarises	much	of	the	underlying	logic	ofsocial	media	throwback	features,	the	authors	dig	into	the	conceptual	frameworks	which	underpin	their	analyses.Throughout	the	next	three	chapters	they	trace	a	path	which	shows	how	particular	data	is	partitioned	andsubsequently	promoted	to	the	status	of	‘memory’	on	sites	such	as	Facebook,	before	bringing	to	light	potentialissues	this	raises	for	the	users	of	these	platforms	and	for	society	in	general.This	path	begins	with	an	analysis	of	the	classification	processes	that	define	and	partition	these	social	media‘memories’.	Here	the	authors	turn	to	Jacques	Derrida’s	Archive	Fever	(1996)	to	show	how	social	media	archives,and	the	throwback	processes	within	them,	no	longer	passively	record	events,	but	actively	produce	them.	As	Derridawrote:	‘there	is	no	political	power	without	control	of	the	archive,	if	not	of	memory.	Effective	democratization	canalways	be	measured	by	this	essential	criterion:	the	participation	in	and	the	access	to	the	archive,	its	constitution,and	interpretation.’	Therefore,	if	we	are	to	understand	social	media	as	archives	which	have	an	active	impact	onmemory	formation,	it’s	important	to	scrutinise	exactly	how	their	classification	systems	emerge.USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: Book Review: Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sortingof the Past by Ben Jacobsen and David BeerPage 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-07Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2021/11/07/book-review-social-media-and-the-automatic-production-of-memory-classification-ranking-and-the-sorting-of-the-past-by-ben-jacobsen-and-david-beer/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/Photo	by	Nathana	Rebouças	on	UnsplashTo	exemplify	this	point	the	authors	turn	to	Facebook’s	own	research	which	lays	out	precisely	how	the	companydeveloped	the	classificatory	systems	behind	its	‘memories’	feature.	Along	with	Derrida,	they	draw	on	JacquesRanciere’s	notion	of	the	‘partition	of	the	sensible’	from	his	‘Ten	Theses	on	Politics’	(2010)	to	analyse	this	research.Jacobsen	and	Beer	state	that:	‘For	Ranciere,	when	any	given	area	is	partitioned	off,	the	frontiers	of	the	sensible	arere-formed	and,	crucially,	the	fundamental	relationship	between	the	sensible	and	non-sensible	is	reconfigured’	(39).The	important	claim	here	is	that	the	way	in	which	our	social	media	content	is	partitioned	and	classified	has	aninherent	effect	on	the	way	we	experience	the	world.	In	other	words,	Facebook	Memories	reconfigure’s	Ranciere’spartition	of	the	sensible	as	the	partition	of	the	memorable:	it	determines	the	nature	of	what	should	and	shouldn’t	bememorable	for	us.However,	it	is	not	only	the	partitioning	of	data	that	impacts	the	way	we	remember;	it	is	also	how	that	data	is	rankedand	promoted	in	order	to	solidify	its	status	as	‘memory’.	Analysing	further	research	from	Facebook	through	the	lensof	the	work	of	French	sociologist	Pierre	Bourdieu,	the	authors	argue	that	nostalgic	content	is	being	‘ontologicallypromoted’	by	algorithms	in	order	to	maximise	engagement	and	participation	with	the	platform.	They	suggest	that	thealgorithms	which	determine	what	content	is	promoted	to	‘memory’	status	have	a	performative	impact	on	how	usersinteract	with	the	site,	and	therefore	how	they	remember	the	past.This	brings	the	authors	to	an	important	conclusion	which	emphasises	the	pressing	dangers	of	a	practice	thatJacobsen	argues	has	remained	virtually	unresearched:	‘Through	processes	of	classification	and	ranking,	Facebookis	extending	its	powerful	reach	backwards	in	time,	drawing	not	only	on	real-time	data	but	also	real-timeengagements	with	a	resurfaced	and	targeted	past	in	order	to	predict	and	shape	the	future’	(55).	Thus,	we	start	tosee	how	small	changes	in	the	availability	of	certain	social	media	content,	and	the	way	that	this	content	is	promoted,could	have	a	significant	impact	on	the	way	our	memories	are	created.	It	is	this	the	authors	term	the	promotion	of	thememorable.As	we	come	to	the	latter	half	of	the	book,	the	authors	turn	to	the	way	these	targeted	memories	are	received	andnegotiated	by	users	in	everyday	life.	Indeed,	one	of	the	book’s	strong	suits	is	that	it	draws	together	a	wide	variety	ofnormative	analyses,	whilst	also	providing	original	empirical	research	to	back	these	up.	This	is	made	evident	througha	series	of	interviews	the	authors	conducted	with	social	media	users	which	highlighted	the	tensions	that	arose	as	aresult	of	these	‘memory’	features.	This	friction	between	the	promoted	‘memory’	and	the	real	memory	isdemonstrated	in	a	salient	statement	by	one	of	the	participants:USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: Book Review: Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sortingof the Past by Ben Jacobsen and David BeerPage 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-07Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2021/11/07/book-review-social-media-and-the-automatic-production-of-memory-classification-ranking-and-the-sorting-of-the-past-by-ben-jacobsen-and-david-beer/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/I	know	that	Facebook	does	it.	I	see	the	notifications,	like	it	says	you	have	memories	with	this	person!	Ijust	don’t	understand	it	[…]	There’s	no	real	memories	associated	with	the	memories	that	Facebook	saysI	have	[…]	it’s	trying	to	get	me	to	use	Facebook.	That’s	the	whole	point	of	it	is	for	me	to	use	Facebook(76).The	results	of	the	study	therefore	back	up	the	authors’	thesis	that	the	memories	feature	serves	as	a	tool	tomaximise	engagement	with	a	particular	platform.	Moreover,	what	is	important	here	is	that	the	passive	‘memories’which	are	suggested	by	the	algorithms	lacked	the	authenticity	that	is	implicit	in	the	active	excavation	that	Benjaminsaw	as	so	important.	Indeed,	as	the	authors	write:when	this	digging	and	marking	out	are	automated	and	targeted	at	users,	the	tensions	of	authenticity	andvalue	are	likely	to	arise.	Redefining	what	is	a	memory	and	where	it	comes	from	is	always	likely	to	befraught	with	discomforts	and	disjunctures	of	different	sorts	[…]	we	have	tried	to	bring	to	the	surface	howthese	insights	give	glimpses	into	the	very	redefinition	of	memory	as	a	concept	(88-89).In	conclusion,	Social	Media	and	the	Automatic	Production	of	Memory	raises	a	number	of	questions	that	are	likely	tobecome	increasingly	important	in	the	coming	years.	Although	the	utilisation	of	memory	features	on	social	media	is	afairly	new	and	perhaps	under-researched	topic	for	media	theorists,	it’s	symptomatic	of	a	wider	trend	of	automationthrough	algorithmic	systems	that	is	prevalent	across	social	media	today.	Jacobsen	and	Beer’s	book	thereforeprovides	a	valuable	insight	into	an	issue	that	has	drastic	implications	not	only	for	how	we	come	to	understand	ourown	memories,	but	also	for	how	the	individual	is	to	act	within	a	supposedly	free	society:	‘The	past	is	now	beingsorted	and	targeted	by	social	media;	this	is	not	something	that	should	be	overlooked’	(98).This	review	first	appeared	at	LSE	Review	of	Books.Banner	Image	Credit:	Photo	by	James	Baldwin	on	UnsplashPlease	read	our	comments	policy	before	commenting.Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	USAPP	–	American	Politics	and	Policy,	norof	the	London	School	of	Economics.	Shortened	URL	for	this	post:	https://bit.ly/3q9c4TnAbout	the	reviewerMatt	BlueminkMatt	Bluemink	is	a	philosopher	and	writer	from	London.	His	research	is	focused	around	the	philosophicalimplications	of	technology	and	education.	He	is	also	the	founder	and	editor	of	online	magazine	bluelabyrinths.com.Twitter:	@bluelabyrinths.USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: Book Review: Social Media and the Automatic Production of Memory: Classification, Ranking and the Sortingof the Past by Ben Jacobsen and David BeerPage 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-07Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2021/11/07/book-review-social-media-and-the-automatic-production-of-memory-classification-ranking-and-the-sorting-of-the-past-by-ben-jacobsen-and-david-beer/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/113098/1/impactofsocialsciences_2021_11_24_what_does_covid_19_mean_for_the.pdf

Book review: Social media and the automatic production of memory: classification, ranking and the sorting of the past by Ben Jacobsen and David Beer

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online

LSE Research Online

LSE Research Online