One of the recent studies by the Brazilian Fernanda K. Martins (32 years old, Taperoá, Paraíba) found that platforms like Spotify recommend more male artists than female artists to users, regardless of what genre of music the user is looking for. Scientists call this algorithmic discrimination. It seems logical that this anthropologist would bring her research on gender and race to the Internet, probably the most sophisticated universe of our time, considering that Brazil is one of the most connected countries in the world. Martins is director of the Internet Lab, a respected interdisciplinary research center on the area where the Internet and law converge, and an active participant in the resulting debates.
Martins, the daughter of a black and indigenous woman and a white man, was nine years old when drought and inequality prompted the entire family to emigrate to São Paulo. He lived in the Brasilandia favela until he moved to the exclusive Jardins neighborhood, where his father works as a doorman. And she still remembers the moment she discovered she was black. “It was the day I uttered the phrase ‘You black people…’ and a teacher replied, ‘Like you? And you?”.
Fernanda K. Martins, anthropologist and director of the InternetLab in the streets of São Paulo, Brazil.Avener Prado
Questions. Every Brazilian surfs the Internet for 9 hours and 32 minutes a day, behind only South Africa and three hours above the world average. What is the reason for this hyperconnection?
Answer. Vanity and image are very present in popular culture. Because of our indigenous heritage, the body is very important, we are very used to affection and the internet plays a unifying role. For example, among historically marginalized population groups. We wanted to understand how Indigenous and Black people admitted to universities through quotas viewed the internet, telling us that it was important back when they were often the only ones [no blanco] under a white majority. We access the Internet a lot, but very unevenly and very concentratedly. Operators offer some applications such as WhatsApp for free in Brazil. And among the most vulnerable populations there is a belief that these applications are the Internet. There is no room for people to understand what internet they want to build. The more we strengthen these large platforms, the less room we find for innovation and creativity.
Q What is your personal relationship with the network? Constructive? Can be improved? Do you set boundaries?
R. Intensive. Coming from a public school, I was not taught in class but was self-taught. I started surfing when I was 10 or 11 years old on a computer my older brother bought. So I had colleagues who didn’t know how to connect it or what to do with a computer. Do I set boundaries? I continued my education. When I go out with the dog, I don’t have a cell phone. The Internet creates the feeling of always being accompanied, but it increases loneliness because you are there but not.
Q Tell us more about research into algorithms that increase inequality.
R. The research was carried out by an interdisciplinary team when the debate about algorithmic discrimination was very intense. There are those who say that the Internet is a reflection of an unequal society. I think it goes further. I believe that the internet and technology create further inequalities. Our research shows that women are recommended less than men when asked for recommendations on music streaming platforms, regardless of music genre. And that raises the question of what social role the platform plays to compensate for this. We need platforms to show that they are making every effort to avoid creating and perpetuating inequalities. We were able to analyze gender, but not the ethnic-racial profile, as there is no data available on either artists or users. And maybe this isn’t important in places in the global north, but in Brazil it is urgent.
Q Brazil is considered a good laboratory for analyzing Internet problems in general and social networks in particular, but also for identifying possible solutions.
R. Brazil is interesting for several reasons. Despite being a country in the Global South, we are so hyper-connected that most major tech companies have an office here. This allows us to build a dialogue with multiple actors involved in debates, investigations and attempts to solve problems. Furthermore, we are witnessing a wave of increasing conservatism. In the last four years with [el presidente Jair] Bolsonaro, we have seen the potential of disinformation, which is not just created on or limited to the internet. And we now have a progressive government that is deeply committed to regulating the platforms. Of course, this doesn’t solve all the problems, but it might solve some of them.
Fernanda K. Martins in her office in São Paulo, Brazil.Avener Prado
Q There are different models for regulating the Internet and technology, a very broad and technical topic. But what do you think should definitely be included in the law and what should be left out?
R. When we think about regulating platforms, not only in Brazil but also in our Latin American neighbors, the biggest challenge is not to import the European model. We have to figure out what our path is. Transparency and the ability to audit the data provided by platforms are essential to combat disinformation, political violence or hate speech. We must not lose sight of the fact that Brazil, like other Latin American countries, are very fragile democracies. In Brazil we need an autonomous body with financial independence to carry out these audits without the risk of capture by governments, the public or private sectors. Civil society and science must take part in this debate. The ultimate goal is to provide Brazilians with a healthy ecosystem in which politics and socializing can take place without silencing or an explosion of extreme polarization – traps from which we must escape.
Q Mentions polarization and misinformation. Today we have access to more information than ever before, but much of it is of very poor quality. How do you want to deal with this? What would be the priority?
R. When we talk about disinformation, we can’t just think about the platforms. We have to address the Brazilian media model, this concentration in the hands of a few families, for example television.
Q Do you think it’s possible to combat misinformation, even though hate is more lucrative than sober, quality information?
R. Disinformation will continue to be a phenomenon that requires finding solutions between different sectors and societal actors. We need to think about alternative, independent, local and regional media, about public policies that support indigenous media produced in the peripheries, by black and traditional communities. And then education. People know how to check whether news is fake or not, but they differ in what they consider a reliable source. For some it is a YouTube channel, for others it is a trusted person. We need literacy in society at large and a commitment to journalism. We need to think about comprehensive pacts because the problem is not focused on a single actor. In the Bolsonaro administration, many of the consensuses we had built around human rights, women and black people were weakened and discursive violence and attacks were normalized. We must believe again in a future based on a new consensus. We must actively listen to historically marginalized populations, but everyone else must also look within and ask: Who were my ancestors?
Q That the historically advantaged think about white and male privilege, advantages that come simply from being them?
R. I wouldn’t use the term “privileged” because it causes many to react negatively and try to protect themselves. It is time for the anger that has been important in mobilizing the traditionally excluded to be shared a little and for the people who have benefited from the system to be angry about their past. We need to build anti-racist people. People need to recognize that whiteness is also constructed as the space in which certain characteristics are attributed to you because you are a white person. Neither women nor blacks nor indigenous people will be able to assert their rights alone; We need a grand coalition to help people understand that it is important for society to deal with this anger. When we think about regulating artificial intelligence, platforms, or compensation for journalism, we must put race and gender at the center of the debate.
Q Let’s get to the genre. Although the proportion of women lawmakers in Congress is only 18%, they are the preferred target of digital hate, whether from the left or the right. Because what is that?
R. As they enter politics, get elected and occupy places they haven’t been before, we see anger translated into attacks on women, not because of what they do politically, but because of what they represent. When we compared attacks on social media, we found that straight white men are questioned for their political positions and women are questioned for their hair, clothing and morals.
Q In recent months, Brazil’s Supreme Court has made sometimes controversial decisions against the disinformation that led to an attempted coup on January 8th. Do you consider your actions to be proportionate to the risk?
R. We were very afraid of what could happen to Brazilian democracy. The Supreme Court was heavily represented in the election and presided over the case on January 8 in an effort to protect democratic institutions. The problem is personal drift.
Q Are you referring to the notoriety of Judge Alexandre de Moraes?
R. Yes. But how can we protect Brazil’s democratic institutions without this being seen as a problem? We need all powers and every Brazilian to assume their responsibilities.
You can follow EL PAÍS technology on Facebook and Twitter or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.