Open Access Does Not Automatically Mean Ethical Access

As always, I woke up early and thought of a word I had heard in a movie the night before but didn’t know the meaning of. I decided to “Google it.” When I opened Google, I noticed that the logo was decorated with different characters, so I clicked on it to see what it was about. I read the information, followed a link for more details, and then clicked on another link. Suddenly, I realized that I had spent quite a bit of time learning about this person, someone I had never heard of before and who might not even be particularly important.

This experience came to mind while I was listening to UCLA professor Safiya Umoja Noble discuss the power of algorithms. She has conducted extensive research on Google Search, particularly how search engines organize and present information and how suggested search terms and results can influence what people discover online.

My experience made me wonder how much control we really have over the information we encounter online. I initially opened Google to find the meaning of a single word, but I ended up reading about something entirely different. Although I made the decision to click on each link, Google had already influenced my choices by deciding what to display on its homepage.

I found Safiya Noble’s 2015 keynote, “Power, Privilege, and the Imperative to Act”, particularly interesting because it raises an important question about digital technology: Who controls the information we find on the internet, and how does that control influence our understanding of the world?

We often think of the internet as a place where information is freely available to everyone. Noble emphasizes the importance of the first page of search results because it influences what information people are most likely to encounter. Search engines such as Google give us access to enormous amounts of information within seconds. And we see her concern is very important especially for the statistics that she presents regarding the extent to which people trust search results and search engine.

However, Noble challenges the assumption that digital technology and search engines are neutral. The information that appears in search results is influenced by algorithms designed by people and companies. These systems can reflect existing social inequalities and determine which information becomes visible and which remains difficult to find.

Regarding this issue, Sharon Block’s criticism of JSTOR in her article “Erasure, Misrepresentation and Confusion” was particularly interesting to me because, as a student, I regularly use JSTOR for academic research and have always considered it a reliable source. However, I had never thought about how its search and classification systems actually work. Block explains that JSTOR uses algorithms to assign topics to scholarly articles, but the process is not entirely transparent.

One example she provides is an article about a woman named Charity Folks, which JSTOR classified under the topic “Charity,” apparently without recognizing that Charity was a person’s name. This example shows how a computer can recognize a word without understanding its meaning or historical context.

Block’s criticism made me realize that even academic databases are not completely neutral. The decisions made by programmers and database designers can influence how scholarship is classified and discovered. This is particularly important for women’s and racial histories, where incorrect classifications may make certain subjects less visible to researchers. I think historians should question not only the historical sources they use but also the digital tools through which they find those sources.

Another interesting example comes from S. L. Ziegler’s article, “Open Data in Cultural Heritage Institutions: Can We Be Better Than Data Brokers?” Ziegler discusses Louisiana State University’s decision not to acquire an important collection of African American historical materials in the 1940s. This example demonstrates that archives have never been completely neutral. The decisions of librarians and archivists about what to collect and preserve can influence what future historians are able to study.

Ziegler also compares cultural heritage institutions with data brokers and raises the question of whether libraries, museums, and archives are handling information more responsibly than commercial companies. The article warns that making historical data openly available without considering its consequences can create further problems. As Ziegler writes, “If we do not take this seriously now, we are likely to compound the problem through our open data.”

The article “Algorithmic Accountability: A Primer” helped me understand that algorithms do much more than organize information on the internet. They are also used to make decisions about employment, housing, healthcare, and even criminal justice.

One example that surprised me was the COMPAS system, which was designed to predict whether someone might commit another crime. According to the article, an investigation found that the system was more likely to incorrectly identify Black defendants as high-risk than white defendants. This made me think about how dangerous it can be when we trust computer systems without questioning how they work.

We often assume that mathematical calculations are objective, but algorithms are designed by people and use data that may already contain prejudice.

My simple Google search that morning seemed harmless, but it reminded me how easily digital platforms can direct our attention. In academic research, the consequences can be more serious because algorithms influence what information we find and how we interpret it. Digital technology has certainly made access to knowledge much easier, but we should not confuse easy access with neutrality, accuracy, or fairness.

References:

Algorithmic Accountability: A Primer. Data & Society Research Institute, 2018. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/DandS_Algorithmic_Accountability.pdf

Block, Sharon. “Erasure, Misrepresentation and Confusion: Investigating JSTOR Topics on Women’s and Race Histories.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 14, no. 1 (2020). https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/14/1/000448/000448.html

Noble, Safiya Umoja. “Opening Plenary & Keynote Address.” Video recording of keynote address, Digital Library Federation Forum, Vancouver, BC, October 26, 2015. University of British Columbia, cIRcle. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/55474/items/1.0220808

Ziegler, S. L. “Open Data in Cultural Heritage Institutions: Can We Be Better Than Data Brokers?” Digital Humanities Quarterly 14, no. 2 (2020). https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/14/2/000462/000462.html