In the age of digital capitalism and massive data collection, reflecting on concepts such as secrecy, identity, and social control allows us to understand the profound transformations currently underway in our societies. Drawing on empirical insights from the book "I figli dell'algoritmo" by anthropologist and media scholar Veronica Barassi , the following article attempts to analyze how the progressive normalization of transparency is redefining the relationship between the individual, technology, and power.
Transparency and the loss of privacy in the digital age
In the cyberspace age, the collection and analysis of personal data has become everyday practices, often accepted without much resistance. One of the interviewees, Angela, is emblematic of this. She states that she has "nothing to hide" and does not feel influenced by targeted advertising. This statement reflects a broader cultural transformation: as Georg Simmel observed, secrecy, in modernity, tends to be perceived as suspicious or deviant.
A veritable culture of surveillance has thus spread, summed up in the formula "he who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear." However, this apparent harmlessness conceals a powerful normative power. Secrecy is not necessarily linked to evil: it can represent fundamental values such as modesty, dignity, and the protection of individuality. Its progressive erosion entails a significant loss: the disappearance of a space of freedom removed from the social gaze.
In this context, transparency becomes a social pass. Accepting monitoring is no longer perceived as a limitation, but as a form of adaptation, sometimes even a defensive strategy. Yet, numerous studies demonstrate that microtargeting concretely influences behaviors, preferences, and consumption. The individual who believes himself to be impervious becomes, in reality, completely legible.
The consequence is a progressive reduction of identity to a visible surface: without secrets, the individual loses autonomy, complexity, and the ability to escape the gaze of others. This creates a situation in which transparency risks transforming from a cultural habit into a political requirement.
Surveillance, data capitalism and new forms of power
A paradigmatic example of this trend is the social credit system developed in China between 2014 and 2020, based on assigning credit scores to citizens. Although often described as an authoritarian exception, it highlights dynamics that, in more subtle forms, are also present in Western societies.
Surveillance capitalism, a concept developed by Shoshana Zuboff, describes a system in which behavioral data is transformed into an economic resource. Within this framework, governments, financial institutions, and digital platforms participate in a continuous circulation of personal information. As Max Weber already intuited, modernity is characterized by a process of rationalization based on calculability and efficiency: surveillance thus becomes a mechanism functional to the system.
Anthony Giddens emphasizes how data control is an integral part of the bureaucratic machine, while Roger Clarke introduces the concept of dataveillance to describe the shift from direct to digital and remote forms of control. This transformation is shaped by what David Graeber calls a "culture of evaluation": grades, ratings, and metrics become tools through which social truths are constructed. Identity, increasingly externalized, is embedded in data. As Daniel Solove observes, we live not so much in an "Orwellian" system as in a "Kafkaesque" structure, made up of opaque procedures and automated decisions that are difficult to challenge. The individual thus becomes classifiable, predictable, and governable.
Algorithms, biases and inequalities
The growing use of algorithmic systems raises crucial questions about their fairness. The data these systems rely on is not neutral: it reflects social inequalities, cultural biases, and histories of discrimination. As Friedman and Nissenbaum highlight, there are three main forms of bias: pre-existing, technical, and emerging. These distortions can have concrete and serious consequences. Cases of errors in facial recognition systems, especially against African-Americans and minorities, demonstrate how technologies can amplify existing injustices. Furthermore, many systems are unable to recognize non-conforming identities, such as transgender or non-binary individuals.
The introduction of new learning models, such as Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF), risks exacerbating the problem by creating self-reinforcing bias loops. In this scenario, the need to ensure what Danielle Citron has called "technological due process" emerges.
At the same time, the anthropology of bureaucracy shows how administrative systems tend to treat individuals impersonally, reducing them to categories. As Graeber and Gupta point out, this logic affects individuals unequally, penalizing marginalized groups in particular. The introduction of algorithms does not eliminate these dynamics, but rather reorganizes them into new forms of power, defined by some authors as "algocracy."
Identity, data and the crisis of interpretation
One of the most widespread beliefs is that data can accurately describe and predict human behavior. However, as Veronica Barassi points out, this idea is based on flawed assumptions: data is never neutral, and the accumulation of information does not equate to greater understanding. Human identity, reduced to a "data subject" (Byung-Chul Han), loses its dialogical and symbolic dimension. Systems like emotional recognition, based on now-outdated universalistic theories, demonstrate the limits of this claim of objectivity. As Luke Stark observes, such technologies risk reproducing colonial logics, imposing Western cultural models as universal.
Faced with these transformations, regulation appears necessary but insufficient. The European Union has introduced instruments, such as the Digital Services Act , that promote transparency and accountability, but significant gaps remain.
Hans Jonas reminds us that humanity's technical capacity today exceeds its ability to foresee the consequences of its actions. In this scenario, responsibility becomes a fundamental principle. However, it cannot be merely technical or normative: it must also be cultural and political. Hannah Arendt accords imagination a central role in democratic life: it is thanks to it that we can understand others and build a common space. Without imagination, democracy itself risks collapse. David Graeber, though critical of contemporary bureaucracy, maintains an open perspective: human possibilities always exceed the systems that organize them. Our children are not necessarily "children of the algorithm": the future depends on the collective choices we are able to make.
Calpurnia Cammarano
Bibliographic and web references
- Barassi, V. (2021). The children of the algorithm. Einaudi.
- Han, B.-C. (2024). Infocracy: Our Lives Manipulated by the Internet (F. Buongiorno, Trans.). Einaudi
- Han, Is the police state the cure for the virus? (2020), Future
- The Social Dilemma. (2020). Directed by Jeff Orlowski. Netflix.
- Surveillance Capitalism (2019), Zuboff
- Profiling Machines (2004), Elmer
- Secret, Massimo Cerullo, The Mill
- H. Arendt, Truth and PoliticsBollati Boringhieri, 2004.
- G. Simmel, Sociology, Community Editions, 1989
https://www.giuseppemotta.it/burocrazia-e-algoritmi-un-rapporto-problematico/
USEFUL RESOURCE AVAILABLE -> Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test Cameron R. Jones
