The London School of Economics and Political Science VOICE THROUGH SILENCE Algorithmic Visibility, Ordinary Civic Voices and Bottom-up Authoritarianism in the Brazilian Crisis João Carlos Vieira Magalhães A thesis submitted to the Department of Media and Communications of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2019 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 99 776 words (including footnotes but excluding bibliography and appendices). Copyediting services were provided by Ms Cynthia Little, in accordance with the LSE regulations. 2 Abstract From 2013 to 2018, Brazil was encapsulated in a multisited crisis that unsettled its political order. Unlike other turmoil in the country’s history, this one was strongly influenced by ordinary Brazilians who found a space to express themselves politically on digital platforms. This thesis aims to understand how the datafied government of users’ visibility by Facebook (Brazil’s most popular platform) can be understood to have structured these everyday experiences and, in so doing, to have prompted these individuals to (re)constitute the ways they act and comprehend themselves as citizens. To investigate these processes of civic becoming, the thesis develops a conceptual framework that uses elements of social practices theory to bridge critical notions of citizenship, recognition, datafication, and visibility. It is proposed that one of Facebook’s primary power techniques is the attempt to direct how the algorithmic visibility regime that supports its business model is imagined by users so as to try to prefigure these users’ actions. A thematic analysis of interviews with 47 users suggests that the ambiguous knowability of the platform’s machine learning algorithms gives rise to three sociomaterial imaginaries of its algorithmic visibility regime. Combined with assumptions about Brazil’s troubled democracy, these imaginaries (and the imagined others that populate them) are found to generate a paradoxical understanding of how civic worth is granted on Facebook, according to which being heard often depends on silencing others and oneself – a phenomenon theorised as bottom-up authoritarianism. 3 Acknowledgments This thesis is the product of the efforts of many people. Robin Mansell and Alison Powell not only embraced my project from the start but continued to support me even when my research turned into something quite different. Robin, with her astonishing understanding of the field, helped to correct my thinking more often than I can count. Alison listened to me at some crucial moments in the last four years, and offered suggestions that often helped me to understand what I wanted to say. More than a source of intellectual inspiration, Nick Couldry provided me with some crucial feedback which shaped dramatically the nature of this project. Later on, when I was working as his research assistant, Nick was incredibly kind, giving me enough time and space to focus on the thesis. I also had the privilege of working with Seeta Peña Gangadharan, Bart Cammaerts, Damian Tambini, and Nick Anstead, who gave me the chance to learn and grow. Thanks also to Sonia Livingstone, who helped me at a delicate moment, and to Lilie Chouliaraki, who made very pertinent (and encouraging) comments on one of the chapters of this thesis. The LSE Media and Communications Department has a fantastic administrative staff as well. I would like to thank, in particular, James Deeley, who was extremely dedicated and professional. I was blessed to be part of a brilliant cohort of PhDs students. My thought was specially influenced by my endless conversations with my dear friend and co-author Jun Yu, and I feel privileged to have had the chance to share ideas with Mabu Li, Svetlana Smirnova, TiJana Stolic, Winnie Li, Miriam Rahali and Floyd Chou. I also learned a great deal with my friends and collaborators Willian Fernandes Araújo and Bruno Campanella. I would have never finished this thesis without friends who, over time, became my second family. Paula, Yoel and Adam were a point of support since the very beginning, listening to my doubts, giving advice or simply being there when things looked bleak. Nimesh, Asha, Bodhita and Bukee were nothing less than central parts of my everyday life, the people who I would talk to about nothing and everything. I am specially indebted to Nimesh and Paula, who also read my work and provided me with detailed feedback. Other Nanseners where a constant source of ideas and laughs. Un grande abrazo a mi camaradas Felipe, AleJandro, and their families. You reminded me of how marvellous Latin America can be. Amongst my Brazilian friends, Caio and Mauricio were a particularly constant presence, two of the few reasons that make me miss Brazil. It’s hard to express how grateful I am to Yonaira Rivera, who read my incoherent drafts, gave inspiring ideas and, on the very final stretch of this long process, helped me with some urgent feedback. Ana, my partner, and Isadora, my daughter, were the invisible pillars of this proJect. Their love — and patience — supported me throughout the process. I hope that you can be as proud of me as I am of you. Cleia, my beloved sister, and Lis, my adored niece, were always in my heart and mind. Cida, Rodrigo, Deia, Pedro, Joaninha, Artur, Marina, D’Austria, Rodrigo, Luis, Sergio — to a large extent, I would not be here without you. Vladimir, my “brodinho”, always pushed me to be who I wanted to be, and he has been sorely missed. And, of course, my parents, Carlos and Joana – who, for different reasons, will never know (or, at this point, understand) how much of my love for them is in this work. Por fim, essa tese simplesmente não existiria sem meus entrevistados, que aceitaram parar suas vidas e por vezes me receberam em suas casas para se abrir com um estranho. Serei eternamente grato a vocês. Uma enorme obrigado também a Carla, Mari e Iza, que me ajudaram a encontrar várias das pessoas cujas histórias esse trabalho tenta entender. 4 "Once it is formed, a system takes on a life of its own" 1Q84 – Haruki Murakami 5 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Introduction 11 1.2. The Contradictions of Democracy in Brazil 13 1.3. Rise of Datafication, Demise of Democracy? 15 1.4. Conceptual and Methodological Directions 17 1.5. Aims 19 1.6. Structure of the thesis 20 Chapter 2: Brazil in Turmoil (Context) 2.1. Introduction 22 2.2. A ‘Low Intensity’ Democracy 22 2.3. “The Crisis” 25 2.4. The Dynamic Relationship Between “the Crisis” and Ordinary End Users 27 2.5. Conclusion 30 Chapter 3: Civic Voice Under Algorithmic Visibility Conditions (Theory) 3.1. Introduction 32 3.2. A Non-naturalist View of Citizenship 32 3.3. Overview of Social Practices Theory 38 3.3.1. Structure: Resources, Schemas and Social Imaginaries 39 3.3.2. Agency: Three Meaning-Making Processes 42 3.3.3. Power: Prefiguration and its Ordering 45 3.4. Overview of Recognition Theory 47 3.4.1. Social Recognition, Voice and Social Freedom 48 3.4.2. Power, Misrecognition and Authoritarianism 51 3.5. Thinking Critically About Datafication 55 3.5.1. Datafication as Top-down Power 58 3.5.2. Datafication as Bottom-up Power 60 3.5.3. Media Visibility Regimes 65 3.6. Conceptual Framework 67 3.6.1 Citizenship as Civic Voice 67 3.6.2. Facebook’s Datafication Power Through the Algorithmic Visibility Regime 69 3.6.3. Civic Voice Under Algorithmic Visibility Conditions 72 3.7. Conclusion 75 Chapter 4: Methodology 4.1. Introduction 76 4.2. Epistemological Position 76 4.3. Method: The Choice of In-Depth Interviews 77 6 4.4. Research Design 79 4.4.1. Operationalizing the Research Questions 79 4.4.2. Data Collection: Sampling and Recruitment 83 4.4.3. Data Collection: Conducting the Interviews 86 4.4.4. Informed Consent 86 4.4.5. Data Analysis 87 4.5. Ethics 91 4.5.1. Positionality and Reflexivity 91 4.5.2. Personal Harm 92 4.6. Conclusion 93 Chapter 5: The Schematization of Facebook’s Algorithmic Visibility Regime 5.1. Introduction 94 5.2. Responses 95 5.2.1. ‘Facebook Does It Very Well’: Schematization Through Accurate Responses 95 5.2.2. ‘Some People I Talk to Never Show Up’: Schematization Through Inaccurate Responses 103 5.3. Information 106 5.3.1. ‘I Have a Notion of What’s an Algorithm’: Schematization Through Traditional Media Information 106 5.3.2. ‘According to Analytics…’: Schematization Through Platform Information 108 5.3.3. ‘‘I Talked a Lot to My Teachers”: Schematization Through Social Interaction 109 5.4. Probing Actions 112 5.4.1. ‘I Have to Fix My Own Tools’: Schematization Through Improvised Survey 112 5.4.2. ‘I Like to See Where the Hole Is’: Schematization Through Improvised Algorithm Audits 113 5.5. Conclusion 115 Chapter 6: Three Social Imaginaries of Facebook’s Algorithmic Visibility Regime 6.1. Introduction 117 6.2.1.