Two of the articles we read, “Inadvertent Algorithmic Cruelty” and “Enter the Grief Police” got me thinking about what we expect from technology as it relates to grief insofar as we can keep technology separate from the human people who use it. Eric’s chief complaint is that he was not consulted about his “Year in Review,” which Facebook’s algorithm selected an image of his deceased daughter to represent. He writes that those who have had years full of crisis “might not want to look at this past year.” However, I’d argue that some would–what about those who would share their year in review, even if it was a devastating one, as a form of mourning? The Garber piece in The Atlantic also touches on this territory–no one can establish what is and isn’t an appropriate reaction to grief (with the exception of the trolls Whitney Phillips elaborates on). As Garber phrases it, “The notion that there is but one way to grieve, and that the deviation from that way is wrong” has no place on the internet. Perhaps for every person who wouldn’t want to share their year in review, there’s one who does — one who doesn’t find Facebook grief to be “utterly insincere,” as Camilla Long’s tweets describe.
The kind of content we expect from the internet is changing. Eric writes that “The design [of Facebook’s year in review] is for the ideal user, the happy, upbeat, good-life user. It doesn’t take other cases into account.” I would argue that this vision of the internet’s / social media’s purpose is incomplete. Eric’s judgement brings to mind that the characteristics he describes are what we used to expect from content (importantly, self-advertised content) on the internet. But now, the internet is becoming an acceptable place to mourn. As Garber puts it, #RIPDavidBowie wasn’t just a trending topic–it was a digital funeral.
I too disagree with Garber’s observations that “…there is but one way to grieve and… deviation from that way is wrong.” As Sarah has stated, I am willing to admit that there are some who may share their “Year in Review” as a part of their grieving process. Yes, Facebook (among other social media platforms) have shaped the way society copes with death. The younger generation, who has grown up their whole life with the internet, may find it much more natural to lament their grief on a social media rather than solely grieve in private simply because we have been surrounded by message boards our whole lives. To an extent I agree with Sarah in that maybe Facebook’s algorithm is not necessarily for the “happy, upbeat, good-life user” and that the internet is becoming a place to mourn. However, I will push back a little. I feel as though Eric in “Inadvertent Algorithmic Cruelty” offers important criticisms and interventions. Yes, the “Year in Review” feature maybe happy or even helpful during times of mourning, but I believe that the agency of even reviewing this feature should always be given to the user. The feature should be available to every Facebook user, but in order to build an “empathetic” and humane design, I do think Facebook should always give the option to preview the feature. I agree with Eric in that this is not a “deliberate assault” on Facebook’s part, but in order to avoid this “inadvertent algorithmic cruelty,” agency should always be a prerequisite for any feature in any social media platform.
Just to clarify Garber’s position, when she mentions the “notion that there is but one way to grieve, and that deviation from that way is wrong,” she is actually critiquing that idea. Garber’s position is much more open-ended: that there can be as many ways to grieve as there are to die.