정보화정책 (Informatization Policy)

한국지능정보사회진흥원 (National Information Society Agency)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

지능정보기술과 민주주의: 알고리즘 정보환경과 정치의 문제

Intelligent Information Technology and Democracy : Algorithm-driven Information Environment and Politics

  • Min, Hee (Department of Political Science at Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kim, Jeong-Yeon (Center for Digital Social Science at Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2019.04.09
  • 심사 : 2019.04.29
  • 발행 : 2019.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

최근 선거캠페인에서 수집되는 유권자 모델링 및 맞춤형 커뮤니케이션에 관한 데이터는 양적 확장성과 질적 유용성 측면에서 새롭다. 본 연구는 지능정보기술을 활용한 고도의 데이터 분석 능력이 정치에 어떻게 활용되고 있는지에 주목한다. 그 중에서도 선거캠페인에서의 유권자 행동 타게팅이 다양한 측면에서 민주주의 과정과 충돌할 수 있다는 점에 초점을 맞춘다. 이를 위해 마이크로 타게팅과 정치 봇을 살펴본다. 본 연구는 이러한 기술 기반의 캠페인 기법들이 민주주의의 핵심인 자유로운 의견 표출과 논쟁을 방해하는 요인으로 작동하는 양상을 보여준다. 동시에 이에 영향을 미치는 알고리즘의 속성을 파악한다. 본 연구는 지능정보기술 기반의 정치와 민주주의에서 다음과 같은 문제가 발생할 수 있음을 제시한다. 첫째, 정치참여의 불평등이 심화된다. 둘째, 유권자 간 공적 논쟁이 어려워진다. 셋째, 피상적인 정치가 만연한다. 넷째, 단일 이슈 정치와 배제의 정치 현상이 증가한다. 마지막으로 정치적 프라이버시가 침해될 수 있다. 요컨대, 지능정보시대 우리의 역할은 점점 고도화되고 있는 지능정보기술과 민주주의가 공존할 수 있는 방법을 모색하는 것이다.

This study explores how the advanced data analysis capabilities of intelligent information technology are being utilized in politics. In particular, we focus on the fact that voter behavioral targeting in election campaigns comes into conflict with the democratic process in various ways. For this purpose, this study examines political micro-targeting and political bots. It is aimed at showing that these technology-based campaign techniques work as a factor preventing free expression of opinions and discussions, which are the core of democracy itself. Then we identify the attributes of the algorithm that affects them. As a result, this study suggests that the following issues might arise regarding intelligent information technology-based politics and democracy. First, inequality in political participation becomes more severe. Second, the public debate between voters gets more difficult. Third, superficial politics is prevalent. Fourth, single-issue politics and the exclusion of political representation is likely to increase. Fifth, political privacy might also be invaded. Based on our discussions, this study concludes that it is our role to find ways by which intelligent information technology and democracy can coexist.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Andrejevic, M. (2014). "Big data, big questions the big data divide." International Journal of Communication, 8, 1673-1689.
  2. Baek, S., Lim, G. & Yu, D. (2016). "Exploring Social Impact of AI." Informatization Policy, 23(4), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.22693/NIAIP.2016.23.4.003
  3. Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J. & Galing, S. (2017). "Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?" Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501
  4. Boyd, M. & Wilson, N. (2017). "Rapid developments in artificial intelligence: how might the New Zealand government respond?" Policy Quarterly, 13(4), 36-43.
  5. Cathy, O'Neil (2017). Weapons of Math Destruction. Trans. J. Kim. (2017) Seoul: heuleum.
  6. Choi, D. (2017). "The Political Slant of Web Portal News and the Implications Relating to the Fake News Phenomenon." KDI FOCUS, 85.
  7. Coldewey, D. (2012). "Romney twitter account gets upsurge in fake followers, but from where." NBC News, 8.
  8. Conick, H. (2016). "How Social Media, Microtargeting and Big Data Revolutionized Political Marketing." September 26, Marketing News, American Marketing Association. https://www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/social-media-big-data-microtargeting-revolutionized-political-marketing.aspx.
  9. Dahlgren, Peter (2018). "Media, Knowledge and Trust: The Deepening Epistemic Crisis of Democracy." Javnost - The Public, 25(1-2), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819
  10. Douglas B. Sosnik, Matthew J. Dowd & Ron Fournier (2006). Applebee's America. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
  11. Epstein R. & Robertson R. (2015). "The Search Engine Manipulation Effect(SEME) and Its Possible Impact on the Outcomes of Elections." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(33), E4512-E4521. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112
  12. Ferrara, Emilio (2017). "Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election." First Monday 22(8).
  13. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T. & Frey, D. (2008). "Self-regulation and selective exposure: the impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing." Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(3), 382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.382
  14. Flaxman, S. R. & Goel, S. (2017). "Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption." Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
  15. FRA. (2018). "#BigData: Discrimination in data-supported decision making." FRA Focus, FRA-European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights.
  16. Fredette, J., Marom, R., Steiner, K. & Witters, L. (2012). "The promise and peril of hyperconnectivity for organizations and societies." The global information technology report, 113-119.
  17. Ganascia, J. G. (2015). "Views and examples on hyper-connectivity." In Floridi, L(ed.), The Online Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era. 65-85. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London.
  18. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Rationality for Mortals: how people cope with uncertainty, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Government of South Korea. (2017). Annual Report on National Informatization. Seoul: Government of South Korea.
  20. Guilbeault, D. (2016). "Growing Bot Security: An Ecological View of Bot Agency." International Journal of Communication, 10, 5002-5021.
  21. Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., Sandvig, C. & Eslami, M. (2014) "A path to understanding the effects of algorithm awareness." In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 631-642.
  22. Hansen, P. G. & Jesperson, A. M. (2013). "Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy." The European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00002762
  23. Hannak, A., Sapiezynski, P., Molavi Kakhki, A., Krishnamurthy, B., Lazer, D., Mislove, A. & Wilson, C. (2017). "Measuring Personalization of Web Search." Computers and Society, 1-28.
  24. Helbing, D., B. Frey, G. Gigerenzer, E. Hafen, M. Hagner, Y. Hofstetter, J.van den Hoven, R. Zicari & A. Zwitter. (2017). "Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence?" Scientific American, 25, 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican07011871-1
  25. Hillygus, D. S. & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton University Press.
  26. Howard, P. N., Woolley, S. & Calo, R. (2018). "Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: The challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration." Journal of information technology & politics, 15(2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1448735
  27. Hwang, S. (2016). "Paradigms of the Intelligent Society: Analysis and Policy Implications." Journal of Information Society & Policy, 23 (2), 3-18.
  28. Hwang, S. (2017). "Government in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: How Artificial Intelligence Will Change Government?" IT & Future Strategy. National Information Society Agency.
  29. Hwang, S., Kim, Y., Lee, M. & Woo, Y. (2001). An Analysis of Recommendation Rate for Collaborative Filtering Algorithm based-on Demographic Inforation. Paper presented at the The Korea Database Society.
  30. Im, H., Song, K. & Chang, W. (2015) "Political Paradigm Shift in the Big Data Era: Prospects of Heterarchy Democracy." National Future Strategy Based on ICT 2015 BIG STEP, National Information Society Agency.
  31. Interagency Committees (2016). Mid-and Long-Term Comprehensive Countermeasures of Intelligence Information Society for The fourth Industrial Revolution. Interagency Committees.
  32. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  33. Kang, J. (2017). "Why Is the Nudge Debate So Hot? : A Study on the Ethics of Persuasive Communications." Journal of Social Science, 56(2), 349-388. https://doi.org/10.22418/JSS.2017.12.56.2.349
  34. Kim, Y. (2016). "The Paradigm Shift of Intelligence Information Society : Law and Policy." Informatization Policy, 23(4), 24-37. https://doi.org/10.22693/NIAIP.2016.23.4.024
  35. Kreiss, D. (2012). Taking our country back: The crafting of networked politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. Oxford University Press.
  36. Krulwich, B. (1997). "Lifestyle finder: Intelligent user profiling using large-scale demographic data." Artificial Inteligence magazine, 18(2), 37-37.
  37. Lee, A. (2016). "ICT Pledges of the US Presidential Candidates." NIA Special Report, 2016-1.
  38. Luckerson, V. (2015). "Here's How Facebook's News Feed Actually Works." Time, July 9.
  39. Min, H. & Lee, W. (2015). "Voter's Ideological Orientation and Media Use." Korean party studies review, 14(1), 157-176.
  40. Ministry of Science and ICT (2016). Intelligent Information Society in Response to the Fourth Industrial Revolution Mid-to-Long Term Comprehensive Measures. Ministry of Science and ICT.
  41. Ministry of Science and ICT. (2017). Annual Report on National Informatization. Ministry of Science and ICT.
  42. National Information Society Agency. (2018). New technology, New world, Intelligence Information Society. Seoul: National Information Society Agency.
  43. Paik, W. (2013). "The Critique of Big Data Formation and Appropriation System." Trends and Prospects, 87, 304-331.
  44. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Books UK.
  45. Parry, David. (2012). "Big Data: What happens When E lections Become Social Engineering Competitions." Tech President. June 26. http://techpresident.com/news/22466/op-ed-big\-data-what-happens-when-elections-become-social-engineering-competitions.
  46. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  47. Persily, N. (2017). "The 2016 US Election: Can democracy survive the internet?" Journal of democracy, 28(2), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0025
  48. Pew Research Center (2018). "Bots in the Twittersphere" https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/(Retrieved on April 9).
  49. Philip N. Howard (2005). New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge University Press.
  50. Puaschunder, J. M. (2017). "The Nudging Divide in the Digital Big Data Era." International Journal of Research In Business, Economics and Management, 4(11-12), 49-53.
  51. Resnick, P. & Varian, H. R. (1997). "Recommender systems." Communications of the ACM, 40(3), 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1145/245108.245121
  52. Rubinstein, I. S. (2014). "Voter privacy in the age of big data." Wisconsin Law Review. 861-935.
  53. Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K. & Langbort, C. (2016). "When the Algorithm Itself Is a Racist: Diagnosing Ethical harm in the Basic Components of Software." International Journal of Communication, 10, 4972-4990.
  54. Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Yang, K. C., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. (2018). "The spread of low-credibility content by social bots." Nature communications, 9(1), 4787. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7
  55. Singer, N. (2012). "Mapping, and Sharing, the Consumer Genome." The New York Times, June 16, available online at:
  56. Starbird, K., Maddock, J., Orand, M., Achterman, P. & Mason, R. M. (2014). "Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on twitter after the 2013 boston marathon bombing." iConference 2014 Proceedings.
  57. Stephen Baker (2010). The Numerati. Trans. C. Lee (2010) Seoul: Sejongbooks.
  58. Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  59. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
  60. Vega, T. (2012). "Online Data Helping Campaigns Customize Ads." The New York Times. February 20.
  61. William A. Gorton (2015). "Manipulating Citizens: How Political Campaigns' Use of Behavioral Social Science Harms Democracy." New Political Science, 38(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2015.1125119
  62. Wojcik, S., Messing, S., Smith, A., Rainie, L. & Hitlin, P. (2018). "Bots in the Twittersphere." Pew Research Center. (Retrieved on May, 22)
  63. Woolley, S. C. & Howard, P. N. (2016). "Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents: Introduction." International Journal of Communication, 10, 4882-4890.
  64. Woolley, S. C. & Howard, P. N. (2017). Computational Propaganda Worldwide: executive summary. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
  65. Yun, S. (2017). "The paradigm shift in governance in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and post democracy." FUTURE HORIZON, 34, 30-33.
  66. Yun, S., Lee, E. & Sung, W. (2018). "Types and Issues of Policy Decision Making Using Artificial Intelligence." Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society, 21(1), 31-59.
  67. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Möller, J., Kruikemeier, S., O Fathaigh, R., Irion, K., Dobber, T.,... & de Vreese, C. H. (2018). "Online political microtargeting: Promises and threats for democracy." Utrecht Law Review, 14 1), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.420