Fuck the Algorithm: Conceptual Issues in Algorithmic Bias

Catherine Stinson
5/16/2025
cs.CYcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Algorithmic bias has been the subject of much recent controversy. To clarify what is at stake and to make progress resolving the controversy, a better understanding of the concepts involved would be helpful. The discussion here focuses on the disputed claim that algorithms themselves cannot be biased. To clarify this claim we need to know what kind of thing 'algorithms themselves' are, and to disambiguate the several meanings of 'bias' at play. This further involves showing how bias of moral import can result from statistical biases, and drawing connections to previous conceptual work about political artifacts and oppressive things. Data bias has been identified in domains like hiring, policing and medicine. Examples where algorithms themselves have been pinpointed as the locus of bias include recommender systems that influence media consumption, academic search engines that influence citation patterns, and the 2020 UK algorithmically-moderated A-level grades. Recognition that algorithms are a kind of thing that can be biased is key to making decisions about responsibility for harm, and preventing algorithmically mediated discrimination.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{stinson2025fuck,
  title  = {Fuck the Algorithm: Conceptual Issues in Algorithmic Bias},
  author = {Catherine Stinson},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2505.13509},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13509v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2505.13509.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2505.13509)

Discussion