The Computocene Era: Epistemological Machines and the Search for Algorithmic Fairness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1505-V518Keywords:
algorithms, epistemological machine, algorithmic agency, digital reality, sociotechnical approach, algorithmic fairness, output transparency, artificial intelligenceAbstract
In the context of total digital transformation, algorithms have ceased to be neutral data-processing tools, evolving into active architects of social interaction. This article provides a critical reflection on this shift within the Computocene era, where algorithmic systems act as full-scale agents shaping a new epistemological reality. The aim of the study is to reveal the mechanisms of how algorithmization influences the processes of cognition and public communication. Employing a sociotechnical approach and the framework of critical algorithm studies, the author conceptualizes algorithms as epistemological machines – socio-technical apparatuses that structure human experience by substituting cognitive understanding with statistical relevance. The research results demonstrate that the functioning of epistemological machines based on principles of performative prediction and mechanistic achromatism leads to systemic risks: social polarization, the formation of echo chambers, and cognitive decline. The article argues for a transition from purely technical regulation to a model of algorithmic fairness, encompassing distributive, procedural, and interactional levels. As a practical measure to protect individual digital sovereignty, the author proposes the implementation of output transparency standards and mandatory labeling for AI-generated content. Such reforms will not only increase trust in digital content but also create a basis for a fairer distribution of rights and responsibilities in the creative industry. The study concludes that algorithms represent a new form of social intelligence that requires not just technological control but also profound philosophical reflection. Protecting individual digital sovereignty is impossible without strict standards of transparency, ensuring that users can distinguish between machine-generated results and human creativity, thereby mitigating the manipulative potential of epistemological machines and preserving human agency in the automated digital era.
Downloads
References
Dyson G. Analogia: The Emergence of Technology Beyond Programmable Control. New York, 2020. 304 p.
Шалак В.И. Алгоритмическая модель социальных процессов // Филос. проблемы информ. технологий и киберпространства. 2021. № 1. С. 46–62. https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2021.1.3
Severini S. Computocene: Notes from an Age of Observation // ArXiv. 2025. P. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.21744
Rheinberger H.J. Experimental Systems: Difference, Graphematicity, Conjuncture // Dombois F., Bauer U.M., Mareis C., Schwab M. Intellectual Birdhouse: Artistic Practice as Research. Köln, 2012. P. 89–99.
Eckhardt S., Kühl N., Dolata M., Schwabe G. A Survey of AI Reliance // ACM Comput. Surv. 2025. Vol. 58, № 6. Art. № 161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3776528
Esposito E. Artificial Communication: How Algorithms Produce Social Intelligence. Cambridge, 2022. 200 p. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14189.001.0001
Nabil A., Sony R. Understanding the Algorithm: Meaning, Socio-Legal Context and Concerns // Legal Issues in the Digital Age. 2021. Vol. 2, № 4. P. 70–97. https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2021.4.70.97
Saputra K., Muhammad S., Agung A. Systematic Literature Review of Understanding Social Media Algorithms and Their Impacts on Online Experiences // Proc 3rd Int. Multi-Disciplinary Conf.: “Integrated Sciences and Technologies”. 2024. P. 12–25. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.25-10-2023.2348715
Narayanan A. Understanding Social Media Recommendation Algorithms. New York, 2023. 39 p. https://doi.org/10.7916/khdk-m460
Dolata M., Feuerriegel S., Schwabe G. A Sociotechnical View of Algorithmic Fairness // Inf. Syst. J. 2021. Vol. 32, № 4. P. 754–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12370
Sun H. The Right to Know Social Media Algorithms // Harv. L. Pol. Rev., 2023. Vol. 18, № 1. P. 1–57. URL: https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2024/08/18.1-Right-to-Know-Social-Media-Algorithms.pdf (дата обращения: 10.12.2023).
Sun H. Output Transparency: Differentiating Human and AI Creativity Through Legal Reforms // Univ. Hong Kong Faculty Law Res. Paper. 2025. Art. № 2025/30.
Wagner C., Strohmaier M., Olteanu A., Kiciman E., Contractor N., Eliassi-Rad T. Measuring Algorithmically Infused Societies // Nature. 2021. Vol. 595. P. 197–204.
Putri S.D.G., Purnomo E.P., Khairunissa T. Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Bias: The Homogenization of Online Culture in a Smart Society // SHS Web of Conferences. 2024. Vol. 202. P. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202420205001
Tucker J.S. The Negative Impact of Social Media’s Algorithms on Society // Emerg. Writ. 2023. Vol. 6. Art. № 9. URL: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/emergingwriters/vol6/iss1/9/ (дата обращения: 15.01.2024).
da Nobrega Martins K., Lopes Catão Rodrigues A. Networked Democracy: The Role of Algorithms in Freedom of Expression and Political Pluralism // Science and Connections: The Interdependence of Disciplines. 2024. P. 1255–1273. https://doi.org/10.56238/sevened2024.037-079
Jung H., Dai W., Albarracín D. How Social Media Algorithms Shape Offline Civic Participation:
A Framework of Social-Psychological Processes // Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2024. Vol. 19, № 5. P. 767–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231198471
Красиков В.И., Кудашов В.И. Как алгоритмы социальных сетей и социально-психологические уязвимости формируют участников радикальных онлайн-сообществ // Журн. Сиб. федер. ун-та. Гуманит. науки. 2023. Т. 16, № 12. С. 2208–2215.
Ceylan G., Anderson I.A., Wood W. Sharing of Misinformation is Habitual, Not Just Lazy or Biased // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2023. Vol. 120, № 4. Art. № E2216614120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216614120
Metzler H., Garcia D. Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media // Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2024. Vol. 19, № 5. P. 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057
Voorveld H., Meppelink C.S., Boerman S.C. Consumers’ Persuasion Knowledge of Algorithms in Social Media Advertising: Identifying Consumer Groups Based on Awareness, Appropriateness, and Coping Ability // Int. J. Advertis. 2023. Vol. 43, № 7. P. 960–986.
Beer D. The Social Power of Algorithms // Inf., Commun. Soc. 2017. Vol. 20, № 1. P. 1–13.
Singh D.P. The Algorithmic Bias of Social Media // The Motley Undergrad. J. 2023. Vol. 1, № 2. P. 109–118. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/muj.v1i2.77457
Yousef A.M.F, Alshamy A., Tlili A., Metwally A.H.S. Demystifying the New Dilemma of Brain Rot in the Digital Era: A Review // Brain Sci. 2025. № 15. Art. № 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030283
Ünsal F., Korkmaz Z. Excessive Digital Content Consumption and Cognitive Decline: Current Review of the ‘Brain Rot’ Phenomenon // Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar – Current Approaches in Psychiatry. 2026. № 18(2). P. 498–509. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1644556
Corredoira L., Mallén I., Cetina Presuel R. The Handbook of Communication Rights, Law, and Ethics. Hoboken, 2021. 352 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119719564.fmatter
Chander A., Sun H. Sovereignty 2.0 // Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 2021. № 2021/041. P. 1–32. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3904949
Лизикова М.С. Этические и правовые вопросы развития искусственного интеллекта // Тр. Ин-та государства и права РАН. 2022. Т. 17, № 1. С. 177–194. https://doi.org/10.35427/2073-4522-2022-17-1-lizikova
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zashikhina I.M.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.