UDC

[316.3:004.77](045)

DOI

https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1505-V518

Authors

Inga M. Zashikhina - Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Assoc. Prof. at the Philosophy and Sociology Department, Higher School of Social Sciences
Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Arkhangelsk, Russia,
e-mail: zashikhinaim@mail.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8217-2302

Abstract

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.

Keywords

algorithms, epistemological machine, algorithmic agency, digital reality, sociotechnical approach, algorithmic fairness, output transparency, artificial intelligence

References

1. Dyson G. Analogia: The Emergence of Technology Beyond Programmable Control. New York, 2020. 304 p.
2. Shalak V.I. Algoritmicheskaya model’ sotsial’nykh protsessov [Algorithmic Model of Social Processes]. Filosofskie problemy informatsionnykh tekhnologiy i kiberprostranstva, 2021, no. 1, pp. 46–62.
3. Severini S. Computocene: Notes from an Age of Observation. ArXiv, 2025, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.21744
4. Rheinberger H.J. Experimental Systems: Difference, Graphematicity, Conjuncture. Intellectual Birdhouse: Artistic Practice as Research. Köln, 2012, pp. 89–99.
5. Eckhardt S., Kühl N., Dolata M., Schwabe G. A Survey of AI Reliance. ACM Comput. Surv., 2025, vol. 58, no. 6, art. no. 161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3776528
6. Esposito E. Artificial Communication: How Algorithms Produce Social Intelligence. Cambridge, 2022. 200 p.
7. Nabil A., Sony R. Understanding the Algorithm: Meaning, Socio-Legal Context and Concerns. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 2021, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 70–97. https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2021.4.70.97
8. 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, pp. 12–25. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.25-10-2023.2348715
9. Narayanan A. Understanding Social Media Recommendation Algorithms. New York, 2023. 39 p. https://doi.org/10.7916/khdk-m460
10. Dolata M., Feuerriegel S., Schwabe G. A Sociotechnical View of Algorithmic Fairness. Inf. Syst. J., 2021, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 754–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12370
11. Sun H. The Right to Know Social Media Algorithms. Harv. L. Pol. Rev., 2023, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–57. Available at: https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2024/08/18.1-Right-to-Know-Social-M... Algorithms.pdf (accessed: 10 December 2023)
12. Sun H. Output Transparency: Differentiating Human and AI Creativity Through Legal Reforms. University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper, 2025, art. no. 2025/30.
13. Wagner C., Strohmaier M., Olteanu A., Kiciman E., Contractor N., Eliassi-Rad T. Measuring Algorithmically Infused Societies. Nature, 2021, vol. 595, pp. 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03666-1
14. 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, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1051/ shsconf/202420205001
15. Tucker J.S. The Negative Impact of Social Media’s Algorithms on Society. Emerg. Writ., 2023, vol. 6, art. 9. Available at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/emergingwriters/vol6/iss1/9/ (accessed: 15 January 2024).
16. 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, pp. 1255–1273. https://doi.org/10.56238/sevened2024.037-079
17. 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, no. 5, pp. 767–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231198471
18. Krasikov V.I., Kudashov V.I. Kak algoritmy sotsial’nykh setey i sotsial’no-psikhologicheskie uyazvimosti formiruyut uchastnikov radikal’nykh onlayn-soobshchestv [How Social Networking Algorithms and Psychological Vulnerabilities Shape Participants in Radical Online Communities]. Zhurnal Sibirskogo federal’nogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki, 2023, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 2208–2215. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-1200
19. 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, no 4, art. no. E2216614120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216614120
20. Metzler H., Garcia D. Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 2024, vol. 19, no 5, pp. 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057
21. 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, no. 7, pp. 960–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2023.2264045
22. Beer D. The Social Power of Algorithms. Inf. Commun. Soc., 2017, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–13.
23. Singh D.P. The Algorithmic Bias of Social Media. The Motley Undergrad. J., 2023, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 109–118. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/muj.v1i2.77457
24. 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, no. 15, art. no. 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030283
25. 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, no. 18(2), pp. 498–509. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1644556
26. Corredoira L., Mallén I.B., Cetina Presuel R. The Handbook of Communication Rights, Law, and Ethics. Hoboken, 2021. 352 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119719564
27. Chander A., Sun H. Sovereignty 2.0. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works, 2021, no. 2021/041, pp.1–32. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3904949
28. Lizikova M.S. Eticheskie i pravovye voprosy razvitiya iskusstvennogo intellekta [Ethical and Legal Issues of Artificial Intelligence Development]. Trudy Instituta Gosudarstva i Prava RAN, 2022, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 177–194. https://doi.org/10.35427/2073-4522-2022-17-1-lizikova