Technology always takes the lead as largely responsible for changes in the course of society. When the first motor car came into existence, it was appointed as a major actor in the process of behavioral change of individuals. The same happens with the modernization of industry, which in this so-called period of Revolution 4.0, places all the source of hope and anguish in the technological input produced.

However, we often remember that those who produce technology are human actors. What does that mean? That people with access to diverse resources have the possibility to propose processes, products and services differently from what has been done until now. Are these people then responsible for defining the world as it is? Let’s include one more actor in this conversation.

When the first Smartphone was launched, we were completely satisfied with the way our late phones operated (which by the way today we have no idea how they worked). We would do our work in the office, talk to people when there was a signal, send messages and not sure they were received / read, etc. We lived well until the moment that creation showed us no: it was no longer possible to live in a context of uncertainty, with no answers here and now, that waiting to produce tomorrow was a waste of time and money. These arguments sensitized us and we then agreed with the technological revolution associated with the Smartphone.

We cite an example, spend a paragraph and I think you get the point. The choice to join the technology was ours. The choice to meet the urgencies she mediates was ours. No one imposed the use, but everyone was using it and those who do not use technology do not have the possibility to exist in that environment.

Is that perverse? Creative? Innovative? Modern?

Qualifications may be multiple and may vary in time / space but are a fact.

These three actors, technology, creators and users, connect and form what we call agency, the great mobilization we make of things to define the way we live. What sometimes happens is that this agency serves as an argument for different things, such as saying, in common sense, that technologies are the source of all problems. Or that power is only in the hands of those in hierarchical positions considered superior.

In these examples, we treat at least one instance of the agency as neutral, passive, without interference. But is it really so? Let’s consider that in your Facebook feed today, you had access to a certain sequence of friend posts and pages that you might not even remember or that you may have flagged to see first. In either case, actually seeing, feeling, interacting, responding will all depend on your choice. What I mean? That the medium, in this case Facebook, influences the definition of what it presents to you, but the way you respond to that medium, that is your choice.

Does not make sense? Think about your daily life: How often do you emphasize certain facts over others? Why did you do that? Because you choose the priorities of the moment, as much as the context tries to instigate other priorities. Managing these priorities is not easy, so in general, instead of the longed-for productivity, we have wasted time, errors and repetition.

In short, perhaps the algorithm * programmed to define which news you will have access to works in an attempt to limit your priority line. Perhaps the choices predicted algorithmically are not sufficient for your willingness to understand and connect the facts. The key point is how you relate to the algorithm, the programmed, the tax. Do you accept, question or subvert?

If we want agency to be complete and complex in building society, then maybe this is the time to change the relationship with different algorithms by showing them that there may be disagreement about leadership, speed, cost and quality at work and any other human dimension. . The choice is ours too.