Naming Power and Algorithm Obscurity

The opening of the Daodejing declares: the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao. Names are powerful because they circumscribe possibility—once named, a thing becomes fixed, knowable, and subject to the judgment systems surrounding that name. In algorithmic politics, naming matters profoundly. When Facebook calls something a 'recommendation algorithm,' we think of shopping suggestions. Call it an 'attention allocation system' and different framings emerge. Call it 'political agenda-setting technology' and legitimacy questions arise. Platforms strategically use obscure terminology ('engagement optimization,' 'quality filtering') to prevent clear perception of what systems actually do. Yet total transparency through naming creates its own problems: once the public names algorithms 'propaganda machines,' genuine dialogue becomes nearly impossible regardless of actual function. Taoism suggests wisdom lies between extremes: sufficient naming for accountability (being clear about what political effects algorithms produce) paired with strategic obscurity about mechanisms (allowing design flexibility without constant legitimacy battles). This requires honest communication about impact with strategic humility about complete understanding. The goal is neither mystification nor false precision, but rather maintaining the dialogic space where algorithms can be questioned, reformed, and collectively governed without settling into rigid ideological framings that prevent evolution.