Democratic self-government and the algocratic shortcut: the democratic harms in algorithmic governance of society

Author:

Alnemr Nardine

Abstract

AbstractAlgorithms are used to calculate and govern varying aspects of public life for efficient use of the vast data available about citizens. Assuming that algorithms are neutral and efficient in data-based decision making, algorithms are used in areas such as criminal justice and welfare. This has ramifications on the ideal of democratic self-government as algorithmic decisions are made without democratic deliberation, scrutiny or justification. In the book Democracy without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont argued against “shortcutting” democratic self-government. Lafont’s critique of shortcuts turns to problematise taken-for-granted practices in democracies that bypass citizen inclusion and equality in authoring decisions governing public life. In this article, I extend Lafont’s argument to another shortcut: the algocratic shortcut. The democratic harms attributable to the algocratic shortcut include diminishing the role of voice in politics and reducing opportunities for civic engagement. In this article, I define the algocratic shortcut and discuss the democratic harms of this shortcut, its relation to other shortcuts to democracy and the limitations of using shortcuts to remedy algocratic harms. Finally, I reflect on remedy through “aspirational deliberation”.

Funder

University of Canberra

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science

Reference70 articles.

1. Adams, R., Elgot, J., Stewart, H., et al. (2020). Ofqual ignored exams warning a month ago amid ministers’ pressure. The Guardian, 20 August. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/19/ofqual-was-warned-a-month-ago-that-exams-algorithm-was-volatile

2. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., et al. (2016). Machine Bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica, 23 May. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.

3. Ash, T. G. (2018). Free speech and the defence of an Open Society. In M. Ignatieff & S. Roch (Eds.), Rethinking Open Society: New adversaries and new opportunities (pp. 79–90). Central European University Press.

4. Beller, J. (2018). Alan turing’s self-defense: On not castrating the machines. In The message is murder: Substrates of computational capital (pp. 44–56). Pluto Press.

5. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Polity Press.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3