Of algorithms and Mimesis—GAFA, digital personalization, and freedom as nondomination

Bowman, Jonathan M.

doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12483

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This article contains two theoretical innovations. First, it contributes to the attempts to analyze and assess the digital public sphere through the conceptual lens of domination by offering a novel argument (Bowman, 2021). Second, and perhaps more importantly, the article invites the reader to rethink the conventional categorization of forms of domination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy

Aytaç

2022

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that social media companies’ power to regulate communication in the public sphere illustrates a novel type of domination. The idea is that, since social media companies can partially dictate the terms of citizens’ political participation in the public sphere, they can arbitrarily interfere with the choices individuals make qua citizens. I contend that social media companies dominate citizens in two different ways. First, I focus on the cases in which social media companies exercise direct control over political speech. They exercise quasi-public power over citizens because their regulation of speech on social media platforms implies the capacity to arbitrarily interfere with citizens’ democratic contestation in the political system. Second, companies’ algorithmic governance entails the capacity to interfere with citizens’ choices about what mode of discursive engagement they endorse in their relationships with fellow citizens. By raising the cost of deliberative engagement, companies narrow citizens’ choice menu.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy

Aytaç

2022

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the digital public sphere, algorithms shape political and democratic communication by automating "editorial decisions" on what counts are "relevant" in our newsfeed or automating communication via "bots" (robots that are created to share, amplify or distort messages online) to inhibit listening and promote censorship (Benvensiti, 2018;Frost, 2020;Peixoto & Steinberg, 2019;Wu, 2017). Scrutiny of these impacts is mostly focused on Silicon Valley platforms raising anxiety about the future of democracy (Bowman, 2020). These anxieties span the extent to which algorithms shape our behaviours and their logics are increasingly in a "black box"-sheltered from scrutiny, justification and explanation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Alnemr

2023

Contemp Polit Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Algorithms 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”.

show abstract

“…International political theory is still hardly concerned with questions of digitalisation, even though essays have been published more frequently in relevant journals recently, see e.g. Runciman (2017) or the debate on the role of algorithms and data in political theory (Panagia 2020;Bowman 2021;Koopman 2021). In political theory, the profound transformation of the public sphere through digitalisation is being addressed in particular, such as recently in a comprehensive anthology on digital democratic theory (Bernholz et al 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Theory of the Digital Constellation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introductory contribution to this special issue on “Political Theory of the Digital Constellation” addresses the conditions and possibilities of political theory’s engagement with digital developments. The motivation for this inquiry is the growing interest in questions of political theory arising from the digital transformation, as well as the acknowledgement that digitalisation not only changes politics, but conversely that politics also shapes digitalisation. The article identifies three pitfalls of previous engagement: The narrowing of the subject of “digitalisation” to the topic of the “internet” and, thereby, to the aspect of communication, the disregard for the technicality of the digital, and the insufficient recognition that (digital) technology is political. To avoid these pitfalls, the research perspective of the digital constellation is presented. The digital constellation serves as an epistemological guide that helps to structure theoretical reflection on the interrelationship between digitalisation and political questions. Ultimately, the outlines of the political theory in the digital constellation become clear in the fourteen contributions of the special volume, which are presented in conclusion.

show abstract

Of algorithms and Mimesis—GAFA, digital personalization, and freedom as nondomination

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

Digital Domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy

Digital Domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy

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

Political Theory of the Digital Constellation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About