数字技术创新:关于监管效能的神话

R. Mansell
{"title":"数字技术创新:关于监管效能的神话","authors":"R. Mansell","doi":"10.1080/13183222.2023.2198933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines myths envisaging a “balancing” of commercial, state and citizen interests through a market-led adjustment process underpinned by regulatory interventions in digital technology markets. It considers how these myths operate to downplay or conceal a persistent commitment to digital innovation that privileges the interests of technology companies and states. The key assumptions of the prevailing imaginary of technology innovation—emphasising investment in artificial intelligence and commercial datafication with harms mitigated by regulatory “guardrails”—are contrasted with an alternative imaginary that pays attention to uneven power relations and their consequences for the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights. Drawing upon Gramsci’s insights into the role of myth, the paper emphasises the need to examine the implementation of regulation and its outcomes if we are to understand how myth operates by concealing outcomes that leave the prevailing imaginary robustly intact. In arguing that myth suppresses possibilities for resistance to the capitalist exploitation of digital technology innovation, the conclusion discusses why a reframing of digital technology innovation processes and their regulation is essential if digital systems are to operate in ways that are consistent with human autonomy, dignity and democracy.","PeriodicalId":93304,"journal":{"name":"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)","volume":"30 1","pages":"145 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Technology Innovation: Mythical Claims about Regulatory Efficacy\",\"authors\":\"R. Mansell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13183222.2023.2198933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines myths envisaging a “balancing” of commercial, state and citizen interests through a market-led adjustment process underpinned by regulatory interventions in digital technology markets. It considers how these myths operate to downplay or conceal a persistent commitment to digital innovation that privileges the interests of technology companies and states. The key assumptions of the prevailing imaginary of technology innovation—emphasising investment in artificial intelligence and commercial datafication with harms mitigated by regulatory “guardrails”—are contrasted with an alternative imaginary that pays attention to uneven power relations and their consequences for the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights. Drawing upon Gramsci’s insights into the role of myth, the paper emphasises the need to examine the implementation of regulation and its outcomes if we are to understand how myth operates by concealing outcomes that leave the prevailing imaginary robustly intact. In arguing that myth suppresses possibilities for resistance to the capitalist exploitation of digital technology innovation, the conclusion discusses why a reframing of digital technology innovation processes and their regulation is essential if digital systems are to operate in ways that are consistent with human autonomy, dignity and democracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93304,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"145 - 160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2198933\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2198933","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了通过以数字技术市场监管干预为基础的市场主导的调整过程来“平衡”商业、国家和公民利益的神话。它考虑了这些神话是如何淡化或掩盖对数字创新的持续承诺的,而数字创新是科技公司和国家利益的特权。技术创新主流想象的关键假设——强调对人工智能和商业数据化的投资,并通过监管“护栏”减轻危害——与另一种想象形成对比,后者关注不平衡的权力关系及其对保护公民基本权利的后果。根据葛兰西对神话作用的见解,本文强调,如果我们想了解神话是如何通过隐藏结果来运作的,而这些结果使普遍存在的想象完好无损,就需要研究监管的实施及其结果。该结论认为,神话抑制了抵制资本主义利用数字技术创新的可能性,并讨论了如果数字系统要以符合人类自主、尊严和民主的方式运行,为什么重新定义数字技术创新过程及其监管至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Digital Technology Innovation: Mythical Claims about Regulatory Efficacy
This paper examines myths envisaging a “balancing” of commercial, state and citizen interests through a market-led adjustment process underpinned by regulatory interventions in digital technology markets. It considers how these myths operate to downplay or conceal a persistent commitment to digital innovation that privileges the interests of technology companies and states. The key assumptions of the prevailing imaginary of technology innovation—emphasising investment in artificial intelligence and commercial datafication with harms mitigated by regulatory “guardrails”—are contrasted with an alternative imaginary that pays attention to uneven power relations and their consequences for the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights. Drawing upon Gramsci’s insights into the role of myth, the paper emphasises the need to examine the implementation of regulation and its outcomes if we are to understand how myth operates by concealing outcomes that leave the prevailing imaginary robustly intact. In arguing that myth suppresses possibilities for resistance to the capitalist exploitation of digital technology innovation, the conclusion discusses why a reframing of digital technology innovation processes and their regulation is essential if digital systems are to operate in ways that are consistent with human autonomy, dignity and democracy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信