Algorithms, or rather algorithmic actions, are seen as problematic because they are inscrutable, automatic, and subsumed in the flow of daily practices. Yet, they are also seen to be playing an important role in organizing opportunities, enacting certain categories, and doing what David Lyon calls “social sorting.” Thus, there is a general concern that this increasingly prevalent mode of ordering and organizing should be governed more explicitly. Some have argued for more transparency and openness, others have argued for more democratic (...) or value-centered design of such actors. In this article, we argue that governing practices—of, and through algorithmic actors—are best understood in terms of what Foucault calls governmentality. Governmentality allows us to consider the performative nature of these governing practices. They allow us to show how practice becomes problematized, how calculative practices are enacted as technologies of governance, how such calculative practices produce domains of knowledge and expertise, and finally, how such domains of knowledge become internalized in order to enact self-governing subjects. In other words, it allows us to show the mutually constitutive nature of problems, domains of knowledge, and subjectivities enacted through governing practices. In order to demonstrate this, we present attempts to govern academic writing with a specific focus on the algorithmic action of Turnitin. (shrink)

Developers are often the engine behind the creation and implementation of new technologies, including in the artificial intelligence surge that is currently underway. In many cases these new technologies introduce significant risk to affected stakeholders; risks that can be reduced and mitigated by such a dominant party. This is fully recognized by texts that analyze risks in the current AI transformation, which suggest voluntary adoption of ethical standards and imposing ethical standards via regulation and oversight as tools to compel developers (...) to reduce such risks. However, what these texts usually sidestep is the question of how aware developers are to the risks they are creating with these new AI technologies, and what their attitudes are towards such risks. This paper asks to rectify this gap in research, by analyzing an ongoing case study. Focusing on six Israeli AI startups in the field of radiology, I carry out a content analysis of their online material in order to examine these companies’ stances towards the potential threat their automated tools pose to patient safety and to the work-standing of healthcare professionals. Results show that these developers are aware of the risks their AI products pose, but tend to deny their own role in the technological transformation and dismiss or downplay the risks to stakeholders. I conclude by tying these findings back to current risk-reduction recommendations with regards to advanced AI technologies, and suggest which of them hold more promise in light of developers’ attitudes. (shrink)

Public resistance to environmental and health safety risks from radiations emanating from cell phone towers has been sporadic but spatially and temporally widespread in India. Civic actions have been led by civic activists, resident welfare associations, gram panchayats, lawyers, scientists and even an actor from the Bombay film industry. Large scale technical systems like cell-phone towers are remarkably resilient to public criticism. Industry response to such resistance is usually in the form of aesthetic tinkering to hide structures from public gaze, (...) incremental regulation and science communication to assuage public doubt. The legislature rather than Courts has been more responsive to such civic actions. Courts due to their overreliance on risk discourses have continued to defer to State experts. Faced with incrementalism from formal institutional actors, resistance movements have become localized and used site requirements to stymie such developments. Drawing on Beck's idea of subpolitics, this study explores the disaggregated nature of the resistance movement against cell tower radiation in India. It is based on a multi-sited ethnography based on field research and 35 interviews with activists, journalists, regulators, lawyers, industry representatives, doctors and scientists, conducted between November 2017 to December 2019. Jurisprudential developments, parliamentary committee and scientific reports were also reviewed. Subpolitics as a category has purchase in STS studies because it allows us to focus on the disaggregated nature of affected publics and interrogate public engagement with State institutions and new social expectations and solidarities with reference to technology. (shrink)

Recent scholarship in science, technology, and society has emphasized the neoliberal character of science today. This article draws on the history of US science and technology policy to argue against thinking of recent changes in science as fundamentally neoliberal, and for thinking of them instead as reflecting a process of “economization.” The policies that changed the organization of science in the United States included some that intervened in markets and others that expanded their reach, and were promoted by some groups (...) who were skeptical of free markets and others who embraced them. In both cases, however, new policies reflected growing political concern with “the economy” and related abstractions and a new understanding of S&T as inputs into a larger economic system that government could manipulate through policy. Understanding trends in US S&T policy as resulting from economization, not just neoliberalism, has implications for thinking about the present and likely future of science and S&T policy. (shrink)