Against Bot Democracy

The Dangers of Epistemic Double-Counting

Ana Tanasoca

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The article focuses on the question of how each of us should deliberate internally when forming judgements. That is a matter of political consequence, insofar as those judgements stand behind our votes. I argue that some violations of epistemic independence like message repetition can, if the receivers are not aware of the repetition, lead them to double-count information they have already taken into account, thus distorting their judgments. One upshot is that each of us should ignore or heavily discount certain sorts of inputs (e.g., bot messages or retweets) that are likely just to be repetition of what we have already taken into account in our internal deliberations. I propose various deliberative norms that may protect our internal deliberations from epistemic double-counting, and argue that opinion leaders have special epistemic duties of care to shield their audiences from clone claims.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-15
Number of pages15
JournalPerspectives on Politics
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 20 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

deliberation
democracy
opinion leader
voter
recipient

Cite this

@article{b99c02e2c277466a9dfcce2ee4a74e7c,
title = "Against Bot Democracy: The Dangers of Epistemic Double-Counting",
abstract = "The article focuses on the question of how each of us should deliberate internally when forming judgements. That is a matter of political consequence, insofar as those judgements stand behind our votes. I argue that some violations of epistemic independence like message repetition can, if the receivers are not aware of the repetition, lead them to double-count information they have already taken into account, thus distorting their judgments. One upshot is that each of us should ignore or heavily discount certain sorts of inputs (e.g., bot messages or retweets) that are likely just to be repetition of what we have already taken into account in our internal deliberations. I propose various deliberative norms that may protect our internal deliberations from epistemic double-counting, and argue that opinion leaders have special epistemic duties of care to shield their audiences from clone claims.",
author = "Ana Tanasoca",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1017/S1537592719001154",
language = "English",
pages = "1--15",
journal = "Perspectives on Politics",
issn = "1537-5927",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

Against Bot Democracy : The Dangers of Epistemic Double-Counting. / Tanasoca, Ana.

In: Perspectives on Politics, 20.06.2019, p. 1-15.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Against Bot Democracy

T2 - The Dangers of Epistemic Double-Counting

AU - Tanasoca, Ana

PY - 2019/6/20

Y1 - 2019/6/20

N2 - The article focuses on the question of how each of us should deliberate internally when forming judgements. That is a matter of political consequence, insofar as those judgements stand behind our votes. I argue that some violations of epistemic independence like message repetition can, if the receivers are not aware of the repetition, lead them to double-count information they have already taken into account, thus distorting their judgments. One upshot is that each of us should ignore or heavily discount certain sorts of inputs (e.g., bot messages or retweets) that are likely just to be repetition of what we have already taken into account in our internal deliberations. I propose various deliberative norms that may protect our internal deliberations from epistemic double-counting, and argue that opinion leaders have special epistemic duties of care to shield their audiences from clone claims.

AB - The article focuses on the question of how each of us should deliberate internally when forming judgements. That is a matter of political consequence, insofar as those judgements stand behind our votes. I argue that some violations of epistemic independence like message repetition can, if the receivers are not aware of the repetition, lead them to double-count information they have already taken into account, thus distorting their judgments. One upshot is that each of us should ignore or heavily discount certain sorts of inputs (e.g., bot messages or retweets) that are likely just to be repetition of what we have already taken into account in our internal deliberations. I propose various deliberative norms that may protect our internal deliberations from epistemic double-counting, and argue that opinion leaders have special epistemic duties of care to shield their audiences from clone claims.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067824834&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FL140100154

U2 - 10.1017/S1537592719001154

DO - 10.1017/S1537592719001154

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 15

JO - Perspectives on Politics

JF - Perspectives on Politics

SN - 1537-5927

ER -