TY - JOUR
T1 - Emancipation cannot be programmed
T2 - blind spots of algorithmic facilitation in online deliberation
AU - Alnemr, Nardine
N1 - Funding Information:
This work is supported by a PhD scholarship as part of the Metastudy of Deliberation project funded by the Australian Research Council [grant number DP180103014]. The author is indebted to the feedback, comments and edits proposed by Simon Niemeyer. The author is also thankful for comments and suggestions from Nicole Curato on the structure and argument of the paper, for comments by John Dryzek on earlier versions of this paper, and for the constructsive comments advised by the two anonymous reviewers.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2020/10/19
Y1 - 2020/10/19
N2 - Challenges in attaining deliberative democratic ideals – such as inclusion, authenticity and consequentiality – in wider political systems have driven the development of artificially-designed citizen deliberation. These designed deliberations, however, are expert-driven. Whereas they may achieve ‘deliberativeness’, their design and implementation are undemocratic and limit deliberative democracy’s emancipatory goals. This is relevant in respect to the role of facilitation. In online deliberation, algorithms and artificial actors replace the central role of human facilitators. The detachment of such designed settings from wider contexts is particularly troubling from a democratic perspective. Digital technologies in online deliberation are not developed in a manner consistent with democratic ideals and are not being amenable to scrutiny by citizens. I discuss the theoretical and the practical blind spots of algorithmic facilitation. Based on these, I present recommendations to democratise the design and implementation of online deliberation with a focus on chatbots as facilitators.
AB - Challenges in attaining deliberative democratic ideals – such as inclusion, authenticity and consequentiality – in wider political systems have driven the development of artificially-designed citizen deliberation. These designed deliberations, however, are expert-driven. Whereas they may achieve ‘deliberativeness’, their design and implementation are undemocratic and limit deliberative democracy’s emancipatory goals. This is relevant in respect to the role of facilitation. In online deliberation, algorithms and artificial actors replace the central role of human facilitators. The detachment of such designed settings from wider contexts is particularly troubling from a democratic perspective. Digital technologies in online deliberation are not developed in a manner consistent with democratic ideals and are not being amenable to scrutiny by citizens. I discuss the theoretical and the practical blind spots of algorithmic facilitation. Based on these, I present recommendations to democratise the design and implementation of online deliberation with a focus on chatbots as facilitators.
KW - Deliberative democracy
KW - mini-publics
KW - online deliberation
KW - algorithms
KW - artificial intelligence
KW - automation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087921806&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13569775.2020.1791306
DO - 10.1080/13569775.2020.1791306
M3 - Article
SN - 1356-9775
VL - 26
SP - 531
EP - 552
JO - Contemporary Politics
JF - Contemporary Politics
IS - 5
ER -