Google is a complex and complicated political beast with a significant, and often confusing, interest, in copyright matters. On one hand, for example, Google is widely accused of profiting from piracy. On the other, Google routinely complies with what is rapidly approaching a billion copyright takedown requests annually. In the present article, Foucault, neo-Gramscians, and Deleuze and Guattari are utilized to help construct a 32 dispositive analysis framework that overlaps three dispositive modalities and perspectives. In applying the framework to the (...) Google–copyright relationship, the article shows how Google was “born political”: in that it was, and still is, disposed by an apparatus comprised of copyright laws, Silicon Valley culture, and broad advances in digitization. Moreover, the article shows how Google continuously acts where “politics is born”: as it significantly shapes copyright considerations by disposing of human and organizational phenomena through articulations and assemblages. (shrink)

This article provides a history of private sector tracking technologies, examining how the advent of commercial surveillance centered around a logic of data capitalism. Data capitalism is a system in which the commoditization of our data enables an asymmetric redistribution of power that is weighted toward the actors who have access and the capability to make sense of information. It is enacted through capitalism and justified by the association of networked technologies with the political and social benefits of online community, (...) drawing upon narratives that foreground the social and political benefits of networked technologies. I examine its origins in the wake of the dotcom bubble, when technology makers sought to develop a new business model to support online commerce. By leveraging user data for advertising purposes, they contributed to an information environment in which every action leaves behind traces collected by companies for commercial purposes. Through analysis of primary source materials produced by technology makers, journalists, and business analysts, I examine the emergence of data capitalism between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s and its central role in the contemporary information economy. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to draw out and make explicit the assumptions made in the treatment of technology within business ethics. Drawing on the work of Freeman (1994, 2000) on the assumed separation between business and ethics, we propose a similar separation exists in the current analysis of technology and ethics. After first identifying and describing the separation thesis assumed in the analysis of technology, we will explore how this assumption manifests itself in the current literature. A different (...) stream of analysis, that of science and technology studies (STS), provides a starting point in understanding the interconnectedness of technology and society. As we will demonstrate, business ethicists are uniquely positioned to analyze the relationship between business, technology, and society. The implications of a more complex and rich definition of lsquotechnologyrsquo ripple through the analysis of business ethics. Finally, we propose a pragmatic approach to understanding technology and explore the implications of such an approach to technology. This new approach captures the broader understanding of technology advocated by those in STS and allows business ethicists to analyze a broader array of dilemmas and decisions. (shrink)

Algorithms silently structure our lives. Algorithms can determine whether someone is hired, promoted, offered a loan, or provided housing as well as determine which political ads and news articles consumers see. Yet, the responsibility for algorithms in these important decisions is not clear. This article identifies whether developers have a responsibility for their algorithms later in use, what those firms are responsible for, and the normative grounding for that responsibility. I conceptualize algorithms as value-laden, rather than neutral, in that algorithms (...) create moral consequences, reinforce or undercut ethical principles, and enable or diminish stakeholder rights and dignity. In addition, algorithms are an important actor in ethical decisions and influence the delegation of roles and responsibilities within these decisions. As such, firms should be responsible not only for the value-laden-ness of an algorithm but also for designing who-does-what within the algorithmic decision. As such, firms developing algorithms are accountable for designing how large a role individual will be permitted to take in the subsequent algorithmic decision. Counter to current arguments, I find that if an algorithm is designed to preclude individuals from taking responsibility within a decision, then the designer of the algorithm should be held accountable for the ethical implications of the algorithm in use. (shrink)

Voici un ouvrage qui surprendra. Car on n'y retrouvera pas les êtres qui nous sont familiers : ici, point de groupes, de classes sociales, d'ouvriers, de cadres, de jeunes, de femmes, d'électeurs auxquels nous ont habitués les sciences sociales ; point de ces personnes sans qualités que philosophie politique et économie nomment individus ; point, non plus, de ces personnages grandeur nature que nous dépeignent histoire et anthropologie. Non, ici, c'est de vous, de nous tous qu'il est question, dès lors (...) que, vivant en société, nous vivons en situation, c'est-à-dire dans les rapports aux autres et aux choses. A chaque instant, nous cherchons à rendre compréhensibles nos conduites, afin d'assurer, à quelque niveau que ce soit - le groupe, l'entreprise, la collectivité -, la coexistence avec autrui par l'accord : tels sont le rôle et la nature de la justification. La sociologie traditionnelle, quelle qu'en soit l'école, prétend que les personnes rationalisent leurs conduites au nom de motifs apparents et fallacieux alors qu'elles sont, en réalité, déterminées par des forces cachées et objectives qu'il revient, bien évidemment, au sociologue de dévoiler... En rupture de ban avec la perspective cavalière que la philosophie politique et la sociologie ont longtemps adoptée face à l'ordre social, Luc Boltanski et Laurent Thévenot ont pris le parti de traiter sérieusement les personnes et leurs prétentions à la justice. Ils ont voulu comprendre quels sont les principes, les équivalences, les valeurs de référence - ce qu'ils appellent les grandeurs - auxquels les acteurs en appellent lorsqu'ils veulent manifester leur désaccord sans recourir à la violence. S'éloignant en cela des théories de la justice, les auteurs montrent comment les personnes prennent appui sur des objets communs, présents dans la situation pour asseoir leurs justifications. Il en résulte un ouvrage original qui construit un cadre permettant d'analyser la relation entre accord et discorde, et qui nourrit ses réflexions de l'analyse serrée de la littérature de management comme de lettres de dénonciation adressées aux grands quotidiens ou de classiques de la philosophie politique. Il en résulte un ouvrage ambitieux qui ouvre la voie à une approche qui ne réduise plus les acteurs à des agents donnés par des forces extérieures, mais qui les étudie en situation de maîtrise de leur conduite et de leur coexistence dans le monde de tous les jours. (shrink)

A vital and underappreciated dimension of social interaction is the way individuals justify their actions to others, instinctively drawing on their experience to appeal to principles they hope will command respect. Individuals, however, often misread situations, and many disagreements can be explained by people appealing, knowingly and unknowingly, to different principles. On Justification is the first English translation of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot's ambitious theoretical examination of these phenomena, a book that has already had a huge impact on French (...) sociology and is likely to have a similar influence in the English-speaking world. In this foundational work of post-Bourdieu sociology, the authors examine a wide range of situations where people justify their actions. The authors argue that justifications fall into six main logics exemplified by six authors: civic (Rousseau), market (Adam Smith), industrial (Saint-Simon), domestic (Bossuet), inspiration (Augustine), and fame (Hobbes). The authors show how these justifications conflict, as people compete to legitimize their views of a situation. On Justification is likely to spark important debates across the social sciences. (shrink)