Suchergebnisse

Technology is often highlighted in popular discourse as a causal factor in significantly increasing sex trafficking. However, there is a paucity of robust empirical evidence on sex trafficking and the extent to which technology facilitates it. This has not prevented the proliferation of beliefs that technology is essential for disrupting or even ending sex trafficking. Big data analytics and anti-trafficking software are used in this context to produce knowledge and intelligence on sex trafficking. This paper explores the challenges and limitations of understanding exploitation through algorithms and online data. It also highlights the key dimensions of exploitation ignored in big data-oriented research on sex trafficking. By doing so, the paper seeks to advance our theoretical understanding of the trafficking–‍technology nexus, and it is argued that sex trafficking must be reframed along a continuum of exploitation that is sensitive to the social context of exploitation within the sex market.

ZusammenfassungDer Artikel analysiert den Einzug Big Techs (der Fokus liegt auf Apple und Alphabet) in den Gesundheitsmarkt und beschreibt in Anlehnung an Michel Foucault und Shoshana Zuboff das Konzept einer "überwachungskapitalistischen Biopolitik". Ziel ist, die Ausweitung des "Datenextraktivismus" im Gesundheitswesen und der Gesundheitsforschung machtkritisch einzuordnen und damit einen Trend in der digitalen Gesundheitsfürsorge zu problematisieren, der sich in den letzten Jahren und, wie wir zeigen, besonders während der Coronakrise beschleunigt und ausgefächert hat. Anhand wissenschaftlicher und kommerzieller Projekte sowie Kooperationen im Bereich public health wird deutlich, dass zeitgenössische Formen der Biopolitik keineswegs auf staatliche Regime beschränkt sind. Stattdessen sind sie zunehmend über private Technologieunternehmen vermittelt, die dabei nicht nur intime Verhaltens- und Vitaldaten akkumulieren, sondern – qua proprietärer Algorithmen – auch den Zugang zu diesen kontrollieren und schließlich ihren Einfluss in exklusive Services und Produkte überführen. Ein besonderer Akzent des Artikels liegt zudem auf der voranschreitenden Verbreitung sogenannter Wearable-Technologien (Smartwatches etc.), über die sich nicht nur die herausgehobene Marktposition der Konzerne, sondern – in der Entwicklung von einem "quantifizierten Selbst" zu einem "quantifizierten Kollektiv" – auch ihre epistemische bzw. "infrastrukturelle Macht" konkretisiert. Entgegen einer einseitig repressiven Perspektive auf biopolitische Praxen zeigen wir schließlich Ansätze einer Demokratisierung "überwachungskapitalistischer Biopolitik" auf. Hierbei heben wir vier Topoi hervor, die von zentraler Bedeutung sind: Privatsphäre bzw. individuelle Souveränität, demokratische Deliberation, Pluralismus und epistemische Gleichheit.

The article introduces the concept of "surveillance-capitalist biopolitics" to problematize the recent expansion of "data extractivism" in health care and health research. As we show, this trend has accelerated during the ongoing Covid pandemic and points to a normalization and institutionalization of self-tracking practices, which, drawing on the "quantified self", points to the emergence of a "quantified collective". Referring to Foucault and Zuboff, and by analyzing key examples of the leading "Big Tech" companies (e.g., Alphabet and Apple), we argue that contemporary forms of digital biopolitics are privatized, opaque, flexible, and not limited to the state. Instead, especially through the integration of wearable technologies, the biopolitical regulation of bodies is increasingly mediated by private tech companies. These companies rely on a questionable narrative of participation, responsibility, and care despite owning, and ultimately controlling, access to intimate health data and the proprietary algorithms mediating this data. The article shows that the proliferation of "surveillance-capitalist biopolitics" ultimately strengthens not only market power but also the epistemic and infrastructural power of the data-owning and gadget-producing firms. Finally, against an exclusively repressive and negative reading of biopolitics, and to effectively counter the forms of power emerging from surveillance-capitalist biopolitics, we propose four dimensions that are central to its democratization—namely privacy/individual sovereignty, democratic deliberation, pluralism, and epistemic equality.

Evidence of procedural fairness leads individuals to support Supreme Court decisions, even ones with which they disagree. Yet, in some settings, unfair behavior is seen as acceptable, even praiseworthy, if it yields a pleasing outcome for one's group. The loyalty norm occasionally trumps the fairness norm, and group loyalty has taken on increasing importance in American politics. I use a nationally representative survey with an embedded experiment, and a convenience sample survey experiment, to relate group (i.e., partisan) loyalty and perceptions of (un)fair behavior to support for the Court. I find that when group concerns are unclear, individuals tend to punish the Court for unfair behavior. However, despite conventional wisdom regarding fairness and support, individuals fail to censure unfair behavior when their group benefits from the Court's impropriety. These effects hold when integrating preferences regarding specific case outcomes. Perceived unfair procedures do not universally harm evaluations of the Supreme Court.

This poster investigates the extent to which antitrust law in the United States and competition law in the European Union protect the concept of consumer welfare.