The Foreclosure of Contestability
Algorithmic Curation and Democratic Revisability I.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63684/dk.2026.10.03Kulcsszavak:
Deliberatív demokrácia, digitális nyilvános szféra, algoritmikus kuráció, foreclosure, nem-komponálhatóság, optimalizáció, platformhatalom, kollektív akaratképzésAbsztrakt
A dezinformációt és a platformhatalom polarizáló formáit rendszerint egy egyébként rendelkezésre álló nyilvános szféra működési zavaraiként kezelik. Egy háromrészes vizsgálat első tanulmánya ezzel szemben a foreclosure fogalmát javasolja egy eltérő állapot diagnosztikai megragadására. A demokratikus képességek fennmaradnak védett intézményekben és tudatosan létrehozott fórumokon, miközben a nyilvános szféra uralkodó architektúrája nem képes ezeket megbízhatóan újratermelni, illetve összekapcsolni a kollektív döntéshozatalra képes intézményekkel. Egy architektúra akkor zár le egy feltételt, ha rendes működése már nem termeli újra azt, ha az ezt biztosító intézményi megoldások lokálisak vagy ideiglenesek maradnak, illetve olyan erőforrásoktól függenek, amelyek nem irányítják magát az architektúrát, továbbá ha nincs olyan megbízható mechanizmus, amely a lokális megvalósulásokat eljuttatná arra a szintre, ahol a demokratikus gyakorlat kötelező erővel bír. A harmadik feltétel a nem-komponálhatóságot (non-composability) azonosítja, és ezzel elválasztja a fogalmat a kommunikációs degradációtól, a kolonizációtól, a periféria és a centrum közötti elakadt cirkulációtól, valamint a másodrendű demokratikus zavaroktól. Az oksági mechanizmust egy olyan optimalizációs rezsimnek tulajdonítom, amelyet viselkedési visszacsatolás, intézményileg kiválasztott célok, individualizált információs környezetek és gyors felülvizsgálat jellemez, továbbá öt feltételt adok meg a diagnózis vagy oksági magyarázata felülvizsgálatára. A nyilvánosság elméleteinek genealógiája és a rivális oksági magyarázatok összevetése tovább szűkíti az állítást. Az optimalizáció infrastrukturális mechanizmusként működik, amelynek hatásai a médiarendszerektől, valamint az azokat birtokló és szabályozó intézményektől függően változnak.
Hivatkozások
Constitutional Court of Romania (2024): Ruling No. 32 of 6 December 2024. https://www. ccr.ro/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/RULING-No-32-2024.pdf
Harari, Y. N. (2024): Nexus: A brief history of information networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House.
Dewey, J. (1946): The public and its problems. Gateway Books. (Original work published 1927).
John, R. R. (1995): Spreading the news: The American postal system from Franklin to Morse. Harvard University Press.
Starr, P. (2004): The creation of the media: Political origins of modern communications. Basic Books.
Cohen, J. (1989): Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin, A.–Pettit, P. (Eds.): The good polity: Normative analysis of the state. pp. 17–34. Blackwell.
Gutmann, A.–Thompson, D. (1996): Democracy and disagreement: Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Habermas, J. (1992): Further reflections on the public sphere. In: Calhoun C. (Ed.): Habermas and the public sphere. pp. 421–461. MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996): Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. W. Rehg, Trans. MIT Press. (Original work published 1992).
Habermas, J. (1989): The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.): MIT Press. (Original work published 1962).
Fraser, N. (1990): Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.
Gallie, W. B. (1956): Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56., pp. 167–198.
Connolly, W. E. (1974): The terms of political discourse. D. C. Heath.
Koselleck, R. (2004): Futures past: On the semantics of historical time. Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1979).
Sartori, G. (1987): The theory of democracy revisited: Part one. The contemporary debate. Chatham House Publishers.
Crouch, C. (2020): Post-democracy after the crisis. Polity.
Brown, W. (2015): Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.
Jäger, A. (2026): Hyperpolitics: Extreme politicization without political consequences. Verso.
Sartori, G. (1970): Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64., (4.), pp. 1033–1053.
Lacan, J. (2006): Écrits: The first complete edition in English.W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1966).
Žižek, S. (1989): The sublime object of ideology. Verso.
Butler, J. (1997): The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fraser, N. (2007): Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, Culture & Society, 24., (4.), pp. 7–30.
Dahl, R. A. (1999): Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view. In: Shapiro, I–Hacker- Cordón, C. (Eds.): Democracy’s edges. pp. 19–36. Cambridge University Press.
Gillespie, T. (2014): The relevance of algorithms. In: T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski–K. A. Foot (Eds.): Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194): MIT Press.
Napoli, P. M. (2019): Social media and the public interest: Media regulation in the disinformation age. Columbia University Press.
Strathern, M. (1997): “Improving ratings”: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5., (3.), pp. 305–321.
Manheim, D.–Garrabrant, S. (2019): Categorizing variants of Goodhart’s law.
Selbst, A. D.–Boyd, D.– Friedler, S. A.–Venkatasubramanian, S.–Vertesi, J. (2019): Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 59–68. Association for Computing Machinery.
Kitchin, R. (2017): Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20., (1.), pp. 14–29.
Seaver, N. (2017): Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4., (2.), pp. 1–12.
Tufekci, Z. (2017): Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
Warner, M. (2002): Publics and counterpublics. Zone Books.
Mansbridge, J.–Bohman, J.–Chambers, S.–Christiano, T.–Fung, A.–Parkinson, J.–Thompson, D. F.–Warren, M. E. (2012): A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: Parkinson, J.–Mansbridge, J. (Eds.): Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. pp. 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2010): Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papadopoulos, Y. (2012): On the embeddedness of deliberative systems: Why elitist innovations matter more. In: Parkinson, J.–Mansbridge, J. (Eds.): Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. pp. 125–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2009): Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative Political Studies, 42., (11.), pp. 1379–1402.
Skocpol, T., Ganz, M.–Munson, Z. (2000): A nation of organizers: The institutional origins of civic voluntarism in the United States. American Political Science Review, 94., (3.), pp. 527–546.
Tocqueville, A. de. (2000): Democracy in America. In: Mansfield, H. C.–Winthrop, D. (Eds. & Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1840).
Habermas, J. (2022): Ein neuer Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit und die deliberative Politik. Suhrkamp. C. Cronin, Trans., Polity.
Han, B.-C. (2022): Infocracy: Digitization and the crisis of democracy. Polity Press. (Original work published 2021).
Niessen, C.–Reuchamps, M. (2019): Designing a permanent deliberative citizens’ assembly: The Ostbelgien Modell in Belgium. Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance working paper series 6. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/168636
Habermas, J. (1987b): The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.): Beacon Press. (Original work published 1981).
Habermas, J. (1987a): The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. MIT Press. (Original work published 1985).
Forst, R. (2015): Noumenal power. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23., (2.), pp. 111–127.
Landemore, H. (2021): Open democracy and digital technologies. In: L. Bernholz, H. Landemore–R. Reich (Eds.): Digital technology and democratic theory. pp. 62–89. University of Chicago Press.
Zurn, C. F. (2011): Social pathologies as second-order disorders. In: D. Petherbridge (Ed.): Axel Honneth: Critical essays. pp. 345–370. Brill.
Yeung, K. (2017): “Hypernudge”: Big data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20.,(1.), pp. 118–136.
Mansoury, M.–Abdollahpouri, H.–Pechenizkiy, M.–Mobasher, B.–Burke–R. (2020): Feedback loop and bias amplification in recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. pp. 2145–2148. Association for Computing Machinery.
Bucher, T. (2012): Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14., (7.), pp. 1164–1180.
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2011): A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture & Society, 28., (6.), pp. 164–181.
Bail, C. A. (2021): Breaking the social media prism: How to make our platforms less polarizing. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Farrell, H.–Schneier, B. (2018): Common-knowledge attacks on democracy. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2018-10/common-knowledge-attacks-democracy
Cohen, J. E. (2013): What privacy is for. Harvard Law Review, 126., (7.), pp. 1904–1933.
Richards, N. M. (2015): Intellectual privacy: Rethinking civil liberties in the digital age. Oxford University Press.
Mouffe, C. (2013): Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. Verso.
Schmitt, C. (2007): The concept of the political. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1932)
Curran, J.–Seaton, J. (2003): Power without responsibility: The press, broadcasting, and new media in Britain. Routledge.
Fishkin, J. S. (2018): Democracy when the people are thinking: Revitalizing our politics through public deliberation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ortutay, B. (2023): Twitter’s plan to charge for crucial tool prompts outcry. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/twitter-api-
Honneth, A. (2014): Freedom’s right: The social foundations of democratic life. Polity Press. (Original work published 2011).
Jaeggi, R. (2018): Critique of forms of life. Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.
Small, C. T.– Bjorkegren, M.– Erkkilä, T.–Shaw, L.–Megill, C. (2021): “Polis: Scaling Deliberation by Mapping High Dimensional Opinion Spaces.” Recerca. Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi, 26., (2.), pp. 1–26.
Anderson, B. (2006): Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso. (Original work published 1983).
Scannell, P. (1989): Public service broadcasting and modern public life. Media, Culture & Society, 11., (2.), pp. 135–166.
Benkler, Y. (2006): The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
Gillespie, T. (2018): Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Seeliger, M.–Sevignani, S. (2022): A new structural transformation of the public sphere? An introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 39., (4.), pp. 3–16.
Habermas, J. (2006): Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16., (4.), pp. 411–426.
Castells, M. (2009): Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2012): Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Polity Press.
Sennett, R. (1977): The fall of public man. Alfred A. Knopf.
Papacharissi, Z. (2010): A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Polity.
Postman, N. (2006): Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. Penguin Books. (Original work published 1985).
Virilio, P. (2006): Speed and politics. Semiotext(e): (Original work published 1977).
Han, B.-C. (2017): Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power.Verso. (Original work published 2014).
Porter, T. M. (1995): Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Postman, N. (1993): Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage Books. (Original work published 1992).
Srnicek, N. (2016): Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019): The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Couldry, N.–Mejias, U. A. (2019): The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mann, M. (1984): The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology, 25., (2.), pp. 185–213.
Rahman, K. S. (2018): The new utilities: Private power, social infrastructure, and the revival of the public utility concept. Cardozo Law Review, 39., (5.), pp. 1621–1692.
Neckel, S. (2020): The refeudalization of modern capitalism. Journal of Sociology, 56., (3.), pp. 472–486.
Durand, C. (2024): How Silicon Valley unleashed technofeudalism: The making of the digital economy. Verso. (Original work published 2020).
Varoufakis, Y. (2023): Technofeudalism: What killed capitalism. The Bodley Head.
Morozov, E. (2022): Critique of techno-feudal reason. New Left Review, 133/134., pp. 89–126.
Espeland, W. N.–Sauder, M. (2007): Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113., (1.), pp. 1–40.
Hacking, I. (1995): The looping effects of human kinds. In: Sperber, D.–Premack, D–Premack, A. J. (Eds.): Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. pp. 351–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benkler, Y.–Faris, R.– Roberts, H. (2018): Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Humprecht, E.–Esser, F.– Van Aelst, P. (2020): Resilience to online disinformation: A framework for cross-national comparative research. The International Journal of Press/ Politics, 25., (3.), pp. 493–516.
Hallin, D. C.–Mancini, P. (2004): Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
Guess, A. M–Malhotra, N–Pan, J–Barberá, P–Allcott, H–Brown, T–Crespo-Tenorio, A–Dimmery, D–Freelon, D–Gentzkow, M–González-Bailón, S–Kennedy, E–Kim, Y. M–Lazer, D–Moehler, D–Nyhan, B–Rivera, C. V–Settle, J–Thomas, D. R–Thorson, E–… Tucker, J. A. (2023a): How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science, 381., (6656.), pp. 398–404.
Guess, A. M.–Malhotra, N–Pan, J–Barberá, P–Allcott, H–Brown, T–Crespo-Tenorio, A–Dimmery, D–Freelon, D–Gentzkow, M–González-Bailón, S–Kennedy, E–Lazer, D–Moehler, D–Nyhan, B–Rivera, C. V–Settle, J–Thomas, D. R–Thorson, E–… Tucker, J. A. (2023b): Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science, 381., (6656.), pp. 404–408.
Nyhan, B.–Settle, J.–Thorson, E.–Wojcieszak, M.–Barberá, P.–Chen, A. Y.–Allcott, H.–Brown, T.–Crespo-Tenorio, A.–Dimmery, D.–Freelon, D.–Gentzkow, M.–González-Bailón, S.–Guess, A. M.–Kennedy, E.–Kim, Y. M.–Lazer, D.–Malhotra, N. Moehler, D.–Tucker, J. A. (2023): Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature, 620., (7972.), pp. 137–144.
Gauthier, G.–Hodler, R.–Widmer, P.–Zhuravskaya, E. (2026): The political effects of X’s feed algorithm. Nature, 652., (8109.), pp. 416–423.
Piccardi, T.–Saveski, M.–Jia, C.–Hancock, J.–Tsai, J. L.–Bernstein, M. S. (2025): Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization. Science, 390., (6776.), eadu5584.
Bagchi, C.–Menczer, F.–Lundquist, J.–Tarafdar, M.–Paik, A.–Grabowicz, P. A. (2024): Social media algorithms can curb misinformation, but do they? arXiv.
González-Bailón, S–Lazer, D. M. J–Barberá, P–Zhang, M–Allcott, H–Brown, T–Crespo-Tenorio, A–Freelon, D–Gentzkow, M–Guess, A. M–Iyengar, S–Kim, Y. M–Malhotra, N–Moehler, D–Nyhan, B–Pan, J–Rivera, C. V–Settle, J–Thorson, E–… Tucker, J. A. (2023): Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science, 381., (6656.), pp. 392–398.
Eady, G.–Nagler, J.–Guess, A.–Zilinsky, J.–Tucker, J. A. (2019): How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. SAGE Open, 9., (1.), pp. 1–21.
Bruns, A. (2019): Are filter bubbles real? Polity Press.
Chadwick, A. (2017): The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allcott, H.–Gentzkow, M.–Wittenbrink, B.–Cisneros, J. C.–Crespo-Tenorio, A.–Dimmery, D.–Freelon, D.–González-Bailón, S.–Guess, A. M.–Kim, Y. M.–Lazer, D.–Malhotra, N.–Moehler, D.– Nair-Desai, S.–Nyhan, B.–Pan, J.–Settle, J.–Thorson, E.–Tromble, R.–... Tucker, J. A. (2025): The effect of deactivating Facebook and Instagram on users’ emotional state. NBER Working Paper No. 33697. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Achen, C. H.– Bartels, L. M. (2016): Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
