A legal cure for news choice overload: Regulating algorithms and AI with ‘light patterns’ to foster autonomy and democracy

Molitorisz, S

A legal cure for news choice overload: Regulating algorithms and AI with ‘light patterns’ to foster autonomy and democracy

Molitorisz, S

Permalink

Publisher:: Wiley
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Policy and Internet, 2024, 16, (3), pp. 643-660
Issue Date:: 2024-09-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (8.48 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Molitorisz, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6825-3392
dc.date.accessioned	2024-12-13T04:18:16Z
dc.date.available	2024-12-13T04:18:16Z
dc.date.issued	2024-09-01
dc.identifier.citation	Policy and Internet, 2024, 16, (3), pp. 643-660
dc.identifier.issn	1944-2866
dc.identifier.issn	1944-2866
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/182525
dc.description.abstract	Despite an unprecedented abundance of news content, both news avoidance and dissatisfaction are rising. Blending journalism, philosophy and law scholarship, this paper argues that ‘news choice overload’ causes paralysis and poor outcomes as it transfers power to algorithms, thereby harming autonomy and, in turn, democracy. An analysis of Australian and European regulatory responses shows the need for an algorithmic regulator and a transparency requirement for digital platforms. Further, people's ability to choose autonomously can be fostered by positive interventions, or ‘light patterns’, including ‘diversity nudges’ and a shift from caveat emptor to a caveat venditor approach, in which digital platforms are assigned legal responsibility. Recognising that it is autonomy and democracy—not choice per se—that are valuable, such interventions can shift meaningful decision-making back to citizens at a moment when the rise of generative artificial intelligence is giving algorithms yet more power.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	Wiley
dc.relation.ispartof	Policy and Internet
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1002/poi3.412
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1605 Policy and Administration, 2001 Communication and Media Studies
dc.subject.classification	4407 Policy and administration
dc.subject.classification	4408 Political science
dc.title	A legal cure for news choice overload: Regulating algorithms and AI with ‘light patterns’ to foster autonomy and democracy
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	16
utslib.for	1605 Policy and Administration
utslib.for	2001 Communication and Media Studies
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/Centre for Media Transition (CMT)
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/UTS Groups/The Trustworthy Digital Society
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2024-12-13T04:18:11Z
pubs.issue	3
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	16
utslib.citation.issue	3

Abstract:

Despite an unprecedented abundance of news content, both news avoidance and dissatisfaction are rising. Blending journalism, philosophy and law scholarship, this paper argues that ‘news choice overload’ causes paralysis and poor outcomes as it transfers power to algorithms, thereby harming autonomy and, in turn, democracy. An analysis of Australian and European regulatory responses shows the need for an algorithmic regulator and a transparency requirement for digital platforms. Further, people's ability to choose autonomously can be fostered by positive interventions, or ‘light patterns’, including ‘diversity nudges’ and a shift from caveat emptor to a caveat venditor approach, in which digital platforms are assigned legal responsibility. Recognising that it is autonomy and democracy—not choice per se—that are valuable, such interventions can shift meaningful decision-making back to citizens at a moment when the rise of generative artificial intelligence is giving algorithms yet more power.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/182525