Opaque data systems are arbitrary because their goals cannot be reflexively integrated

Evidence

But contemporary data relations involve more than just relations; they involve systems that insinuate themselves within “the self’s needs, desires and other choices.” This is what Hegel in his discussion of free will called the problem of arbitrariness. The data infrastructure on which the self-tracker relies to augment herself contains elements and dynamics that are troubling because they are arbitrary, driven by goals that are not hers, and operate in ways that remain largely opaque and so can never be reflexively integrated into her goals. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 521

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames ‘arbitrariness’ (Hegel) as the defining defect of contemporary data relations.
• XREF: Parallels the opacity/black-box critique of algorithmic systems in the attention/surveillance schools. — connects to: General data-protection frameworks cannot challenge extractive data economies. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 555; Distributed commercial data collection is structurally opaque and hard to contest — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 389; Fundamental critique of a system cannot arise from within that system — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 133 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Fundamental critique of a system cannot arise from within that system #corroborates (0.90) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 133
• General data-protection frameworks cannot challenge extractive data economies. #complicates (0.80) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 555
• All formal systems face internal limitations that cannot be escaped #expands (0.80) — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 323
• Distributed commercial data collection is structurally opaque and hard to contest #corroborates (0.75) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 389