From concerns about social media addiction to urgent civil liberties issues, courts are asking scientists to be arbiters of alleged technology harms.
-
From concerns about social media addiction to urgent civil liberties issues, courts are asking scientists to be arbiters of alleged technology harms. How can scientists reliably inform courts and how can courts interpret our work?
A new article with @penney describes the urgent need for scientists to offer trustworthy contributions to litigation involving digital tech.
-
From concerns about social media addiction to urgent civil liberties issues, courts are asking scientists to be arbiters of alleged technology harms. How can scientists reliably inform courts and how can courts interpret our work?
A new article with @penney describes the urgent need for scientists to offer trustworthy contributions to litigation involving digital tech.
Our article offer seven tool-sets for causality & the law — concepts that we hope will help judges, litigators, and scientists think about the harms of digital technology.
Concept 1: Specific vs General Causality.
Scientists often set out to make claims about populations, while courts often care about specific individuals or sub-groups. This mismatch can make scientists merchants of doubt and lead courts to downplay good science. But it's possible to combine both.
-
Our article offer seven tool-sets for causality & the law — concepts that we hope will help judges, litigators, and scientists think about the harms of digital technology.
Concept 1: Specific vs General Causality.
Scientists often set out to make claims about populations, while courts often care about specific individuals or sub-groups. This mismatch can make scientists merchants of doubt and lead courts to downplay good science. But it's possible to combine both.
Concept 2: Reverse versus Forward Causality.
When scientists do experiments, we're often asking about forward causality. When courts ask causal questions, they're often asking about reverse causality - things in the past. Our article offers ideas for resolving this mismatch in tech litigation.
-
Concept 2: Reverse versus Forward Causality.
When scientists do experiments, we're often asking about forward causality. When courts ask causal questions, they're often asking about reverse causality - things in the past. Our article offers ideas for resolving this mismatch in tech litigation.
Concept 3: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Conflicting scientific findings can lead to confusion & mistrust in science, especially when companies hide unflattering results. Systematic reviews help but also slow things down, as @orbenamy & I write here:
-
Concept 3: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Conflicting scientific findings can lead to confusion & mistrust in science, especially when companies hide unflattering results. Systematic reviews help but also slow things down, as @orbenamy & I write here:
Concept 4: Pattern Causality
Some claims about tech harms focus on fairness or discrimination. These Qs also rely on the statistics of causality. In the article, we summarize methods and progress on claims of discrimination, including work on taking algorithms to court:
-
Concept 4: Pattern Causality
Some claims about tech harms focus on fairness or discrimination. These Qs also rely on the statistics of causality. In the article, we summarize methods and progress on claims of discrimination, including work on taking algorithms to court:
Concept 5: Magnitude, Doses, & Trade-offs
Once scientists establish causality, we're not yet done. Courts need to debate whether effects are consequential, and they often turn to ideas from toxicology of doses and exposure— which aren't always a great match for socio-technical questions.
As a last resort, tech firms argue the benefits are worth any harms (so tired of this one).
-
Concept 5: Magnitude, Doses, & Trade-offs
Once scientists establish causality, we're not yet done. Courts need to debate whether effects are consequential, and they often turn to ideas from toxicology of doses and exposure— which aren't always a great match for socio-technical questions.
As a last resort, tech firms argue the benefits are worth any harms (so tired of this one).
Concept 6: Evidence of Negligence
Scientists need to understand the concept of negligence. If tech firms hold life-saving knowledge & choose not to use it, they could be liable. To avoid liability, some tech firms forbid internal research on children because they are afraid of being held responsible for a duty of care.
So keep doing independent research on life-saving science!
-
Concept 6: Evidence of Negligence
Scientists need to understand the concept of negligence. If tech firms hold life-saving knowledge & choose not to use it, they could be liable. To avoid liability, some tech firms forbid internal research on children because they are afraid of being held responsible for a duty of care.
So keep doing independent research on life-saving science!
Concept 7: Damages & Remediation
Scientists are often asked how to remediate harms of digital tech. That's tough when companies try to quash or control research. We suggest learning from the Tobacco Master Settlement, which accelerated causal research in public health for the common good.
-
Concept 7: Damages & Remediation
Scientists are often asked how to remediate harms of digital tech. That's tough when companies try to quash or control research. We suggest learning from the Tobacco Master Settlement, which accelerated causal research in public health for the common good.
Many scientists who study digital tech are fearful of sharing their expertise with the courts. This situation is heartbreaking.
I've heard from folks on both sides of social media + mental health debates who worry that serving will harm their reputation.
We need to train/supports scientists to have the courage to contribute their expertise to all our democratic institutions, including courts. Jon & I hope this article helps make that more common.
If you're working on this, do reach out.
-
Many scientists who study digital tech are fearful of sharing their expertise with the courts. This situation is heartbreaking.
I've heard from folks on both sides of social media + mental health debates who worry that serving will harm their reputation.
We need to train/supports scientists to have the courage to contribute their expertise to all our democratic institutions, including courts. Jon & I hope this article helps make that more common.
If you're working on this, do reach out.
@natematias really interesting thread, thanks for the summary, and looking forward to digging into the article!
