BEYOND INNOVATION: THE URGENCY OF TECHNOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN PINSKER’S WE ARE SATELLITES
Keywords:
Accountability, Brain Implant, Hybrid Identity, Inequality, Pilot, Technological MediationAbstract
This research paper explores how technology silently mediates human identity in the contemporary era, and how hidden technological artifacts prevail marginalization, inequality, unequal opportunity, exploitation, economic disparity, systemic injustice, discrimination, and unequal access. This paper exclusively demands the urgent need to rethink about the responsibility and accountability. This study focuses on who is truly responsible and accountable in this tech-era. The deployment and development of technology is on its peak point which is why it is demand of time to address the genuine issues caused by technological intervention in our lives along with reaping its fruits. This research paper fills the research gap by addressing not only the implications and ramifications of technological advancement but also exploring who is truly responsible and accountable and appealing to the policy makers, technologists, scholars, governments, and other authoritative entities to be insightful in designing and operating technological tools, devices, apparatuses, gadgets, machines etc. This is a qualitative research and researchers analyze sci-fiction novel We Are Satellite written by Sara Pinsker through Verbeek’s framework mediation theory. This analysis advocates collaborative approach to ensure that technology should serve human beings for their favors rather prevailing imbalances, inequity, unevenness, disparity, discrepancy and marginalization in a society.
Downloads
References
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
Angwin, J., Parris Jr., T., & Mattu, S. (2016). Breaking the black box: When algorithms decide what you pay. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/breaking-the-black-box-when-algorithms-decide-what-you-pay
Baba, C. N. (2024). Ethical leadership and accountability: Technology innovation. Jurnal Konsep Bisnis dan Manajemen, 10(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.31289/jkbm.v10i2.11489
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Brown, K. (2016). When Facebook decides who’s a terrorist. Fusion. http://fusion.net/story/356354/facebook-kashmir-terrorism/
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
Coeckelbergh, M. (2015). Money machines: Electronic financial technologies, distancing, and responsibility. London, UK: Routledge.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dewey, C. (2016, May 19). How algorithms shape what we read online. The Washington Post.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110
Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Franklin, U. (1990). The real world of technology. Toronto, Canada: CBC Massey Lectures.
Garfinkel, S. (2016). Algorithmic transparency and accountability. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/2934665
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking University lectures. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Johnson, D. G. (2006). Computer systems: Moral entities but not moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9121-5
Johnson, D. G., & Verdicchio, M. (2017). Reframing AI discourse. Minds and Machines, 27(4), 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9417-6
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of ethics for the technological age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kharif, O. (2016, November 25). No credit history? No problem. Lenders are looking at your phone data. Bloomberg.com.
Land, M. K., & Aronson, J. D. (2020). Human rights and technology: New challenges for justice and accountability. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16(1), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-031720-074759
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (Revised and augmented throughout by H. S. Jones with the assistance of R. McKenzie). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Ma, C., Shang, S., Zhao, H., Zhong, J., & Chan, X. W. (2023). Speaking for organization or self? Investigating the effects of perceived overqualification on pro-organizational and self-interested voice. Journal of Business Research, 168, 114215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114215
Macnish, K. (2018). The ethics of surveillance: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge.
Martin, K. (2019). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3
Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
Nash, K. S. (2016, November 30). Mastercard deploys artificial intelligence to pinpoint transaction fraud. The Wall Street Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2016/11/30/mastercard-deploys-artificial-intelligence-to-pinpoint-transaction-fraud/
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2023). Technology. In OED Online. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oed.com
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pinsker, S. (2021). We are satellites. New York, NY: Berkley Books.
Rai, A., Kim, M., & Singh, S. K. (2023). Meaningful work from ethics perspective: Examination of ethical antecedents and outcomes of meaningful work. Journal of Business Research, 169, 114287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114287
Reisman, D., Schultz, J., Crawford, K., & Whittaker, M. (2018). Algorithmic impact assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability. AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/aiareport2018.pdf
Rieder, G., & Hofmann, J. (2020). Towards platform accountability: Policy, technical, and design approaches. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1536
Rieder, G., & Simon, J. (2016). Big data: A new empirical and normative challenge. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9394-3
Rosenberger, R. (2014). Multistability and the agency of mundane artifacts: From speed bumps to subway benches. Human Studies, 37(3), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9317-1
Santoni de Sio, F., & Mecacci, G. (2021). Four responsibility gaps with artificial intelligence: Why they matter and how to address them. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1057–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00450-x
Shin, D., Rasul, A., & Fotiadis, A. (2022). Why am I seeing this? Deconstructing algorithm literacy through the lens of users. Internet Research, 32(4), 1214–1234. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-02-2021-0087
Stahl, B. C. (2013). Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Science and Public Policy, 40(6), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct067
Stahl, B. C. (2021). Artificial intelligence for a better future: An ecosystem perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Swierstra, T. (2015). Identifying the normative challenges posed by technology’s “soft impacts.” Ethics and Information Technology, 17(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9362-0
Swierstra, T., & te Molder, H. (2012). Risk and soft impacts. In S. Roeser (Ed.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 1050–1066). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
van den Eede, Y. (2016). Tracing the sublime in postphenomenology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 20(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne201620214
van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). Designing robots for care: Care-centered value-sensitive design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 407–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6
Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847
Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human–technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-008-9099-x
Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). Beyond interaction: A short introduction to mediation theory. Interactions, 22(3), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2751314
Wexler, R. (2017). How companies hide software flaws that impact who goes to prison and who gets out. Washington Monthly. http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust-2017/code-of-silence/
Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Winner, L. (2006). Do artifacts have politics? In D. G. Johnson & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), Technology and society: Building our sociotechnical
future (pp. 177–192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Zhang, W., Zhang, W., & Daim, T. U. (2023). The voluntary green behavior in green technology innovation: The dual effects of green human resource management system and leader green traits. Journal of Business Research, 165, 114049.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114049
Zhao, H., Zhao, S., Chen, Y., & Yu, X. (2023). Bystanders’ reactions to leader knowledge hiding: The roles of moral disengagement and moral identity. Journal of Business Research, 165, 114029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114029
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Maafia Khan, Tanzeela Fatima, Inbesaat Fatima (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
