Draft:Technological paternalism
 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,643 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
Technological paternalism (or Technology paternalism) is a concept in technology referring to a form of paternalism in which technical systems and algorithms are designed to limit users’ freedom by overriding, reversing or otherwise constraining their actions, with the claimed intention of benefiting or protecting the user. In 2024, the concept of technological paternalism received a Big Brother Award in the Trend category.[1]
Concept
[edit]The earliest mention of the term dates to Bjørn Hofmann in 2003, who, in the context of medical ethics, argued for reformulating the traditional concept of paternalism to account for how medical technology, not just medical professionals, constrains patient autonomy.[2]
The conceptual definition of technological paternalism has been developed by Sarah Spiekermann and Frank Pallas, who formalized the concept to highlight the patronizing effect of technical systems that claim to protect their users but leave them without autonomy to influence system actions. According to their definition, an action performed autonomously by a technology on behalf of a controlling party (the patron) is paternalistic if it directly affects a person (the subject) who perceives it as restricting their freedom, cannot be overridden without losing functionality, and is justified by the patron as being mainly in the subject's own interest.[3] Based on this definition, measures to capture technology paternalism empirically were also developed.[4]
Technological paternalism often manifests in the form of recommendations, warnings, or even prohibitions built into technical systems. One example is seatbelt reminders in vehicles, which beep until one fastens their seatbelt.[5] For internet philosopher Leena Simon, technological paternalism is “humanity’s self-inflicted return to a state of immaturity.[1]
Applications
[edit]Technological paternalism is applied in several areas:
- Transportation: In automated driving, vehicles are programmed to strictly adhere to traffic rules, even when this conflicts with occupants' wishes.
- Health: Wearables and health apps can encourage users to adopt healthier behaviors, for example, by reminding users to exercise regularly or take their medication.
- Privacy and Cybersecurity: Default privacy settings on social media and automatic operating system security updates are designed to protect users from threats.
- Public Safety: Surveillance technologies such as video surveillance (CCTV) and license plate recognition are intended to enhance public safety but coincidentally raise questions about privacy and individual freedom.
Criticism
[edit]Critics argue that technological paternalism undermines user autonomy, potentially leading to technology taking control of users' lives. Concerns highlight that opaque algorithms and data analyses increasingly make decisions on users' behalf without them understanding the underlying rationale.[6]
Proponents, on the other hand, generally see moderate use of paternalistic approaches as an opportunity to simplify complex decisions and reduce self-control problems.[7] The ethical debate surrounding technological paternalism touches on central issues of autonomy, transparency, and data privacy. The extent to which it is ethically justifiable to restrict freedom of choice in favor of supposedly better outcomes is debated.[8]
Discussions focus on the extent to which paternalism may be justified, for example, regarding older adults with limited decision-making abilities, or whether “softer” approaches, such as nudging, which guide user behavior while preserving autonomy, can also be considered paternalistic.[9][10]
Legal Aspects
[edit]Currently, no specific laws explicitly address technological paternalism. Instead, measures involving technological paternalism often fall under existing regulations on data protection, consumer protection, and product safety. Possible regulatory approaches could include transparency requirements, opt-out options, and stricter data protection regulations. The challenge lies in balancing technological progress, individual autonomy, and the common good.[8]
Further reading
[edit]- Spiekermann, Sarah; Pallas, Frank (2005). Technology paternalism – wider implications of ubiquitous computing. Vol. 4. Poiesis & Praxis. pp. 6–18. doi:10.1007/s10202-005-0010-3.
References
[edit]- 1 2 "Technikpaternalismus | BigBrotherAwards". bigbrotherawards.de (in German). Retrieved 2026-10-03.
- ↑ Hofmann, Bjørn (2003). "Technological paternalism: on how medicine has reformed ethics and how technology can refine moral theory". Science and Engineering Ethics. 9 (3).
- ↑ Spiekermann, Sarah; Pallas, Frank (2006). "Technology paternalism–wider implications of ubiquitous computing" (PDF). Poiesis & praxis. 4 (1).
- ↑ Rochi, Martin; Rauschnabel, Philipp A.; Karl‐Heinz, Renner; Ivens, Björn S. (2024). "Technology paternalism: Development and validation of a measurement scale". Psychology & Marketing. 41 (5).
- ↑ "Frank Pallas, was ist Technologie-Paternalismus?" (in German). Retrieved 2024-10-13.
- ↑ Pachali, David. "Frank Pallas, was ist Technologie-Paternalismus?". iRights.info (in German). Retrieved 2026-10-03.
- ↑ Bartke, Simon; Bosworth, Steven; Bruttel, Lisa V.; Funk, Lothar; Güth, Werner; Haupt, Marlene; Kliemt, Hartmut; Schnellenbach, Jan; Stolley, Florian; Weimann, Joachim (2014). "Nudging als politisches Instrument – gute Absicht oder staatlicher Übergriff?". Wirtschaftsdienst (in German). 2014 (11): 767–791.
- 1 2 "Die Ethik der Roboterautos: Wer autonome Fahrzeuge will, muss eigene Autonomie abgeben". 1E9.community (in German). Retrieved 2026-10-03.
- ↑ Cristina, Voinea; Wangmo, Tenzin; Vică, Constantin (2024). "Paternalistic AI: the case of aged care" (PDF). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 11 (1).
- ↑ Frischmann, Brett (2022). "Nudging humans". Social Epistemology. 36 (2).
Category:Philosophy of technology Category:Forms of government