Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Enclosure?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Whether agentic AI empowers users depends on the collective capacity to contest choices embedded in protocol infrastructure — and this paper argues that capacity is being foreclosed now, before the architecture hardens.

desk verdict A careful comparative framework for when users can contest agentic systems; the induction from its own cases is real but admitted, and the agentic-AI application is timely enough to warrant serious engagement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06510 v1 pith:FXEQLJXC submitted 2026-08-06 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

David Gamba , Daniel M. Romero , Grant Schoenebeck This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC
keywords agenticAIdepoliticizationcollectivecontestationprotocolgovernanceModelContextadblockersrecommendersystemsrobo-advisors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Whether agentic AI empowers users is a political question, not just a technical one, and this paper argues the answer is being settled now at the protocol layer. Through a comparative analysis of ad blockers, recommender systems, robo-advisors, and spam governance, it identifies a recurring pattern: contestable choices about whose interests agents serve get embedded in APIs, standards, and default configurations, removing them from public challenge. It specifies three conditions that sustain the collective capacity to contest such choices — public observability, independent infrastructure, and governance with adversarial pathways — and shows that when all three are foreclosed at once, displacement becomes qualitatively harder to reverse. Applied to agentic AI, the paper contends that the Model Context Protocol's governance under the Agentic AI Foundation reproduces this foreclosure-prone pattern, so the window for public contestation is closing now.

What carries the argument

The constitutive politics framework, which decomposes any computational agent into three necessary elements — infrastructure, data/knowledge, and objective — and treats each as a site of political contestation embedded in technical form. The paper uses the concept of depoliticization to describe how contestable choices are relocated into technical or expert arrangements, and derives three conditions for collective contestation — public observability, independent infrastructure, and governance that sustains contestation — as the material basis that determines whether organized challenge can form, persist, and survive adversarial pressure. It also identifies multi-dimensional foreclosure as the mechanism that makes displacement compounding, and nested re-embedding as the pattern by which regulatory interventions are bypassed at an implementation level.

What would settle it

A documented trajectory in which organized collective contestation persisted without one of the three conditions, or in which multi-dimensional foreclosure was reversed within a few years, would require the framework's mechanism claim to be revised, as the paper itself states. Concretely, if the Agentic AI Foundation's final charter grants users or public-interest groups formal adversarial standing and revision authority, or if an open agent ecosystem sustains contestation without non-platform infrastructure, the central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that durable user empowerment depends on the collective capacity to contest the choices embedded in the technical arrangements that define what agents can do. In the four historical cases, decisions about infrastructure, knowledge production, and optimization objectives were made through API redesigns, standard-setting bodies, and default configurations — moves that were political but presented as technical. The paper identifies three jointly effective conditions for contestation to form and persist: the epistemic task must be performable with publicly observable information, community knowledge must be operable through infrastructure the platform does not control, and governance must include a formal challenge pathway. It argues that when foreclosure accumulates across all three dimensions simultaneously, the footholds from which contestation could be rebuilt are removed together, making reversal qualitatively harder. For agentic AI, the paper argues that the Model Context Protocol's donation to the Agentic AI Foundation creates a governance configuration with open procedures but no public interest mandate, no adversarial mechanism, and a Governing Board composed of platform providers — the pattern the cases show as foreclosure-prone, and one that is being settled before material adoption makes it hard to revisit.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the four historical cases are a fair and sufficient sample from which to infer the three conditions as general causes of contestation, even though the framework was induced from those same cases and applied to agentic AI without an out-of-sample test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, protocol-level standards design is a primary site of political power over AI, and the EU AI Act's silence on agentic systems means downstream regulation will operate on boundaries already set upstream.
  • The consolidation of the Model Context Protocol under the Agentic AI Foundation, with no formal standing for users or public interest representatives, means the conditions for collective contestation over agent behavior are absent at the layer where capability boundaries are defined.
  • The window for intervention is bounded: the AAIF charter is being finalized in 2026, EU technical standards are under development for 2027, and default behaviors of deployed shopping agents are accumulating habituation now; each becomes harder to revisit once material adoption advances.
  • Transparency alone will not constitute accountability; the robo-advisor and DSA trajectories show that disclosure without adversarial standing and revision authority can perform discursive legitimation rather than genuine contestation.
  • The uBlock Origin on Firefox case shows that preserving independent infrastructure can sustain user-aligned agency even when a dominant platform forecloses its own channel.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be operationalized as a governance scorecard: evaluate any AI standards body on the three conditions, and the theory predicts that a body lacking even one will see contestation degrade; the AAIF's final charter is a near-term test case.
  • The argument implies that open-weight models and non-platform compute are preconditions for the epistemic commons in agentic AI; if the protocol layer locks proprietary access, the recommender-systems pattern — where no organized contestation ever formed — may recur across all domains at once.
  • A testable extension: if an open alternative to MCP maintains a community filter-list-like epistemic commons, the paper's framework predicts that its durability will depend on whether it can run on infrastructure not controlled by the dominant platform providers, just as Firefox preserved uBlock Origin's full capability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a "constitutive politics" framework for studying user-facing agents, organized around three dimensions (infrastructural, epistemic, teleological) and three conditions for collective contestation (public observability, independent infrastructure, governance that sustains contestation). It applies this framework to four historical trajectories—browser ad blockers, platform recommender systems, financial robo-advisors, and email spam governance—to argue that depoliticization drives a divergence between individual-level improvements and collective capacity to contest the terms of agency. It then uses the framework prospectively to analyze the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation, concluding that current governance arrangements reproduce foreclosure-prone patterns and that the window for public contestation is closing.

Significance. If its central claim is accepted, the paper usefully reframes protocol-level standards and industry foundations as primary sites of political power over AI, rather than as technical details. The historical narratives are citation-dense, internally consistent, and the spam case documents a striking divergence between individual inbox quality and collective contestation capacity. The paper also states explicit falsifiability conditions and discloses its main methodological limitations, which is commendable. However, the central causal inference—that durable user empowerment depends on the three identified conditions—is derived from the same four cases used to test it, and the only candidate positive instance (robo-advisors) is undercut by the paper's own narrative of SEC withdrawal and nested re-embedding. The prospective agentic-AI application is therefore not yet backed by a confirmed causal foundation, though the framework remains plausible as an interpretive heuristic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 and §6] The framework is induced from the same cases it is then used to explain. Section 2 states "We derive it from the cases, not from the framework alone," and Section 6's Limitations admits "The three dimensions emerged from the trajectories we analyzed." Because the three conditions of collective contestation and the outcome (durable vs. foreclosed contestation) are defined on the same four cases, the comparative analysis cannot establish the causal claim in §4 that "durable user empowerment depends on the collective capacity to contest such choices." The Section 5 application to agentic AI inherits this evidentiary gap; no out-of-sample trajectory is used to test the conditions. The authors should either add an independent case not used in the induction, or explicitly reframe the central claim as an interpretive synthesis rather than a causal generalization.
  2. [§3 (Financial Robo-Advisors) and §4 (Durability and the Burden of Re-politicization)] The paper's only candidate positive instance of sustained adversarial contestation—the SEC/MiFID II treatment of robo-advisors—is contradicted by its own narrative. Section 3 documents that the SEC withdrew its predictive-analytics rule in 2025, and Section 4's "Durability and the Burden of Re-politicization" describes MiFID II as leading to "nested re-embedding at the implementation level" (a pattern reiterated in Section 5). Thus the paper has no confirmed positive case where the three conditions produced durable user empowerment; the robo-advisor trajectory in fact illustrates the paper's own re-embedding dynamic. This weakens the induction behind the three conditions and the specific prediction in §5 that multi-dimensional foreclosure in agentic AI will be "qualitatively harder to reverse." The authors need to confront this directly and either identify a true positive case or temper the sufficiency claim.
  3. [§5 (Institutional configuration in place)] The Section 5 application treats rapid MCP adoption and the AAIF's governance composition as reproducing the foreclosure-prone pattern without addressing the openness of the protocol itself. Unlike Chrome's proprietary extension API in the Manifest V3 case, MCP is an open protocol hosted by the Linux Foundation, with an open SEP process and public maintainer meetings. The paper does not specify the mechanism by which protocol-level governance—as opposed to a single firm's infrastructure—forecloses contestation, nor does it explain why users or third parties cannot fork or otherwise work around an unfavorable SEP outcome. To make the analogy load-bearing, the authors should either provide evidence that the AAIF's open surface is structurally incapable of channeling contestation, or explicitly limit the claim to the current governance charter rather than asserting that the window is closing on the basis of the historical analogy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4 (Conditions of Collective Contestation)] The falsifiability condition is stated only at the end of the section; given that it is the paper's main protection against the in-sample induction critique, it should be introduced earlier and explicitly checked against the robo-advisor case, which currently appears to violate the expectation that adversarial institutional design prevents foreclosure.
  2. [§6 (Limitations)] The limitation that the cases are "US- and EU-centric" is accurate but understated: all four cases come from Western, high-income, democratic regulatory contexts. The authors should acknowledge that the transferability of the three conditions to other administrative law traditions is not merely unaddressed but potentially constrained by the shared institutional features of the sampled cases.
  3. [Table 1, Recommenders row] The entry "Depoliticized by design" uses intentional language that conflicts with the paper's own definition of depoliticization as a process, not a design intention; consider rephrasing to "depoliticized from the outset" or similar.
  4. [§6 (Discussion and Conclusion)] The right-to-be-forgotten example is introduced as an illustration but no case material is provided; either develop it briefly or remove it, since it introduces a new domain without analysis.
  5. [General] The phrase in §4 that "The cases provide no support for the view that centralized control is a precondition for adequate technical performance" is stronger than the evidence: with four cases, the absence of support is not the same as evidence against, and the spam case actually shows centralized control achieving high individual-level performance. Weakening this to "no support in these cases" would avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is openly induced from the historical cases and applied prospectively to agentic AI, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a qualitative comparative case analysis, not a formal derivation with equations. It induces three conditions for collective contestation from four historical trajectories and then applies them prospectively to agentic AI. This is an explicitly disclosed inductive loop, not a circular reduction: Section 2 states 'We derive it from the cases, not from the framework alone,' and Section 6 admits 'The three dimensions emerged from the trajectories we analyzed.' The paper does not present the agentic AI assessment as an out-of-sample test of an independently established framework; it labels the application prospective ('The agentic AI section in §5 is prospective') and conditional ('If the framework developed above were to hold for this technology, we would expect...'). The three constitutive dimensions themselves are anchored in an analytic decomposition of any computational agent—infrastructure, data, objective—cited to Russell and to Wooldridge and Jennings, rather than defined in terms of the target claim. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The only self-citation (Anwar, Dhillon, and Schoenebeck 2025) supports an unresolved empirical question about watch time as a proxy for satisfaction and is not load-bearing for the central argument. The paper also states a falsifiability condition ('trajectories where multi-dimensional foreclosure was readily reversed, or where sustained collective contestation persisted without those material conditions, would require it to be revised'), further indicating that the framework is not immune to external evidence. The acknowledged limits—US/EU-centric cases, dimensions emergent from the analyzed trajectories, and no formal model—are limitations on generalizability and confirmatory strength, not evidence that a prediction reduces to its inputs by construction. The central claim remains an interpretive extrapolation with independent historical content, so no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters or invented entities are present. The framework uses borrowed concepts such as depoliticization and constitutive politics, and a small set of domain assumptions carries the theoretical load; these are listed above.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Any computational agent requires infrastructure, data, and an objective, corresponding to the infrastructural, epistemic, and teleological dimensions.
    Section 2 asserts this decomposition holds for all examined agents; the paper acknowledges in Section 6 that the dimensions emerged from the trajectories and may not be exhaustive.
  • domain assumption The four historical domains are comparable and their outcome variation is sufficient to identify general conditions of contestation.
    Section 3 selects cases to span variation; Section 6 discloses the US/EU-centric scope, so the sample's representativeness is an unproven premise.
  • domain assumption The political theory concept of depoliticization transfers from statecraft to technical systems.
    Section 4 imports Burnham, Flinders, and Buller's concept and applies it to APIs and standards bodies; the paper argues by analogy rather than proving the transfer.
  • domain assumption The reported facts about MCP adoption and AAIF governance are accurate and stable enough for prospective analysis.
    Section 5 relies on Linux Foundation and MCP Blog statements; future charter or membership changes would change the assessment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Enclosure?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXEQLJXC

@misc{pith2026260806510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Enclosure?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXEQLJXC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06510}
}
read the original abstract

Agentic AI promises a more flexible form of digital agency: systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services. Whether it will empower users is an open question, and we argue that the answer depends on more than the technology. We conduct a comparative case analysis of four more mature domains where similar forms of agency arose: browser-based ad blockers, platform recommender systems, financial robo-advisors, and email spam governance. Across the cases, decisions about whose interests agents would serve were resolved through technical arrangements: API choices, protocol governance, industry standards, and default configurations. Beyond their technical form, these were political decisions. We identify this as depoliticization, a concept from political theory, here at work in technological systems. Its most consequential effect is that individual outcomes and collective contestation capacity can move in opposite directions: spam inbox quality improved substantially while the organized capacity to contest spam governance collapsed. Where intermediary institutions sustained adversarial challenge, user-aligned agency proved more durable; where proprietary infrastructure and closed standard-setting absorbed contestation, displacement compounded. We apply this to agentic AI, where governance arrangements consolidating around the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation are settling these configurations before the choices that define what agents can do move outside the reach of users and the public.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dimensions of constitutive politics that define the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ad blocker trajectory. The 2011 Acceptable Ads [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Robo-advisor trajectory. MiFID II in 2018 is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pattern of institutional design and contestation outcomes across four historical trajectories. The structural features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D.; Kanoria, Y.; and Kumar, A

    Allouah, A.; Besbes, O.; Figueroa, J. D.; Kanoria, Y.; and Kumar, A. 2025. What Is Your AI Agent Buying ? Evaluation , Biases , Model Dependence , & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commerce . arXiv:2508.02630

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Alrizah, M.; Zhu, S.; Xing, X.; and Wang, G. 2019. Errors, Misunderstandings , and Attacks : Analyzing the Crowdsourcing Process of Ad-blocking Systems . In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference , IMC '19, 230--244. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-6948-0

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Ananny, M.; and Crawford, K. 2018. Seeing without Knowing: Limitations of the Transparency Ideal and Its Application to Algorithmic Accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3): 973--989

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    S.; Dhillon, P

    Anwar, M. S.; Dhillon, P. S.; and Schoenebeck, G. 2025. Recommendation and Temptation . In Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , 422--431

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    SPAM -- Technological and Legal Aspects

    Banday, M. T.; and Qadri, J. A. 2011. SPAM -- Technological and Legal Aspects . arXiv:1112.5621

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Bearup, G. 2023. Quick Take - SEC Proposed Rule on Predictive Data Analytics

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    R.; and Maxwell, W

    Bertrand, A.; Eagan, J. R.; and Maxwell, W. 2023. Questioning the Ability of Feature-Based Explanations to Empower Non-Experts in Robo-Advised Financial Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , FAccT '23, 943--958. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 979-8-4007-0192-4

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Birch, K. 2025. Do Artifacts Have Political Economy ? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 01622439251352167

    work page 2025

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Blackburn, O.; Ritala, P.; and Ker \"a nen, J. 2023. Digital Platforms for the Circular Economy : Exploring Meta-Organizational Orchestration Mechanisms . Organization & Environment, 36(2): 253--281

    2023

  2. [10]

    Boreiko, D.; and Massarotti, F. 2020. How Risk Profiles of Investors Affect Robo-Advised Portfolios . Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3

    2020

  3. [11]

    Br \"a uer, K. 2021. Nudged into Better Portfolios and Lower Risk : Robo-Advice and Savings Decisions . Social Science Research Network:3927860

    2021

  4. [12]

    Brunton, F. 2013. Spam: A Shadow History of the Internet . The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01887-6

    2013

  5. [13]

    Burnham, P. 2001. New Labour and the Politics of Depoliticisation . The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3(2): 127--149

    2001

  6. [14]

    Burnham, P. 2006. Depoliticisation: A Comment on Buller and Flinders . The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(2): 303--306

    2006

  7. [15]

    Carmi, E. 2020. Media Distortions : Understanding the Power Behind Spam , Noise , and Other Deviant Media . Peter Lang. ISBN 978-1-4331-6691-4

    2020

  8. [16]

    Carpenter, D.; and Moss, D. A., eds. 2013. Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It . New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-03608-6

    2013

  9. [17]

    Cobbe, J.; and Singh, J. 2019. Regulating Recommending : Motivations , Considerations , and Principles . European Journal of Law and Technology, 10(3)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Covington, P.; Adams, J.; and Sargin, E. 2016. Deep Neural Networks for YouTube Recommendations . In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , 191--198. Boston Massachusetts USA: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4035-9

    2016

  11. [19]

    Cyphers, A. M. a. B. 2021. Google's Manifest V3 Still Hurts Privacy , Security , and Innovation . https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/googles-manifest-v3-still-hurts-privacy-security-innovation

    2021

  12. [20]

    Dash, A.; Chakraborty, A.; Ghosh, S.; Mukherjee, A.; and Gummadi, K. P. 2021. When the Umpire Is Also a Player : Bias in Private Label Product Recommendations on E-commerce Marketplaces . In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Dowding, K.; and Taylor, B. R. 2024. Algorithmic Decision-Making : A Principal Agent Framework

    2024

  14. [22]

    Duetting, P.; Feldman, M.; and Talgam-Cohen , I. 2024. Algorithmic Contract Theory : A Survey . https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16384v1

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Edelson, L.; Haugen, F.; and McCoy, D. 2025. A Comparative Survey Of Algorithmic Feed Recommendation System Designs . ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems, 3757327

    2025

  16. [24]

    Fabbri, M. 2023. Self-Determination through Explanation: An Ethical Perspective on the Implementation of the Transparency Requirements for Recommender Systems Set by the Digital Services Act of the European Union . In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI / ACM Conference on AI , Ethic...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Fabbri, M.; and Boratto, L. 2025. Auditing Recommender Systems for User Empowerment in Very Large Online Platforms under the Digital Services Act . In Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , RecSys '25, 51--61. New York, NY, USA: Association for C...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Faloon, M.; and Scherer, B. 2017. Individualization of Robo-Advice . The Journal of Wealth Management, 20(1): 30--36

    2017

  19. [27]

    Ferrara, E. 2019. The History of Digital Spam. Commun. ACM, 62(8): 82--91

    2019

  20. [28]

    Flinders, M.; and Buller, J. 2006. Depoliticisation: Principles , Tactics and Tools . British Politics, 1(3): 293--318

    2006

  21. [29]

    M.; and Oliveira, M

    Gaspar, R. M.; and Oliveira, M. 2024. Robo Advising and Investor Profiling . FinTech, 3(1): 102--115

    2024

  22. [30]

    Grealish, A.; and Kolm, P. N. 2021 a . Robo- Advisors Today and Tomorrow : Investment Advice Is Just an App Away . The Journal of Wealth Management, 24(3): 144--155

    2021

  23. [31]

    Grealish, A.; and Kolm, P. N. 2021 b . Robo- Advisory : From Investing Principles and Algorithms to Future Developments . Social Science Research Network:3776826

    2021

  24. [32]

    Gupta, R.; and Panda, R. 2020. Block the Blocker: Studying the Effects of Anti Ad-blocking . arXiv:2001.09434

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hadfield-Menell , D. J. 2021. The Principal-Agent Alignment Problem in Artificial Intelligence . Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley

    2021

  26. [34]

    Hancock, A. 2021. Manifest V3 : Open Web Politics in Sheep 's Clothing . https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/11/manifest-v3-open-web-politics-sheeps-clothing

    2021

  27. [35]

    Hayes, A. 2020. Enacting a Rational Actor: Roboadvisors and the Algorithmic Performance of Ideal Types. Economy and Society, 49(4): 562--595

    2020

  28. [36]

    Hayes, A. S. 2021. The Active Construction of Passive Investors: Roboadvisors and Algorithmic `Low-Finance'. Socio-Economic Review, 19(1): 83--110

    2021

  29. [37]

    Hu, Y.; Koren, Y.; and Volinsky, C. 2008. Collaborative Filtering for Implicit Feedback Datasets . In 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining , 263--272

    2008

  30. [38]

    Iqbal, U.; Shafiq, Z.; and Qian, Z. 2017. The Ad Wars: Retrospective Measurement and Analysis of Anti-Adblock Filter Lists. In Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference , 171--183. London United Kingdom: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-5118-8

    2017

  31. [39]

    Jung, D.; Dorner, V.; Weinhardt, C.; and Pusmaz, H. 2018. Designing a Robo-Advisor for Risk-Averse, Low-Budget Consumers. Electronic Markets, 28(3): 367--380

    2018

  32. [40]

    K.G.M. 2026. K. G . M . v. Meta Platforms, Inc. No.23SMCV03371 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 25, 2026) (jury verdict)

    2026

  33. [41]

    Kr \"u ger, S. 2023. Have Your Cake and Feed It Forward Too: YouTube , Oral Cravings and the Persistent Question of Media Addiction. First Monday

    2023

  34. [42]

    M.; and Savage, S

    Levchenko, K.; Pitsillidis, A.; Chachra, N.; Enright, B.; Felegyhazi, M.; Grier, C.; Halvorson, T.; Kanich, C.; Kreibich, C.; Liu, H.; McCoy, D.; Weaver, N.; Paxson, V.; Voelker, G. M.; and Savage, S. 2011. Click Trajectories : End-to-End Analysis of the Spam Value Chain . In ...

    2011

  35. [43]

    Linux Foundation . 2025. Linux Foundation Announces the Formation of the Agentic AI Foundation ( AAIF ), Anchored by New Project Contributions Including Model Context Protocol ( MCP ), Goose and Agents.Md

    2025

  36. [44]

    Lueg, C.; Jeff, H.; and Twidale, M. 2007. Mystery Meat Revisited: Spam , Anti-Spam Measures and Digital Redlining . Webology, 4

    2007

  37. [45]

    Mathew, A.; and Cheshire, C. 2017. Risky Business : Social Trust and Community in the Practice of Cybersecurity for Internet Infrastructure . In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

    2017

  38. [46]

    Megali, T. 2022. Digital Platforms as Members of Meta-Organizations: A Case Study of the Online Advertising Market . M@n@gement, 25(2): 10--26

    2022

  39. [47]

    Me mer, A.-K.; and Degeling, M. 2023. Auditing Recommender Systems -- Putting the DSA into Practice with a Risk-Scenario-Based Approach. arXiv:2302.04556

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Model Context Protocol Blog . 2025. MCP Joins the Agentic AI Foundation

    2025

  41. [49]

    Mouffe, C. 2005. The Return of the Political, volume 8. Verso

    2005

  42. [50]

    Mrk \'y vka, P.; and S ikov \'a , Z. 2023. Robo-Advisory as a Driving Force of the Financial Market in the Light of Digitalization? WSB Journal of Business and Finance, 57(1): 66--77

    2023

  43. [51]

    J.; and Kuhn, S

    Muller, M. J.; and Kuhn, S. 1993. Participatory Design. Commun. ACM, 36(6): 24--28

    1993

  44. [52]

    E.; De Cristofaro, E.; Haddadi, H.; and Murdoch, S

    Nithyanand, R.; Khattak, S.; Javed, M.; Vallina-Rodriguez , N.; Falahrastegar, M.; Powles, J. E.; De Cristofaro, E.; Haddadi, H.; and Murdoch, S. J. 2016. Adblocking and Counter Blocking: A Slice of the Arms Race. In 6th USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the I...

    2016

  45. [53]

    Oueslati, A.; and Staes-Polet , R. 2025. Ahead of the Curve: Governing AI Agents under the EU AI Act. Technical report, The Future Society

    2025

  46. [54]

    Parra, D. S. 2025. SEP-932 : Model Context Protocol Governance

    2025

  47. [55]

    Pasquale, F. 2015. The Black Box Society : The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information . Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-73606-1

    2015

  48. [56]

    Pitsillidis, A. 2013. Spam Value Chain : Defensive Intervention Analysis . Ph.D. thesis, UC San Diego

    2013

  49. [57]

    Ranci \`e re, J. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy . U of Minnesota Press

    1999

  50. [58]

    M.; and Reiley, D

    Rao, J. M.; and Reiley, D. H. 2012. The Economics of Spam . Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3): 87--110

    2012

  51. [59]

    Reviglio, U.; and Santoni, G. 2023. Governing Platform Recommender Systems in Europe : Preliminary Insights from China

    2023

  52. [60]

    Rieder, B.; and Hofmann, J. 2020. Towards Platform Observability. Internet Policy Review, 9(4)

    2020

  53. [61]

    R \"u hr, A.; Streich, D.; Berger, B.; and Hess, T. 2019. A Classification of Decision Automation and Delegation in Digital Investment Management Systems. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ( HICSS ) , 1435--1444

    2019

  54. [62]

    Russell, S. J. 2010. Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach. Pearson Education, Inc

    2010

  55. [63]

    Seaver, N. 2018. Captivating Algorithms: Recommender Systems as Traps - Nick Seaver , 2019. Journal of Material Culture

    2018

  56. [64]

    Singh, D. P. 2023. The Algorithmic Bias of Social Media . The Motley Undergraduate Journal, 1(2)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Snyder, P.; Vastel, A.; and Livshits, B. 2020. Who Filters the Filters : Understanding the Growth , Usefulness and Efficiency of Crowdsourced Ad Blocking . Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 4(2): 1--24

    2020

  58. [66]

    M.; Ye, A.; Jiang, L.; Lu, X.; Dziri, N.; Althoff, T.; and Choi, Y

    Sorensen, T.; Moore, J.; Fisher, J.; Gordon, M.; Mireshghallah, N.; Rytting, C. M.; Ye, A.; Jiang, L.; Lu, X.; Dziri, N.; Althoff, T.; and Choi, Y. 2024. A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment . arXiv:2402.05070

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Steennot, R. 2021. Robo-Advisory Services and Investor Protection. Law and Financial Markets Review, 15(3-4): 262--277

    2021

  60. [68]

    Storey, G.; Reisman, D.; Mayer, J.; and Narayanan, A. 2017. The Future of Ad Blocking: An Analytical Framework and New Techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08568

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Stray, J.; Halevy, A.; Assar, P.; Hadfield-Menell , D.; Boutilier, C.; Ashar, A.; Bakalar, C.; Beattie, L.; Ekstrand, M.; Leibowicz, C.; Moon Sehat, C.; Johansen, S.; Kerlin, L.; Vickrey, D.; Singh, S.; Vrijenhoek, S.; Zhang, A.; Andrus, M.; Helberger, N.; Proutskova, P.; Mitr...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Tan, G. K. S. 2020. Robo-Advisors and the Financialization of Lay Investors. Geoforum, 117: 46--60

    2020

  63. [71]

    Tertilt, M.; and Scholz, P. 2018. To Advise , or Not to Advise --- How Robo-Advisors Evaluate the Risk Preferences of Private Investors . The Journal of Wealth Management, 21(2): 70--84

    2018

  64. [72]

    Securities and Exchange Commission

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission . 2025. Withdrawal of Proposed Regulatory Actions

    2025

  65. [73]

    Wang, P. 2022. Recommendation Algorithm in TikTok : Strengths , Dilemmas, and Possible Directions. Int'l J. Soc. Sci. Stud., 10: 60

    2022

  66. [74]

    Winner, L. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? In Computer Ethics, 177--192. Routledge

    1980

  67. [75]

    Wooldridge, M.; and Jennings, N. R. 1995. Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2): 115--152

    1995

  68. [76]

    Xiang, Y. 2022. YouTube and the Protocological Control of Platform Organisations. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 19(3): 348--372

    2022

  69. [77]

    Zhao, S.; Kalra, A.; Borcea, C.; and Chen, Y. 2020. To Be Tough or Soft : Measuring the Impact of Counter-Ad-blocking Strategies on User Engagement . In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 , WWW '20, 2690--2696. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.