This article explores the puzzling social phenomenon of widespread comfort with phone applications and AI systems that process personal data and influence life opportunities, contrasting it with discomfort in physical surveillance. It questions the adequacy of existing human rights frameworks in capturing the nature of power in the digital realm, arguing they are structurally constrained by the 'phantom influence' of digital technologies.
A New Question?
This section introduces the core inquiry: how fundamental and human rights emerge in the digital age, given the public's comfort with personal data processing by AI despite potential interferences with autonomy. It questions the adequacy of current human rights frameworks for the digital realm, suggesting they may not capture the unique nature of digital power.
An Arendtian Account of Rights: Bringing the Phantom Influence of Artificial Intelligence Systems to Light
Drawing on Hannah Arendt's philosophy that rights are political achievements grounded in visible action and plurality, this section argues that the architecture of advanced digital technologies systematically restricts this 'capacity to act.' This restriction is attributed to 'phantom influence,' which obscures power relations and suppresses political contestation, leading to a need for new conceptual and institutional responses.
Virtuality
Digital platforms and AI systems are inherently virtual and de-territorialized, lacking the tangible presence of the physical world. This virtuality weakens the experiential conditions necessary for recognizing concrete interferences with fundamental and human rights, making power ambient, mediated, and difficult to localize.
Complexity
Digital systems, often operating as 'black boxes,' are profoundly complex, making their processes and outcomes unintelligible, especially to vulnerable individuals. This complexity is compounded by manipulative interface designs, 'AI hype,' and the fact that AI systems rely on fundamentally different reasoning processes than humans, undermining user agency and critical thinking, as seen in cases of data use without consent.
Dynamism
The rapid evolution of digital technologies at an extraordinary speed destabilizes legal categories and renders regulatory responses perpetually reactive. This dynamism, exemplified by the emergence of large language models (LLMs), exposes the limitations of existing legal frameworks, such as the EU AI-Act, which struggle to keep pace with technological advancements.
The Phantom Influence
AI's 'phantom influence' is defined as a form of power operating through virtuality, complexity, and constant transformation. It diminishes the socio-political factors that would otherwise make the tension between individual freedoms and private power visible, thereby obscuring abuses and weakening the conditions necessary for the articulation and exercise of rights.
Strengthening the Conditions for Rights
To mitigate the effects of phantom influence, two key avenues are highlighted: the crucial role of civil society organizations (NGOs) in documenting AI abuses and advocating for public interests, and the essential function of judicial interpretation in adapting existing rights to new technological realities and considering inter-legal approaches.
Conclusion: Toward a Primavera Digitale
The article concludes by calling for intentional and creative action to foster a 'meaningful digital environment,' envisioning a 'Primavera Digitale' (digital spring). In this renewed space, individuals would be active political agents, reclaiming the internet as a domain for speech, creativity, and action, where the capacity to act is empowered rather than diminished by technology.
