Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-27
The evidence offers contrasting, qualified fairness considerations: automated profiling might reduce some human bias, while human-run profiling might appeal to people who benefit from that bias. These are attributed arguments, not findings that either form is fairer in practice. This provides useful background for considering citizen impacts, but the question does not specify a governance function or design choice. [s-danaher-threat-of-algocracy-4a6b55ef4e35ac89; s-danaher-threat-of-algocracy-97fa1f966a063bc4; s-danaher-threat-of-algocracy-cf0b97415bdb4af1]
Does this challenge the goal?
None identified
The question asks about possible preferences between human and automated profiling; it does not contest the exploration’s goal or assumptions.
The question does not specify whether it concerns public decision-making, so its relevance to this handbook is limited.
Why this category?
- citizen impacts
- risks and limits
All three answer records interpret material from the same source root, so they are not independent evidence. The packet presents possibilities and attributed arguments, not evidence of actual preferences or outcomes.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Authority, accountability and resilience →
Read the exploration goalNew evidence is being assessed. Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.
Explain plausible reasons for that preference without implying they apply to everyone.
What we can say so far
A plausible reason, reported as Zarsky’s argument, is that people in a privileged majority might prefer human-run profiling if they believe human bias is more likely to favor them over minorities. That could make retaining human discretion seem advantageous to them. This is an attributed possible motive, not a claim that everyone in such a group has it or that human-run profiling is actually fairer; Danaher explicitly says he does not endorse the argument.
What remains open
- The evidence does not establish how common this preference is or empirically verify the proposed motive; the answer therefore presents it only as a reported possible rationale.
Conditions and limits
- The rationale is attributed to Zarsky; Danaher explicitly distances himself from endorsing it.
- It concerns a possible self-interested preference among people in a privileged majority, not everyone’s preference.
- The evidence is from a readable author-manuscript mirror rather than the publisher typeset version.
- The argument does not establish that human profiling actually favors privileged groups or that human-run profiling is fairer.
Objections to consider
- The possible fairness benefit of automation qualifies the rationale but does not rule out the reported possibility that some privileged people might prefer human discretion for self-interested reasons. The answer makes no general claim that human profiling is fairer.
- The possibility that automation could protect less-powerful groups is compatible with the narrowly attributed claim that some privileged people might prefer human profiling because they perceive human bias as benefiting them.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
A reported explanation for resistance The author reports Zarsky’s argument that people in a privileged majority may prefer human-run profiling because human bias could favor them over minorities. Danaher says he does not endorse Zarsky’s argument.
Reports the specific possible motive: privileged-majority people may prefer human profiling because human bias could favor them over minorities, while noting Danaher’s non-endorsement.
The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation
Read full source ↗