_{Image Credit: to the respective owners}

Lead With Alignment is an entirely reader-supported publication that applies social science research to the cultural, political, and technological issues shaping our world today. If you read it and value the labor that goes into it, consider supporting it by liking or sharing this essay, becoming a paid subscriber, or buying me a coffee! Thank you!

Upgrade to Paid

Joyce Carol Oates was right to object to Emily Wilson’s review of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey. She didn’t write it because Nolan needed protection or rescuing, and Wilson didn’t lack the authority to criticize his adaptation. Oates wrote it because she has the authority, and much of her criticism appears serious. We don’t see that much anymore, so I wanted to call out the distinction because it was such a shining example.

Oates’s intervention was appropriate because Wilson’s review, and the media celebration that followed, collapsed three different things into one performance: criticism, intellectual contempt, and taste.

We increasingly treat these as interchangeable. They are not.

Criticism explains why a work succeeds or fails according to standards that other people can examine. Intellectual contempt uses intelligence, expertise, or status to establish the inferiority of the person who made the work or of those who might admire it. Taste is the realm of preference: what moves us, irritates us, bores us, attracts us, or leaves us cold.

A person can possess excellent taste and make a poor argument. A person can offer strong criticism of something she dislikes. A person can also disguise contempt as criticism by surrounding an insult with enough expertise to make it appear analytical.

Wilson’s review appears to contain all three. Oates’s achievement was to recognize that they should not be treated as equivalent.

Her objections to Nolan’s film are substantive. She argues that it reduces the moral, political, and psychological complexity of Homer’s poem. She objects to Nolan’s treatment of Odysseus, to the motivations of the characters, and to the film’s account of war, memory, time, responsibility, and homecoming. Those are legitimate subjects of criticism. They identify what Wilson believes the adaptation attempted, what it failed to understand, and what was lost in the transfer from poem to screen.

Then there is taste. Wilson dislikes Nolan’s characteristic grandiosity. She finds his narrative devices gimmicky. She thinks the food looks horrible and notes the absence of sex scenes. These observations may help convey her experience of the film, but they do not all carry the same argumentative weight. Some tell us more about Wilson’s sensibility than about the quality of the adaptation.

Taste matters. Critics are not machines for applying neutral standards. Their responses are shaped by temperament, aesthetic preference, disciplinary formation, and prior commitments. But taste becomes misleading when it presents itself as proof. “I found this superficial” may open an argument. It does not complete one.

Finally, there is contempt: “I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script.”

That sentence does not illuminate Nolan’s interpretation of Homer. It does not help the reader understand the film’s structure, moral failures, or aesthetic limitations. It establishes rank. It tells us that the work is not merely unsuccessful but beneath the dignity of a serious writer—and that the critic occupies the superior position from which such shame may be assigned.

This is the point Oates challenged.

She did not simply defend Nolan’s film. In fact, she expressed preferences for other treatments of The Odyssey. Her intervention was therefore more interesting than the media framing of two famous writers “sparring” over a blockbuster. Oates was defending a norm: intellectual authority does not exempt a person from the obligation to distinguish judgment from humiliation.

That stand is appropriate in three particular ways.

A generational correction

There is a generational quality to Oates’s response, though it would be too easy to describe it as an older woman demanding more civility from a younger one.

The more important distinction concerns the use of stature. Oates comes from a literary culture in which public intellectuals certainly could be cruel, territorial, and dismissive. Earlier generations did not lack contempt. But they were also formed within institutions that at least claimed to distinguish argument from performance, criticism from publicity, and authority from celebrity.

The contemporary media environment rewards their collapse. Today, the most portable part of a review is rarely its most careful argument. It is the sentence that can be detached, screenshotted, quoted in a headline, and circulated as evidence that someone has been destroyed. The critic’s intelligence is measured by the elegance of the blow. The audience is invited to admire not what the criticism reveals, but how efficiently it humiliates.

Wilson’s sentence about being ashamed was built for this (social, viral, online) environment, whether she intended it that way or not. It allowed people who had not read Homer, seen Nolan’s film, or considered the difficulties of adaptation to participate in the pleasure of dismissal.

Oates interrupted that pleasure. Her generational claim is not that elders deserve deference. It is that seniority should produce greater responsibility for the effects of one’s judgments. The more authority a person possesses, the less defensible it becomes to confuse disdain with discernment.

A senior scholar or writer should be capable of saying, “This interpretation fails, and here is why,” without implying that only an inferior mind could have produced or appreciated it.

That is not politeness. It is discipline. It is also why Oates’s intervention struck me so forcefully. I admired her writing when I first fell in love with literature in high school; here, I admired her willingness to use that formidable pen to defend a standard rather than merely a side.

A scholarly correction

Oates’s objection also matters from a scholarly point of view because Wilson is not only a reviewer. She is a translator whose own celebrated version of The Odyssey necessarily interprets the text.

Translation is not the transparent transfer of meaning from one language to another. It involves decisions about tone, rhythm, vocabulary, characterization, ambiguity, cultural distance, and audience. Wilson’s rendering of Odysseus as “a complicated man” is not simply Homer delivered without mediation. It is a choice—an illuminating and influential one, but a choice nonetheless.

Nolan’s film is also an interpretation, made through a different medium and under different constraints. It can be a bad interpretation. It can simplify what should remain difficult, sentimentalize what should remain morally unstable, or replace psychological and political complexity with spectacle. Scholarly expertise is indispensable for identifying those losses.

But expertise does not establish ownership. A translator may explain where an adaptation departs from a text. She may show what the adaptation misunderstands. She may argue that its departures are artistically or ethically disastrous. What she cannot reasonably claim is that her own interpretive relationship to the source is categorically different from all others, as though she merely serves the text while the filmmaker presumptuously distorts it.

All interpretation selects, emphasizes, suppresses, and constructs. The scholarly obligation is therefore not to suspend judgment. It is to make judgment accountable. What standards are being used? What evidence supports them? What alternative interpretation is being rejected? What is gained or lost by the critic’s own position?

Contempt evades those responsibilities because it closes the inquiry. Shame is not a standard. Superiority is not evidence.

Oates was right to insist that someone “beholden to a text” should understand the humility demanded by interpretation. That does not mean all interpretations are equally good. It means no interpreter escapes the condition of interpretation.

A media correction

Oates also used the appropriate medium for her objection.

Wilson published a substantial review. But the review did not remain a substantial review. It became a collection of “burns.” Entertainment coverage transformed an argument about Homer, adaptation, gender, war, character, and narrative structure into a spectacle of intellectual aggression.

The media did not invent Wilson’s words. But it selected the language best suited to circulation and treated severity as the story.

Oates answered in the same public arena where that reduction was taking place. She did not demand that Wilson’s review be withdrawn. She did not appeal to an employer or institution. She did not argue that Wilson lacked the right to speak. She responded to public criticism with public criticism.

That is an appropriate use of media: not to suppress a judgment, but to challenge the norms governing how that judgment is received.

Oates’s own response was not beyond criticism. Her comparison between Wilson’s language and MAGA rhetoric was unnecessarily inflammatory and made it easier for the media to produce another adversarial headline. Her suggestion that Wilson had benefited commercially from Nolan’s film was also weak. Increased book sales do not obligate a scholar to express gratitude toward an adaptation she dislikes.

But those flaws do not invalidate the central point. Public discourse needs people willing to say that a clever insult is not necessarily a strong argument, that expertise does not confer immunity from arrogance, and that a critic’s severity should not be confused with courage.

And no, this is not AI’s fault

It would be tempting to blame artificial intelligence for our inability to maintain the distinctions between criticism, intellectual contempt, and taste. AI can certainly worsen the problem. It can generate polished takedowns without conviction, manufacture analytical categories after the fact, and produce the appearance of judgment without the intellectual labor from which judgment should emerge. It can flatten criticism into formula: begin with a concession, identify three failures, insert a memorable condemnation, and conclude with moral significance.

But AI did not teach us to confuse contempt with criticism. We did that through decades of media incentives that reward conflict over inquiry, confidence over qualification, and humiliation over interpretation. We learned to call personal preference an “objective” standard. We learned to regard cruelty as evidence that the speaker cannot be intimidated. We learned to consume criticism as a spectator sport in which the point is not to understand the work but to watch someone lose.

AI entered a culture already trained to reward the “sickest burn.” The problem is not that machines have made distinctions impossible. The problem is that many people no longer find the distinctions useful. Criticism takes time. Taste requires self-knowledge. Recognizing contempt requires us to question people whose conclusions we may otherwise share. Mature judgment requires us to remain in that friction rather than rushing toward affiliation.

It is much easier to ask whose side we are on. Oates’s intervention was valuable because she refused that sorting mechanism. She could dislike aspects of Nolan’s adaptation and still object to Wilson’s posture. She could respect Wilson’s expertise without treating every sentence she wrote as an expression of scholarship. She could defend a powerful male director without suggesting that a woman critic should be silent or agreeable.

That is what mature judgment looks like. It separates the work from the person, the argument from the insult, the standard from the preference, and the critic’s authority from her appetite for dismissal.

Wilson may be right that Nolan’s Odyssey lacks the depth of Homer’s poem. Oates was right that intellectual contempt does not become criticism merely because an intellectual delivers it.

Audiences should still be able to tell the difference.

Subscribe to Lead With Alignment

By Christine Haskell | Where people come to think.

Thoughts on our fragility as we cling to this big, beautiful rock hurtling through space.

Upgrade your subscription.

Lead With Alignment is an entirely reader-supported publication that applies social science research to the cultural, political, and technological issues shaping our world today. If you read it and value the labor that goes into it, consider supporting it by liking or sharing this essay, becoming a paid subscriber, or buying me a coffee! Thank you!

Upgrade to Paid

I watched Jon Stewart interview Christopher Nolan last week and was struck by the fluency both men have developed across different media regimes.

Nolan has been creatively combining computer-assisted production with large-format photochemical film, practical environments, physical risk, and mechanical limits for the majority of his career—culminating in The Odyssey. Example: The Odyssey

Stewart Stewart still works within the inherited grammar of television—the desk, the monologue, the interview—even though the program now reaches much of its audience through streaming, YouTube clips, social excerpts, podcasts, and other fragments detached from the original broadcast.

Neither is simply preserving an old form. Nor are they abandoning it for whatever comes next. They are translating disciplines developed in one technological era into another.

That matters during periods of technological transition. Whenever a new medium arrives, we tend to describe the older one as dying. Over the past five years, “reading is dead” has become one of those recurring cultural diagnoses. The evidence usually offered is familiar: declining attention spans, falling book sales in some categories, fragmented media habits, and people who would rather watch or listen than sit with a page.

But perhaps we are confusing the container with the capacity.

Reading is not only the decoding of printed language. It is the practice of following structure, holding earlier information in memory, tolerating ambiguity, making inferences, recognizing patterns, and remaining with something that does not resolve immediately.

Those capacities can operate across media. But they do not migrate automatically.

Some forms cultivate them. Others erode them.

Nolan’s The Odyssey asks its audience to read images, narrative structure, conflicting accounts, historical inheritance, and moral consequence. Stewart demonstrates that kind of reading during the interview. He does not merely ask how Nolan manufactured the spectacle. He offers an interpretation: that The Odyssey feels like a continuation of Oppenheimer, another story about a man reckoning with what he helped bring into the world—this time through war—and with what participation in that violence has made of him.

At about 6:28, there is a flash of recognition in Nolan’s face. Stewart has perceived a relationship the film does not announce. Nolan confirms that Stewart has watched it as he hoped someone might.

That exchange is an act of reading.

Not decoding words on a page, but attending closely enough to perceive a relationship the work never announces explicitly. Nolan is careful about that. Later, he explains that ambiguity only works when the creator has an answer, when the creator knows what he believes, even if that answer is not imposed on the audience. Without that underlying conviction, ambiguity becomes a non-answer: the appearance of depth without the responsibility of meaning.

The audience completes the work, as Nolan puts it. But completion requires something from both sides. The filmmaker must construct enough substance for interpretation, and the viewer must attend closely enough to interpret it.

This is where the supposed “death of reading” becomes a question of design.

Nolan filmed The Odyssey entirely in IMAX, using cameras that could hold less than three minutes of film at a time. In the middle of an intense performance, the camera would stop. The magazine had to be changed. The actors had to remain in the water, weather, location, and emotional register of the scene while the machinery was reset.

Yet the film finished nine days ahead of its 100-day schedule. Nolan suggests that the limitation itself produced focus.

That does not mean all friction is valuable. Friction can exclude, exhaust, and obstruct. But some friction provides structure. It marks a boundary, requires preparation, and asks people to commit their attention before proceeding.

Film stock runs out. Broadcast time ends. A book cannot hyperlink away from its own difficulty. A live conversation cannot be endlessly regenerated until every sentence sounds frictionlessly correct.

These constraints do not merely slow production. They shape perception and judgment. The digital promise was that removing friction would increase participation and access. Often it has. But a culture that removes every pause, limit, and boundary may also remove the conditions under which meaning accumulates.

AI intensifies that tension. It can generate more language, images, explanations, interpretations, and summaries than any person could meaningfully absorb. The problem is no longer simply access to media. It is whether we still possess—and still design for—the attention required to metabolize it.

This is where transitional figures such as Nolan and Stewart are useful. They retain what might be called a memory of mediation.

They remember when technology announced itself as technology. It clicked, whirred, ran out, occupied physical space, and occasionally failed. Its limits were visible. Users had to adapt to it, work around it, or invent something better—as Nolan and IMAX did when they developed a system quiet enough to record dialogue.

Today’s technologies increasingly disappear into the environment. Their judgments arrive instantly. Their interfaces conceal the infrastructures, labor, and choices beneath them. Their defaults begin to feel natural because the mediation itself has become difficult to see.

Transitional fluency makes those defaults visible.

Nolan and Stewart are not defending the past against the future. They are carrying forward disciplines of attention developed under older constraints and asking how those disciplines might survive inside newer forms.

So the argument is not “books good, screens bad.”

It is this:

What kinds of media still require something of us—and what human capacities disappear when nothing does?

Subscribe to Lead With Alignment

By Christine Haskell | Where people come to think.

Thoughts on our fragility as we cling to this big, beautiful rock hurtling through space.

Upgrade your subscription.

Lead With Alignment is an entirely reader-supported publication that applies social science research to the cultural, political, and technological issues shaping our world today. If you read it and value the labor that goes into it, consider supporting it by liking or sharing this essay, becoming a paid subscriber, or buying me a coffee! Thank you!

Upgrade to Paid

Aidan McCullen hooked me with the reference to Steinbeck’s “Pickled Fish Problem.” Most development essays in this territory reach for the idea that people can change, but rarely make a case worth sitting with. McCullen’s visceral images illustrate how we preserve people at their worst moments and mistake the specimen for the whole animal. The Steinbeck metaphor of a pickled fish holds one kind of truth—shape, size, the fact of capture…stink—and conceals everything the living creature once was: texture, motion, the light and life force that moved through it. We do this to people constantly, and most of us have done it without much examination.

I read the piece and immediately wondered how many jars have my name on the label.

The comment that landed wrong where I missed a social cue in a faceless, virtual meeting. The moment I stopped waiting for a manager to invest in my development and invested in my own, it looked, from the outside, like not waiting for my turn, but, from the inside, was a form of personal and professional survival. Who knows how many people sealed that version of me in glass and moved on. What I do know is that the specimen they preserved was real. It was just not whole.

But here is where I want to push on the essay’s framing, because it makes the jar sound like the problem when the deeper issue is who put me there, and holds the lid?

McCullen is right that struggle moves people. What he doesn’t fully reckon with is that movement is not inherently toward growth. Fear can calcify cruelty. Insecurity practiced long enough can become a personality trait. The Jobs story is compelling precisely because it is unusual; most people who wound others at NeXT-scale did not go on to develop genuine empathy in their fifties. They just moved to a new organization and found new people to wound. The jar outlasted the fish because, in those cases, the fish maybe hadn’t changed.

The question the essay leaves open is an important one: how do you tell the difference between a jar that should be updated and one that is doing exactly what it should?

Part of the answer, I think, is that you rarely make that determination alone. The people who opened my jars—a partner whose patience was structural rather than sentimental, friends who had known me long enough to hold the longer arc—were not naive about who I had been. They were precise about it. They didn’t excuse the specimen’s actions; they kept their hands on the glass and waited to see what moved. That is different from extending the unconditional benefit of the doubt, which is not generosity but risk transfer.

We are in a cultural moment right now that makes this harder than it should be. The conditions that allow people to change (e.g., friction, honest feedback, and enough psychological safety to acknowledge a wrong turn) are being slowly dismantled in favor of frictionless self-presentation. We curate the version of ourselves that we want preserved—those perfect Christmases, the happy graduations, etc. The jar becomes our personal brand. But when everything is managed at the surface, there is no specimen at all, just packaging.

Freedom to actualize as an adult, to actually become something other than your worst or most frozen moment, requires the friction of being deeply known. Not performed. Not managed. Known. That takes people willing to stay close enough to notice the difference, and it takes environments that reward the discomfort of revision over the comfort of a fixed story.

The pickled fish problem is real, but the solution isn’t to empty all the jars. It’s to find the people, the keepers, who will hold your jar up to the light, notice when something has changed, and say so—without pretending the earlier specimen never existed.

Share

Subscribe to Lead With Alignment

By Christine Haskell | Where people come to think.

Thoughts on our fragility as we cling to this big, beautiful rock hurtling through space.

Upgrade your subscription.

Subscribe now

“W.T.F. — Wait, That’s Fair?, campaign

Sports are supposed to teach courage. They teach discipline, commitment, teamwork, endurance, and the ordinary dignity of showing up again after disappointment. At their best, sports give young people a place to test themselves in public and discover that effort can become skill. That is also why abuse in sports is so devastating.

Harm does not usually arrive wearing the obvious costume of danger. It arrives through trust, private attention, special treatment, and the slow blurring of boundaries that everyone around the athlete has been trained not to question. In many athletic environments, intensity is treated as commitment, sacrifice as proof of seriousness, and obedience as the price of advancement. That is what makes the #WeRideTogether campaign so important.

Image goes to “Not Just A Ride Home” video. We all have a role to play in keeping athletic environments safe and healthy for everyone.

#WeRideTogether is not simply another awareness campaign. It is a smartly executed cultural intervention and, more importantly, a governance intervention. Founded by Carrie Kehring after her own family’s experience with grooming and abuse in sport, the campaign began in the equestrian world and has grown into a broader effort to prevent sexual misconduct across youth, amateur, and professional athletics. Its work is emotionally direct but practically disciplined: it does not ask survivors to carry the entire burden of change. It asks athletic communities to become more literate, more accountable, and less willing to mistake silence for safety.

That distinction matters because many campaigns ask individuals, often those with the least leverage, to care. #WeRideTogether asks systems, the ones with the most resources and the greatest capacity for change, to act. Its public service announcements, including the Out of Bounds series and “W.T.F. — Wait, That’s Fair?,” are powerful because they avoid the two traps that often weaken public messaging around sexual misconduct. They do not sensationalize trauma, nor do they soften it into vague inspiration. Instead, they use metaphor, emotional clarity, and survivor-centered storytelling to show the absurdity of victim-blaming and the loneliness of navigating institutions that often demand impossible forms of proof.

What Makes the Campaign Distinct

The campaign does not begin with the question institutions often prefer: Why didn’t she say something sooner? It begins with the harder question: What made the truth so difficult to say, hear, document, believe, and act upon? That is the governance question, and it is what makes the campaign more than a communications effort. It does not confuse visibility with responsibility.

Survivor stories matter. Awareness matters. Public recognition matters. But awareness alone can become another form of institutional theater if nothing changes afterward. The signal becomes visible, but structurally stranded. Everyone may know something is wrong, but no one knows who is responsible, what threshold requires action, what documentation matters, who protects the athlete, or how the organization learns. Visibility is not the same as governance.

That is where #WeRideTogether’s tools matter. The campaign does not simply tell people to care. It provides athletic communities with diagrams, pledges, reporting guides, hiring practices, educational materials, and language for recognizing unhealthy dynamics before they become easier to deny than to interrupt. Governance is often misunderstood as a binder on a shelf, but practical governance is the set of conditions that determines what happens after someone notices harm.

This matters because grooming is not simply a series of bad acts. It is a relational process that often works by creating confusion, dependency, secrecy, gratitude, fear, and loyalty. A young athlete may not know whether a coach’s attention is care, favoritism, control, or danger. By the time the behavior is clearly abusive, the athlete may already feel implicated in a dynamic they did not choose. Research on sexual violence in sport has emphasized that the same closeness that can support athletic development can also become dangerous when power, dependency, isolation, and boundary ambiguity go unexamined (Gaedicke et al., 2021; Parent & Demers, 2011).

This is why the campaign’s C.A.R.D. Diagrams and other resources are so useful. They help athletes, parents, coaches, and bystanders—all the actors in the system—distinguish between healthy and unhealthy coach-athlete relationship dynamics before harm becomes easier to deny than interrupt. A comment that felt off, a boundary that seemed blurry, a pattern of private attention, a child who seemed withdrawn, or a coach whose behavior everyone excused because they “got results” may all be early signals. Naming is not the whole solution, but without naming, there is no intervention.

Why the Female Perspective Matters

This is especially clear from a female perspective. Women are not inherently more moral, more caring, or more attuned to harm; that would be too simple, and it would place yet another burden on women to serve as the conscience of broken systems. The female perspective is unique because many women are trained early to read power relationally. They learn to notice the room, track tone and proximity, assess reputation and dependency, and recognize that danger is not always dramatic. Sometimes it is incremental. Sometimes it sounds like praise. Sometimes it comes through the person everyone else admires.

Women often learn that the official story and the lived experience are not the same thing. That knowledge is not softness. It is pattern recognition (which is actually a hard skill). In governance work, pattern recognition is everything. Feminist scholars have long argued that knowledge is situated, not detached from power. The point is not that women automatically see more clearly. The point is that people positioned closer to harm often perceive institutional realities that official systems are designed not to notice.

Miranda Fricker calls this an epistemic injustice: the wrong done when someone’s capacity as a knower is discounted because of who they are, how they speak, or what kind of experience they bring. Sara Ahmed’s work on complaint makes the same point institutionally: complaints often reveal the very structures that institutions work hardest to preserve. A female-centered analysis notices how institutions convert discomfort into ambiguity. It notices how survivors are asked to be precise while institutions remain vague, how reputation becomes a shield, how loyalty becomes a test, and how “not ruining someone’s future” is so often invoked only after someone else’s future has already been altered.

It also notices the labor of making harm legible. Survivors are often asked to provide data, testimony, a timeline, emotional restraint, credibility, patience, and public courage. Then institutions call that process accountability. It is not enough. Practical governance means the burden cannot remain on the person with the least power.

From Survivor Story to Institutional Knowledge

This is where #WeRideTogether’s approach becomes especially compelling. The campaign does not only amplify survivor voices; it asks what institutions must learn from them. It does not only expose abuse; it identifies the conditions that allow abuse to be misread, minimized, or normalized. It not only tells people to report; it also helps communities understand what reporting actually involves, why it is difficult, and what other forms of support may be needed.

From a data and governance perspective, this is significant because #WeRideTogether is turning lived experience into usable institutional knowledge. Its peer-reviewed research, informed by survivor stories from adult female athlete-survivors, identifies recurring failures in athletic communities: a lack of understanding of power imbalances, a failure to capture the nuances of sporting communities, and shortcomings in prevention education (McClain et al., 2026). In other words, survivor testimony is not treated as emotional residue. It is treated as evidence.

Institutional betrayal theory helps explain why this matters. When organizations fail to prevent harm, mishandle reports, protect reputation over people, or retaliate against those who come forward, they compound the original trauma (Smith & Freyd, 2014). This is the failure #WeRideTogether is trying to interrupt: not only the abuse itself, but the institutional pattern that makes abuse easier to miss, harder to report, and more painful to survive.

Observation Must Create Obligation

This is the bridge from awareness to governance. Once a pattern is seen, someone must be responsible for response. Once a boundary risk is named, someone must have the authority and duty to act. Once survivor knowledge is gathered, it must not be converted into empathy content and left there. It must shape training, hiring, escalation, reporting, review, and repair. Observation must create obligation.

That is what practical governance looks like. It is not glamorous, and it is not always viral. It is often procedural, repetitive, and deeply human. But it is how values become real. Care ethicist Joan Tronto argues that care is not merely a feeling but a practice involving attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness (Tronto, 1993). That framing is useful here because #WeRideTogether’s work shows care becoming operational: a diagram, a pledge, a hiring practice, a reporting guide, a research agenda, a safer room, a better question, and a shared obligation.

Why This Matters for Emerging Technology

This is also the lesson emerging technology leaders need to learn. Too much AI governance still treats harm as a compliance issue after systems are already designed, and too many responsible technology conversations abstract away the social relationships in which harm actually occurs. Scholars of sociotechnical systems have warned against this abstraction problem: technical systems fail when they separate formal design from the social worlds they reorganize (Selbst et al., 2019). Feminist approaches to data and design make a similar argument: power is not an externality. It is part of the system (Costanza-Chock, 2020; D’Ignazio & Klein, 2020).

That is why my forthcoming book, Gender, Power, and Emerging Technology: Governing the Default, begins from a different premise. The question is not only whether a system is fair, efficient, or compliant. The question is which default it governs by. Does it make harm easier to name or easier to bury? Does it distribute responsibility or concentrate vulnerability? Does it treat lived experience as noise or as evidence? Does it protect the institution’s story, or does it protect the people inside the institution?

In technology, as in sport, harm often hides behind systems that claim neutrality. A platform says it merely facilitates connection. An algorithm says it merely ranks content. A reporting portal says it merely collects complaints. But systems are never “merely” anything. They decide what counts as evidence, which harms are easy to report, who must carry the cognitive and emotional labor of translation, and whether care is operationalized or left to individual goodwill.

#WeRideTogether offers a different model. It starts with the survivor, but it does not stop there. It moves from story to study, from emotion to education, from awareness to tools, from stigma to shared language, and from individual disclosure to institutional responsibility. That is why it is successful, distinct, and impactful. The campaign understands that the goal is not only to help survivors speak more bravely into unsafe systems. The goal is to build systems where harm is harder to hide, easier to name, and less likely to be protected by silence, confusion, or institutional self-interest.

That is the work of safer sport. It is also the work of gender-aware governance. And it is the work all institutions now face as power becomes more automated, more relational, more datafied, and more difficult to see. The future of governance will not be defined by who has the most polished values statement. It will be defined by who has built the courage, structure, and humility to act when the truth first becomes visible.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to think.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

IMG SRC: "Mother-Son" by srsphoto is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

Pew Research recently published a careful, data-rich report with the headline: “For Working Parents, the Boundary Between Work and Family Is Often Blurred.” The numbers are useful, and they are grim in the way familiar things can be grim. Seventy percent of full-time working parents say they handle parenting-related tasks while working. Fifty-nine percent say they handle work-related tasks while with their children. Fifty-four percent say it is difficult to balance work and family responsibilities.

The data gives us the shape of the strain. It tells us the overlap is widespread, gendered, classed, and persistent. Full-time working mothers are more likely than fathers to say that balancing work and family is difficult. Lower-income parents are less likely to have access to the benefits and flexibility that make “balance” even remotely plausible. Parents are not imagining the compression. They are living inside it.

When the Language Gets Soft, Ask Who Disappeared

The headline is too polite.

“Blurred boundaries” makes the problem sound mutual, atmospheric, almost accidental. Like fog rolled in. Like work and family drifted toward one another and no one quite knows how the edges got soft. It is the kind of phrase institutions like because it notices strain without assigning responsibility.

The qualitative flag appears in one mother’s sentence: “I’m supposed to work like I don’t have kids and supposed to parent like I don’t have a job.”

That is the story.

The numbers tell us how often work and family overlap. That sentence tells us what the overlap demands from the self. Parents are being asked to satisfy two impossible ideals at once: the ideal worker who is always available and the ideal parent who is always present. Work assumes uninterrupted attention. Parenting requires embodied, interruptible care. The parent becomes the seam where incompatible systems meet.

Companies Are Sharks. Who Built the Tank?

On first read, companies make the easy target, and they deserve scrutiny. Employers schedule meetings, reward responsiveness, measure productivity, design promotion criteria, and too often treat flexibility as a perk rather than a structural principle. Work enters family life through email, metrics, scheduling expectations, and the fiction that availability equals commitment. Then family enters work through sick children, school closures, doctor’s appointments, childcare failures, and the ordinary unpredictability of human life.

Only one crossing is usually treated as unprofessional. Work entering home is called dedication. Family entering work is called a complication.

But if we stop with “companies should do better,” we have not gone far enough. Companies are not designed to self-regulate against their own incentives. Individual managers may care deeply, but the system still rewards output, speed, responsiveness, availability, and labor elasticity.

Companies are sharks. Sharks do not voluntarily become vegetarians. They eat what the tank makes available.

The better question is who built the tank, who stocks it, and who keeps calling the feeding schedule inevitable. Labor law, tax policy, courts, voters, unions, public pressure, government leaders, and corporate lobbying all shape the conditions under which companies operate.

The Same Numbers Land in Different Americas

This is why “work-life balance” becomes such a useful fiction. It sounds humane, but it keeps the problem at the lowest and least empowered levels of the system: personal discipline and managerial kindness. If the system rewards companies for extracting availability while leaving care costs inside households, then exhausted parents are not an unfortunate side effect. They are a known feature of the operating model

Parents are told to set boundaries in a work culture where availability follows them into family time. Mothers are told to ask for support while still carrying more parenting labor and facing a labor market in which women working full-time earned about 83% of what men earned in 2024, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lower-income parents are told to rely on workplace benefits and flexibility that are least available to them, while higher-income families can often buy backup care, absorb lost time, or work remotely, turning “support” into a system some families can opt out of, and others must survive.

We do not all read these numbers from the same life. A parent with paid leave, remote-work flexibility, backup childcare, and a manager who trusts them may see “blurred boundaries” as a source of stress. A parent without those buffers may see the same numbers as threat. A father praised for leaving early, and a mother penalized for the same act are not living inside the same workplace reality. A higher-income family that can buy its way around system failure and a lower-income family trapped inside that failure are not living in the same America.

That is the blind spot data alone cannot correct: our lives teach us which burdens look normal, which needs look excessive, and whose instability we have learned not to see.

Invisible Labor Is the Load-Bearing Wall

The harder story beneath the data is invisible labor. The household has become the place where incompatible calendars are forced to pretend they belong to one life: school, work, daycare, pediatricians, aging parents, groceries, permission slips, coughs that might become fevers, deadlines that cannot move, and meetings that should have been emails. All of it converges somewhere.

Often, that somewhere is a mother’s private memory.

That does not mean mothers are the only people carrying care. Fathers, grandparents, older siblings, neighbors, childcare workers, single adults caring for parents, and extended kin networks are all recruited into making institutional contradictions livable. But the data still points to a gendered pattern: mothers are more likely to be treated as the default memory system, expected to anticipate, notice, schedule, soothe, adjust, apologize, and remember without being asked.

When employment and caregiving collide, the contradiction is often broken by a third party: a spouse, grandparent, older sibling, nanny, daycare worker, school secretary, neighbor, delivery app, washing machine, calendar alert, debt, guilt, or the person who silently decides sleep is optional. The system does not resolve the contradiction. It recruits someone or something to carry it.

1760/1766. Etching on laid paper. Ange-Laurent de Lalive de Jully, after Jean-Baptiste Greuze. This object’s media is free and in the public domain.

The face is old; the infrastructure is new. What has changed is not the expectation that care be absorbed privately, but the scale and speed of the systems now asking families to absorb it.

Balance Is the Wrong Metaphor

Balance implies two stable weights. But parents are not balancing two stable objects. They are standing between expanding systems. Work expands through devices, metrics, deadlines, and availability norms. Parenting expands through care, school logistics, emotional needs, medical coordination, and the everyday unpredictability of children. The problem is not that parents have failed to balance. The problem is that the scale itself is rigged.

The word “blurred” cannot carry that weight either. For some parents, the blur means answering email while watching a school concert. For others, it means risking pay or employment because a child is sick. Both are real, but they are not the same. One is an erosion of presence. The other is a threat to survival. When one headline gathers both experiences under the same soft language, it flattens the class structure of flexibility and makes unequal exposure sound like a shared inconvenience.

There is a family-systems dynamic hiding inside this arrangement. When two systems cannot resolve tension directly, a third party is often drawn in to stabilize the conflict. In psychology, this is often called triangulation: pressure between two points gets managed through a third. Work and family do something similar. When employment and caregiving collide, the contradiction is broken by someone or something else: a relationship, a habit, more work, an app, a convenience mechanism, debt, guilt—or the person who silently decides sleep is optional.

The Missed Decision Opportunity

Thin interpretation produces thin remedies. If the story is stress, offer mindfulness. If the story is blurred boundaries, offer boundary-setting. If the story is work-life balance, offer flexibility to those whose jobs are already flexible. But if the story is institutional incompatibility, the response has to move beyond mere coping. It has to ask who gets understanding, who gets punished, and who is expected to make broken systems appear workable.

This is where moral creativity becomes necessary. Not “think outside the box” optimism. Not the hope that companies will become kinder if they hear enough stories from exhausted parents. Moral creativity is the willingness to stop treating inherited arrangements as inevitable and begin asking what else could be true.

Organizations often ask people to practice values in the ordinary places where policy becomes culture. But values language becomes dangerous when organizations refuse to specify whose values are being served, what tradeoffs are being made, and which incentives are actually governing behavior. When stated values point one way and reward systems point another, people are left to carry the cognitive dissonance privately. Too often, companies rename business incentives as values and ask workers to absorb the contradiction.

The Real Question

Pew’s data should not leave us asking only how parents manage the strain, or whether employers can be persuaded to become nicer to parents, though many should. The deeper question is whether we are willing to stop looking to companies as the primary authors of social care.

Companies can improve policies, and managers can make daily choices more humane. But firms are not designed to solve the public problems their business models depend on keeping private. Asking companies to voluntarily redesign care is like asking sharks to redesign the tank.

The harder question is who built the tank, who stocks it, and who benefits when care remains invisible until it fails. If the market has already made care a national dependency, public policy cannot continue to treat it as a family problem.

Care is not a perk, a lifestyle accommodation, or a private act of virtue. It is infrastructure. It makes workers, students, patients, citizens, and communities possible.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to think.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

For more reading:

Thomas Merton’s work reminds us that technical systems without an ethical center do not become neutral; they become disoriented.

“For some mothers, leaning into the housewife identity may be easier than accepting that you’ve been pushed out of the workforce by circumstances beyond your control.”

There is a reason this all feels faintly gothic. The tradwife fantasy sits in the same cultural shadow as The Stepford Wives and The Yellow Wallpaper: stories where domesticity is not simply home, but containment; where women’s distress is misread as failure, instability, or ingratitude; where the room itself becomes a system of control. The horror is not care. The horror is what happens when care is used to make disappearance look beautiful.

IMG Source: WikiHow; Dame Magazine (C) to respective owners)

It is one of the saddest and truest sentences I have read in a while.

Staying home with children isn’t sad. Care is real work. Domestic life can be meaningful, skilled, intimate, and dignified.

The sadness lies elsewhere. That a society can make care nearly impossible to sustain, then offer women an identity to make that impossibility feel like a calling is criminal.

That is the not-so-subtle pull beneath the tradwife fantasy. The fantasy does not simply romanticize domestic labor. It helps convert structural abandonment into personal virtue. It tells women that what happened to them was not a policy failure, a labor-market failure, a benefits failure, a wage failure, or a caregiving infrastructure failure. It was destiny. It was femininity. It was moral clarity.

That is where the conversation becomes larger than motherhood.

Across institutions, women have long been asked to absorb what systems refuse to govern. They absorb the gap between policy and reality, between public promise and private cost, between institutional ambition and relational consequence. They notice what is breaking. They smooth the disruption. They repair the harm. They carry the emotional, logistical, and moral residue of decisions made elsewhere.

Then, too often, that labor is renamed as devotion, flexibility, or resilience. It becomes “just what mothers do,” “just what good women do,” or tradition. But tradition can become a very elegant hiding place for abandonment.

This is one of the central concerns behind my forthcoming edited volume, Gender, Power, and Emergent Technology: Governing the Default (Emerald Publishing, forthcoming January 2027). The book is not only about technology in the narrow sense of platforms, models, and machines. It is about naming and disrupting the defaults that shape institutional life before anyone notices a decision has been made.

Who pays when systems go bad?
Whose evidence counts when harm is disputed?
Who has the authority to say no?
And how is repair made enforceable when responsibility becomes diffuse?

Hill’s article is not about AI governance. But it names the same pattern the book is trying to make visible: when care is treated as private obligation rather than public infrastructure, the people closest to the harm are left to absorb the cost. And when that absorption becomes culturally familiar enough, it begins to look natural.

That is the default.

The tradwife fantasy is not powerful because it accurately describes most women’s lives. It is powerful because it gives aesthetic coherence to a collapse. It turns exhaustion into romance. It turns constraint into identity. It turns a lack of support into a story about virtue.

The question is not whether some women freely choose domestic life. Of course they do. The harder question is what kind of society makes that choice so unequal, so brittle, and so easily confused with having no real choice at all.

The tradwife fantasy is not simply a return to tradition; it is what happens when structural abandonment gets dressed up as moral clarity.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

Mark Zuckerberg wears a pair of Orion AR glasses during the Meta Connect conference on Sept. 25, 2024, in Menlo Park, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez, File) Image Credit to the respective owner.

WIRED reported that Meta had embedded an unreleased facial-recognition system, “NameTag,” in the Meta AI smart-glasses companion app, with code present since January and later removed after WIRED’s reporting. The system was designed to convert faces captured through Ray-Ban/Oakley smart glasses into biometric signatures and compare them against a locally stored database; WIRED also reported that unrecognized faces could be saved for future reference.

This matters because NameTag moves artificial mirroring out of the chatbot window and into physical space. AI systems do not simply “respond” to people. They simulate recognition, memory, intimacy, and social continuity. NameTag literalizes that concern. The glasses would allow the wearer to experience machine-mediated recognition as if it were ordinary social memory: I know you. I have seen you before. I can place you. But that recognition is no longer mutual. It is mediated by a device, structured by a platform, and potentially stored as data.

It means walking into a coffee shop and not knowing whether the person next to you is just ordering a latte or secretly adding your face to their personal recognition system.

• The old privacy question was: What do companies know about me?

• The new privacy question is: What can other people’s devices make me become without my knowledge?

That distinction matters because you did not download the app, agree to the terms, tap “accept,” or join Meta’s brave new opt-in beta called “Surprise, Your Face Is Now a Lookup Table.” And yet, you may still become part of the system because someone else is wearing the device.

That is the part people need to understand.

Consent collapses across relational roles. The person wearing the glasses may have installed the app; the person being scanned likely has not consented. One user’s convenience becomes another person’s involuntary data capture. The relationship is no longer dyadic. It becomes triangular, entangled: wearer, target, platform. The “target” becomes part of the system without ever entering a contract, interface, or consent flow.

What does this mean IRL?

It means surveillance is no longer only something that happens from above. It can now move through ordinary social life. Your neighbor, date, coworker, student, ex, customer, stranger on the bus, or guy in line at Trader Joe’s becomes the capture device. The platform does not need cameras on every street corner if it can put cameras on every face.

Because the glasses look like ordinary eyewear, the social cue disappears. We have norms for cameras. We have norms for phones. We know when someone raises a device and points it at us. Smart glasses collapse that signal. The person may simply appear to be looking at you.

That changes daily life in small but corrosive ways. You may begin to wonder whether you are being recognized before you introduce yourself, whether your face is being stored because someone found you interesting, suspicious, attractive, annoying, useful, or memorable, whether “public” now means available for biometric processing, and whether refusal is even possible when the interaction happened before you knew there was anything to refuse.

The system converts presence into infrastructure. A face in public space becomes a reusable biometric object. Even if the data is stored locally, the governance problem remains: recognition has been operationalized. The person’s face is no longer only socially encountered. It is rendered into a technical asset that can be compared, stored, recalled, and potentially repurposed.

That is why the risk is relational, not only informational. A standard privacy reading says biometric data was collected, or could have been collected, without consent. But the deeper harm is the reconfiguration of human encounter. Smart glasses make ordinary interaction asymmetric. One party sees a person; the other may be silently classified. That asymmetry changes the terms of social presence, especially for people already vulnerable to stalking, harassment, workplace monitoring, policing, or coercive control.

What does this mean IRL?

The problem is not that Meta built a thing that can remember faces. Humans already do that. The problem is that Meta built a thing that lets machines remember faces on behalf of people, inside a commercial ecosystem whose business model has historically been: What if your boundaries were just untapped revenue?

So the shift is not abstract. Being seen becomes being scanned. Being remembered becomes being indexed. Meeting someone may also mean entering someone else’s machine memory.

The kicker is that Meta’s removal of the code after WIRED asked questions does not make the issue go away. It makes the governance question louder: Why was this capability sitting there in the first place? Why did public accountability arrive only after independent researchers and journalists found it? And why does a company with Meta’s history around facial recognition keep returning to the same contested capability through new interfaces?

That sequence matters. Meta previously announced it would shut down Facebook’s facial-recognition system and delete facial-recognition templates, citing concerns about the technology and regulation. Texas later secured a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta over unauthorized biometric capture and use. Against that history, embedding facial-recognition code in smart-glasses infrastructure looks less like exploratory R&D and more like recursive governance failure: the same contested capability returns through a new interface, with a softer consumer story and a less visible consent boundary.

This is not just a biometric privacy problem. It is a systems problem. Meta appears to have been experimenting with converting social recognition into ambient infrastructure, in which one person’s device can transform another person’s face into a persistent technical signal.

NameTag shows what happens when artificial mirroring leaves the chatbot window and enters the street: recognition becomes wearable, consent becomes displaced, and the human face becomes platform memory. The danger is not simply that smart glasses may recognize us. The danger is that recognition itself is being redesigned as a platform service: slowly, ambiently, and often without the participation of the people being recognized.

The law may ask whether biometric data was collected without consent. I am interested in the question that comes before that: How does the system rearrange recognition, memory, and social power before consent is even possible? And who is accountable for that?

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

I have been thinking about how institutions make power feel dangerous to use.

Not reckless power. Not domination dressed up as leadership. I mean the legitimate, necessary, already-authorized power people hold inside organizations and then somehow learn not to exercise when the stakes become moral, social, or human.

This pattern is hard to miss in AI governance.

Leaders authorize systems, fund them, scale them, profit from them, and then, when harm appears, describe themselves as passengers. The explanation is familiar by now: the system was too complex, the model too opaque, the vendor too confident, the dashboard too clean, the pace of innovation too fast for ordinary accountability to keep up.

But complexity is not innocence. Lack of transparency is not an alibi.

That is the premise behind the special issue I had the privilege of guest editing for Leadership & Organization Development Journal: “The Architecture of Accountability: Algorithmic Autonomy and the Discipline of Stewardship.”

The formal guest editorial does the scholarly work of naming the architecture: the Kaplan Paradox, the control room, the manual override, and the discipline of stewardship. What I want to do here is something slightly different. I want to explain why that architecture is already touching ordinary life.

Because AI governance is not abstract.

For anyone who hears “AI governance research” and thinks it has nothing to do with everyday life — or assumes the work is too technical, too academic, or too difficult to read — I would ask you to look again.

This work is present in the résumé that never reaches a human being, the school platform no one can explain in plain language, the benefits form that rejects a person without a conversation, and the medical score, credit score, risk score, productivity score, or customer profile that gradually narrows what options are available.

It is present when a chatbot becomes the front door to a service that used to be reachable through a person. It is present when a workplace system turns human contribution into surveillance residue. It is present when recommendation engines shape what children see, what communities argue about, what doctors notice, what employers count, and what institutions come to treat as true.

AI governance is not only about technology. It is about who gets seen, who gets sorted, who gets believed, and who is allowed a future.

These systems are not like the weather. They do not simply arrive. They are built through procurement choices, budget approvals, design defaults, vendor contracts, leadership incentives, missing escalation paths, and all the small permissions that teach an institution what it is willing to tolerate.

And because they are built, they can be changed.

A nine-month journey

This special issue was the result of a nine-month journey that began at the International Leadership Association Virtual AI Summit in 2025, following an editorial panel discussion I facilitated.

Special issues are often described through their finished products: the articles, abstracts, tables of contents, and polished arguments. What disappears is the labor of formation—the correspondence, review cycles, revisions, coordination, encouragement, deadlines, editorial judgment, and intellectual care that make a collection cohere.

This issue arose because many people took the work seriously.

I am grateful to Stefanie Johnson for her early vision in appointing me as Guest Editor and for giving me the intellectual freedom to shape the issue's vision. I am also grateful to Rickard Enstroem, whose steady stewardship helped support the issue as it moved through the journal process.

Suzanne Joy Clark deserves special recognition. Her assistance in providing peer reviews was indispensable to the quality of the final collection. This kind of editorial labor is often invisible from the outside, but anyone who has shepherded a scholarly project knows how much depends on the people who keep the work moving without making themselves the center of it.

I also want to thank Lauren Malone and Emma Ferguson for their patient assistance in navigating the administrative and technical hurdles of a two-volume production.

Of course, the deepest intellectual contribution belongs to the authors.

The authors in this issue did the hard work of thinking carefully about leadership at a moment when AI is too often framed through spectacle, fear, efficiency, or inevitability. They refused to treat leadership as a personality trait or AI as a neutral tool, in contrast to much of the current work on the topic. Instead, they examined the conditions under which technical systems become sources of organizational power and asked what forms of accountability, judgment, stewardship, and resistance are required as decisions are increasingly mediated by machines.

The anonymous peer reviewers also deserve recognition. Their labor is easy to miss because it is not attached to a byline. But rigorous review is one of the ways scholarship disciplines itself. In this issue, the reviewers served as auditors of logic, pressing the arguments toward greater precision, accountability, and conceptual force.

That matters because the central governance question is no longer simply whether a tool works.

It is what kind of institution the tool helps produce.

The problem this issue takes up

For years, one of the most convenient defenses in technology leadership has been: “I didn’t know the algorithm was doing that.”

That defense is collapsing.

As AI systems reach further into hiring, education, healthcare, finance, public services, and everyday life, leaders cannot claim authority over the benefits while remaining ignorant of the harms. They cannot celebrate scale when it produces growth and then disown scale when it produces damage.

This is what I call the Kaplan Paradox: a condition in which a leader’s systemic liability expands as algorithmic reach grows, even while operational transparency and perceived managerial control shrink.

In plainer language: the farther the system reaches, the more leaders are tempted to claim they cannot see what it is doing.

But if an organization can procure the system, integrate it into workflows, train people to use it, measure productivity with it, and extract value from it, then the system is not outside leadership's control. It is part of leadership’s operating environment.

That is why this special issue is not a collection of leadership tips. It is a diagnostic audit for a new era of accountability.

It asks researchers, leadership educators, and practitioners to stop treating leaders as adjacent to AI systems and start holding them as part of the system itself.

Why ordinary governance language is not enough

We have all seen the corporate response to an AI scandal: the ethics board, the empathy workshop, the principles statement, the fairness slide, the task force, the public promise to listen.

These can matter. I am not against them.

But they can also calm the room without changing the rules. They can reassure the public, comfort the institution, and give leaders language for concern while leaving the authorization logic intact.

And authorization logic is where governance actually lives.

It lives in the incentives, thresholds, escalation rights, redress pathways, procurement criteria, audit trails, and decision rules that determine whether a system can be paused, challenged, repaired, or stopped. If those do not change, governance has not happened. The symptoms have been narrated. They have not been treated.

This is where academic research can serve a public function, not by making the issue more complicated, but by refusing to let complexity become a hiding place.

The value of scholarship is not that it floats above ordinary life. At its best, scholarship gives us the language to see what ordinary life has already been teaching us.

The question of power

One of the easiest ways systems preserve themselves is by making people tired, isolated, confused, and unsure whether action is possible. In organizations, complexity can perform that same function. It can make capable people behave as if they have no authority.

But the problem is rarely the total absence of power. More often, it is the selective use of power.

Leaders override systems all the time. They override timelines, user research, internal dissent, and risk concerns when the launch matters enough. They know how to intervene when a release date is threatened, when a brand is at risk, when investors are watching, when growth targets are slipping, or when executive preference demands movement.

So the question is not whether leaders have override power. They do.

The question is why that power appears so readily for market urgency, brand protection, and executive preference—and so hesitantly for public harm, worker dignity, gendered risk, or democratic accountability.

That is one of the tensions this issue asks us to confront: not the absence of power, but the selective use of it.

Why this matters now

Research often struggles with its public reputation. People hear “special issue” or “scholarly article” and assume the work is remote from ordinary life. Too dense. Too slow. Too hard to read. Too concerned with other scholars.

Sometimes that criticism is earned. But the answer is not to make research thinner. The answer is to make its stakes more legible.

The articles in this issue matter because they help us see what ordinary institutional language often hides. They help us ask better questions about authority, design, delegation, accountability, and repair. They give leadership scholars and practitioners a way to examine not only what AI systems do, but what organizations become when they rely on them.

That is not a niche concern. It is the work of public life now.

Every institution adopting AI is making choices about evidence, trust, discretion, voice, and consequence. Every automated workflow carries assumptions about whose judgment matters, whose suffering counts, whose exception is worth noticing, and whose future can be narrowed without explanation.

The issue is not whether AI will enter everyday life. It already has.

The issue is whether the systems shaping that life will remain hidden behind complexity, or whether we will build the governance capacity to see them, question them, and change them.

An invitation into the issue

The control room is not just a place of authority. It is a site of professional responsibility.

It is where decisions are authorized before they become defaults. It is where harm is either interrupted or rationalized. It is where leaders decide whether governance will be a living practice or a public-facing vocabulary.

The formal guest editorial develops this argument in full, along with the architecture that holds the two-volume issue together. Over the coming months, I will be featuring the articles in the issue and the hard-earned work of the authors behind them.

My hope is that this collection helps more people see AI governance not as an abstract technical concern, but as a practical question of leadership: who holds power, how it is used, when it is withheld, and what becomes possible when people stop pretending they are passengers in systems they helped build.

The control room is not empty. And the systems shaping our lives are not weather.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

IMG CREDIT: Original King James Version Dedicatory Page. The King James Bible has long been celebrated as one of the most significant texts of all time, not only for its accessible portrayal of Christianity, but also for its role in spreading the English language worldwide.

According to Pew Research Center, converts to Catholicism account for just 1.5% of all U.S. adults. That translates to roughly 4 million people. Within American Catholicism, converts make up only 8% of the Catholic population. The rest are “cradle Catholics,” raised in the faith and still identifying with it.

On the surface, this is a small demographic story attached to a public figure’s memoir. Vance converted to Catholicism as an adult. He is preparing to publish a book about that religious journey. Pew uses the occasion to explain who Catholic converts are, where they come from, and how they differ from lifelong Catholics.

But the deeper story is not really about Vance alone. It is about what conversion means in a country where inherited religious belonging is weakening, but chosen religious identity can become more intense, more visible, and more politically useful.

That is where the numbers get interesting.

Catholicism in the United States loses far more people than it gains through religious switching. For every adult who becomes Catholic after being raised something else, more than eight adults who were raised Catholic no longer identify that way. In other words, Catholicism is not winning the broader retention game. It is leaking cradle members faster than it is attracting converts.

Yet converts matter. They’ve always mattered.

They attend Mass at higher rates than lifelong Catholics. Pew found that 38% of Catholic converts say they attend Mass at least weekly, compared with 28% of cradle Catholics. Converts are also more likely to receive Communion every time they attend Mass: 58% compared with 34% of lifelong Catholics.

They are not simply joining casually. Many are entering with seriousness.

They are also more likely to be Republican. Among Catholic registered voters, 60% of converts identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, compared with 52% of cradle Catholics. Catholic converts are also more likely than lifelong Catholics to be White and U.S.-born. Hispanics and immigrants make up smaller shares of Catholic converts than of cradle Catholics.

That combination has significance. It suggests that conversion is not only a private religious act. For some, it may also function as what I would call a political identity technology. A political identity technology is a belief, affiliation, ritual, label, institution, or conversion narrative that helps people organize social belonging, moral status, and political legitimacy. It does not have to be fake. It does not have to be cynical. It can be sincere and still function politically.

[Pause on that point for a second.]

Something can be spiritually meaningful to the individual and politically useful in public. It can offer genuine discipline, beauty, ritual, tradition, and moral seriousness while also signaling hierarchy, order, belonging, and resistance to modern liberal drift.

Catholicism has a long intellectual tradition. It has ritual density. It has hierarchy. It has visible authority. It offers a language of sacrament, sin, duty, family, forgiveness, obedience, confession, and moral order. For some converts, that may be precisely the point. In a fragmented age, Catholicism can feel like an architecture sturdy enough to enter. But when a public figure converts, especially a political figure, the act does not remain purely private. It becomes legible as biography. It helps narrate the self.

The convert can become the person who chose discipline over drift, authority over relativism, tradition over rootlessness, moral seriousness over permissiveness. Whether that is fair or not, it is how conversion can operate in public life.

That is, we need to pay closer attention to stories like these that “just report the facts” because they are more revealing than the headline suggests. The headline says: Vance is among 1.5% of Americans who have converted to Catholicism, but the buried story says: institutional religion may be losing inherited members, but selected forms of religion are gaining power as chosen identity systems.

That is a very different story, wouldn’t you say? It means religion is not simply disappearing. It is being re-sorted. There is less default belonging and more curated belonging.

Less “I was born into this.” More “I chose this.” Less parish as background culture. More faith as moral architecture.

This is not unique to Catholicism. Many institutions are experiencing a similar pattern. Universities lose public trust while elite credentials become more symbolically loaded. Newspapers lose mass readership while certain mastheads become identity markers. Political parties lose broad civic attachment while their most committed members become more intense. Civic organizations thin out while symbolic affiliations harden.

The middle weakens. The edges intensify.

Catholic conversion, in this context, may signal more than spiritual seeking. It may signal a broader American hunger for durable authority (top-down, perhaps, but also old enough to feel less negotiable) at a time when many inherited institutions feel exhausted, compromised, or hollowed out

For some people, that hunger is sincere. They want ritual. They want discipline. They want a moral tradition that did not begin yesterday. They want to stand inside something older than the market, older than the algorithm, older than the individual self.

That longing deserves to be taken seriously. But so does the social function of conversion. Because conversion is never only about what one enters. It is also about what one leaves, what one renounces, and what one hopes the new affiliation will repair.

I should take a moment to disclose my own denominational credentials.

I am a cradle Lutheran, through my German mother, which means I come by my self-loathing, judgment, suspicion of pleasure, and respect for plain furniture honestly.

Then I went to Catholic school, in the South, as a Yankee. This created some cognitive dissonance and a theological situation best described as: already guilty, but apparently under-certified.

At some point, I understood the arrangement. To be accepted into the “chosen” group, I would need to convert. No one had to say this directly. Children are excellent little ethnographers of exclusion. They know who is inside, who is adjacent, and who is invited to help with the bake sale but not quite trusted with the recipe.

Conversion, I gathered, was the upgrade package. But conversion does not work like a rewards card. The othering does not disappear. It simply moves indoors. And, of course, the fundraising envelopes for the broken radiators and pagan babies still arrive. This may be organized religion’s most ecumenical achievement: whatever else divides the denominations, everyone knows where the mailing list is.

So there I was, a German-born cradle Lutheran who had wandered into Catholicism and discovered that I had not escaped guilt. I had simply diversified my portfolio.

Lutheran guilt is spare, efficient, and weatherproof. Catholic guilt had better architecture. Eventually, I opted out of both, not because family or faith are foolish or ritual is meaningless, but because belonging through self-erasure is not belonging. It is a subscription service with candles and very tight strings.

That is why the Vance story interests me. Conversion can be sincere and still socially useful. It can be spiritually meaningful and still politically legible. It can be a search for God, order, discipline, beauty, family, authority, or relief from the exhausting buffet of modern identity. But the old house has rooms, doors, guest lists, and pledge cards.

The choice is not simply whether to believe or not believe, convert or not convert, stay or leave. The more interesting choice is whether we are willing to notice what our affiliations are doing for us.

• Are they deepening conscience, or laundering status?

• Are they enlarging mercy, or sharpening judgment?

• Are they helping us belong, or teaching us to accept smaller humiliations in exchange for a better seat at the table?

Every tradition offers something: a language, a lineage, a warning, a wound, a casserole schedule. The trick is knowing when you are being formed and when you are being managed.

I did not stop being shaped by religion or spirituality. Those systems are in me somewhere, debating over whether joy should be permitted and whether the coffee hour sign-up sheet has been properly circulated.

But I did eventually stop confusing being chosen with being free.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

In Seattle, it arrives as civic enchantment: skyline glowing, stadium arches framing the city, the Space Needle lit like a torch. The message is aspirational: the world is coming here.

In New Jersey, it arrives as a warning label: severe congestion, avoid the hassle, stay off the roads. The message is managerial: the world will be in your way.

Both are true. Mega-events are spectacle and burden. They bring money, pride, tourists, security headaches, traffic, displacement, and an exhausting amount of branded enthusiasm. But placed side by side, these images reveal something larger than regional marketing differences.

They show a country preparing to host a global ritual without a shared cultural story about why the ritual matters.

That is what the Pew survey is really telling us. The obvious headline is that Americans lack a strong World Cup consensus. Among the 28% of U.S. adults who say they are at least somewhat likely to follow the tournament, 41% say they are unsure who will win. The top predictions are scattered: Spain at 9%, Argentina and Brazil at 8% each, France and the U.S. at 7% each.

But the buried headline is more revealing: immigrants are more than twice as likely as U.S.-born adults to follow the World Cup—54% versus 23%. Hispanic and Asian adults are also substantially more likely than White adults to say they will follow it.

This is not really a “who will win?” story. It is a story about whether the United States understands itself as part of a global public.

The survey measures cultural integration, not merely sports preferences.

The lagging indicator is this: the U.S. is hosting one of the largest global civic spectacles on earth, but the mainstream American attention system still has not metabolized its global meaning. The 2026 World Cup is the first with 48 teams and three host countries—Canada, Mexico, and the United States—and includes 104 games across 16 host cities. Yet most Americans say they are unlikely to follow it.

That is not just “soccer isn’t popular here.” It is a sign that U.S. public attention remains domestically organized even when the country is literally hosting the world.

What is not being communicated is the asymmetry between event infrastructure and cultural readiness. Cities, sponsors, hotels, broadcasters, security teams, and tourism boards are preparing for a global mega-event. But Pew’s data suggests the broader public may still experience it as background noise — unless they are already connected to immigrant, diasporic, international, or soccer-following communities.

That matters because the World Cup will expose several American gaps at once.

There is the gap between global status and global literacy. The U.S. likes being a host, market, and spectacle-maker. But many Americans do not follow the cultural grammar of the event they are hosting.

There is the gap between immigrant America and mainstream America. Immigrants are not peripheral to this story; they are the most globally attuned audience segment. The World Cup may reveal that “American culture” is less unified than advertisers and politicians pretend.

There is a gap between economic planning and civic meaning. The tournament is being framed partly as a tourism and business opportunity. But if the public story stops there, it misses the deeper question: what does it mean for a country to host the world while much of its population is indifferent to the world’s game?

And there is the gap between patriotism and prediction. Only 7% of likely followers predict a U.S. men’s win. That is not necessarily pessimism. It may simply be realism. But it also says Americans do not yet see the men’s national team as a dominant global symbol in the way they see U.S. teams in basketball, the Olympics, or women’s soccer.

The real story?

American cultural insularity is on full display at the very moment the country is being asked to perform global hospitality.

It’s not unlike our mixed reaction to Bad Bunny’s halftime show at last year’s Super Bowl. The backlash to his Super Bowl halftime show was not only about music or taste. It was about whose America gets to be legible as American on a national stage. The discomfort was not just with Spanish-language performance. It was with the reminder that American culture is already multilingual, transnational, hybrid, and not waiting for permission from the old center.

The World Cup will do something similar, but at civic scale.

It will ask the United States to extend global hospitality at a moment when American public life remains deeply ambivalent about global belonging. We want the prestige of hosting. We want the tourism. We want the economic upside. We want the skyline shot.

But do we want the cultural encounter?

Do we want the noise, the languages, the flags, the crowds, the allegiances that do not map neatly onto U.S. nationalism? Do we want to understand why this tournament is not just a sporting event, but a planetary ritual of memory, grief, rivalry, migration, class, colonial history, and joy?

The World Cup will not just test stadium readiness. It will test cultural readiness.

Right now, the signage is telling on us.

The question is not, “Why don’t Americans care about soccer?”

The better question is: What happens when the world arrives, and the host country has not fully prepared its own public to understand what is arriving?

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

This is a first post-show note for Dignity by Design, not a recap of Clara’s essay, not a recap of the episode, and or a summary of my Manifesto for the 99%. These are reflections I had, and what they mean for where this series is headed.

The real topic isn’t AI. It’s institutional metabolism.

Every organization has a way of converting people into throughput. Some do it politely, with performance reviews and dashboards. Others do it with cages and deportation paperwork. The forms vary; the function is remarkably consistent: the system keeps moving by offloading its friction onto someone else’s body, time, reputation, or future.

AI accelerates that metabolism. It expands the system’s ability to act at scale without direct contact, and therefore without direct accountability. When the harm comes, it arrives as a paperwork artifact: a “match,” a “risk score,” a “process.”

The reason her essay lingers with people, one participant mentioned it “haunted” her, is that modern harm is rarely theatrical. It’s administrative. It’s denial wrapped in procedure. It’s violence in the language of efficiency.

“Teeth” is a code for enforcement asymmetry.

The image that framed our episode, teeth removed so a worker is complaint-proof, isn’t just a historical horror. It’s a shorthand for a structural pattern:

• The system keeps its freedom.

• The human becomes the constraint.

That’s the bargain in a labor story. It’s also the bargain in AI-mediated decision systems. When risk is flagged but the roadmap proceeds, the organization preserves optionality by making the human carry the consequence: the whistleblower becomes difficult, the governance team becomes overhead, and the harmed person becomes an edge case.

The teeth aren’t literal anymore. But the extraction pattern remains.

One of the things I’m watching (across tech, education, healthcare, immigration enforcement) is a widening gap between constraint knowledge and decision authority. Many organizations know how to name risk. Far fewer design the authority structures that make risk consequential.

When governance can describe constraints but can’t trigger review, pause, or veto, it doesn’t matter how good the policy is. The institution is structurally free to proceed.

The show’s real ethic is consent over extraction.

A small thing happened before we recorded that I’ve come to see as non-negotiable. Clara asked to read my research papers. Not as a formality, but to engage with my material and confirm the guest isn’t going to be treated like raw material. I offered an outline she could edit, and confirmed discussion boundaries up front.

That structure is not separate from the subject matter. It is the subject matter, scaled down.

We live inside systems designed for capture. Stories become content. Attention becomes inventory. Data becomes training material. Consent becomes implied because it slows things down.

This series is a deliberate refusal of that pattern. Not as politeness. As governance. Co-authorship, agency, and standing aren’t “nice to have” values. They are the conditions under which truth can be spoken without being harvested.

If I’m going to host a series about dignity, I can’t build it on the same extractive dynamics I’m critiquing. The container has to match the claim, or the whole project collapses into hypocrisy.

The “curation vs feed” detour was actually the episode in disguise.

Off camera and in the margins, we drifted into a conversation about physical media. We reminisced about Blockbuster, Netflix, iTunes, and vinyl. It would be easy to call it nostalgia, but it wasn’t. It was a proxy argument about judgment, taste, insight, and perspective.

A curated world has accountable choice. Someone can be questioned. Taste has a keeper. You can locate responsibility.

A feed-based world has plausible deniability. “The system recommended it.” “The algorithm surfaced it.” “We’re just meeting demand.”

That detour gradually reinforced one of the series’ central claims: the most dangerous systems aren’t the ones that decide. They’re the ones that make decisions feel inevitable. They replace discernment with defaults. They turn judgment into a passive intake.

In that sense, the cultural argument and the governance argument are the same. One is simply easier to see.

The off-camera talk revealed the secondary economy of harm.

After the formal conversation ended, we touched on a topic I want to keep returning to in this series: what happens downstream when institutions normalize extraction. For instance, I shared how Microsoft used to work us until our eyes bled. Now with AI, the pressure to be “always productive” is amplified.

There is a whole secondary economy built on the damage that it inflicts on the human being: therapy for emotional burnout, legal defense, divorce attorneys when home/work boundaries can’t be maintained, identity repair when performance reviews go south, medical care for stress-related collapse, coaching programs designed to help people survive what they should never have been asked to endure.

This is not a sign of individual fragility. It’s evidence of system design. The business incentives are not aligned with individual or societal wellness; they are aligned with engagement and stock price.

Prevention work is hard to reward because its success condition is often a non-event. No scandal. No incident. No headline. In cultures that celebrate visible expansion, non-events are treated as…nothing, until the day they aren’t.

That is why accountability has to be designed as a viability layer rather than a values statement. You don’t build seatbelts because you enjoy talking about crashes. You build them because you don’t want people to become collateral. [That assumed a common value around the value of human life…still, which might be a rather large assumption in the U.S.]

The coalition I’m trying to build is temperamental, not ideological.

One of the most encouraging things about talking with Clara was the sense that we could touch on tense topics, even disagree at the edges, without losing each other.

That matters. Not because civility is the goal. But because the problems we’re dealing with are structurally complex and emotionally charged. The people who can work on them are not defined primarily by political identity; they’re defined by temperament under pressure.

• Can you hold grief without collapsing into despair?

• Can you hold anger without becoming reckless?

• Can you hold complexity without laundering harm?

That’s the guest bar for this series. Not a résumé. A nervous system. A willingness to name consequences. A refusal to perform certainty.

Where this leaves me

If I had to name what this first conversation clarified, it would be this: The future of work will not be determined by who publishes the best roadmap.

It will be determined by whether anyone has the authority, and the courage, to introduce friction when the system is about to harm someone, and to insist on repair when it does.

That is what “dignity by design” means to me: not a mood, not a mission statement, but a structural demand. It’s a refusal to let institutions purchase their legitimacy by making people absorb the cost of their automation.

Clara’s episode helped set that tone. Not by providing answers, but by refusing the first bargain: to speak about human lives as if they are abstract.

In the next episodes, I want to keep pressing the same question from different angles: Where is the institution buying its freedom by taking someone else’s? Because once you can see that bargain, you can start to design against it.

…that is what I mean by governance with teeth.

Download the Episode 1 “What Next” handout

If you want to translate this conversation into action, I made a one-page (printable) guide with Clara’s practical starting point: map how AI is actually being used, name the “why,” and align it to mission/values before anything scales.

Download Handout

—Christine.
Subscribe for post-show notes (Dignity by Design) and the Lead With Alignment newsletter.

Subscribe now

Every field eventually reaches a moment when one of its founding figures begins speaking in a different register. Not necessarily a different idea. A different tone.

Recently, the usability pioneer Jakob Nielsen published a long reflection on AI and the future of UX work. On the surface, it reads like a technical forecast. AI coding is accelerating. Design tools are improving. Exponential scaling will smooth out today’s weaknesses. The familiar workflow of usability engineering (i.e., manual testing, heuristic evaluation, iterative design) may soon be automated away.

These observations aren’t implausible. Automation is clearly reshaping how technical work happens. But what is striking in Nielsen’s essay is not simply the prediction. It is the posture.

The piece reads less like a field update and more like a concession to a story that has become dominant in AI discourse: the paradigm has shifted, exponential growth is underway, elite practitioners are already acknowledging the transition, and professionals would be wise to prepare for a future in which the manual aspects of their work disappear.

That framing feels unusual coming from Nielsen, because the discipline he helped build was founded on a very different premise.

The Original Nielsen Thesis

For most of his career, Nielsen argued something both simple and subversive. Technology does not guarantee usable systems. Human judgment does. That’s what gave him a cult following.

Usability engineering emerged from a recurring failure in computing. Engineers built powerful systems that ordinary people could barely navigate. Software became more capable but also more confusing. Interfaces accumulated features while shedding clarity.

Nielsen’s response was not to promise that better technology would fix the problem. Instead, he introduced methods that forced designers to look outward, toward the people actually using their systems.

Observation. User testing. Iterative refinement. Heuristic evaluation.

These practices were not glamorous. They were empirical, repetitive, and sometimes tedious. But they trained practitioners to notice where users hesitated, where they misunderstood the system, where the design quietly imposed cognitive costs on the person interacting with it.

Usability engineering was never just a workflow. It was a discipline of attention. If you watched closely enough, human behavior would tell you where the system was wrong.

That message was fundamentally empowering. It suggested that thoughtful practitioners could shape technological environments by paying disciplined attention to human experience.

The Narrative of Technological Inevitability

In Nielsen’s recent essay, the tone shifts.

Rather than emphasizing the enduring need for human interpretation in design, the argument leans toward a narrative now common in Silicon Valley’s AI ecosystem. A new interaction paradigm has arrived. Exponential improvement will quickly smooth over current limitations. Coding has already begun transitioning to AI dominance. UX will follow. By the end of the decade, the manual processes that defined the field may largely vanish.

The argument unfolds through a structure that now appears almost ritualized in discussions of AI. First comes the declaration of a paradigm shift. Then, the invocation of exponential scaling laws. Elite practitioners are cited as early adopters. Finally, professionals are advised to move “up the abstraction ladder” as machines assume the operational layers of their work.

This narrative is persuasive partly because parts of it are true. AI systems can already generate interface prototypes, summarize research sessions, and produce variations of a design at speeds that would have been unimaginable a few years ago.

But something subtle happens when the argument moves from these observations to a broader claim about the fate of professions.

Automation of Tasks Is Not the Replacement of Professions

Much of the evidence offered for AI’s transformative power concerns the automation of specific tasks: generating code, drafting interfaces, running heuristic checks, and iterating across design variations.

These developments matter. They will undoubtedly reshape workflows across design and engineering.

But professions are not merely bundles of tasks waiting to be automated.

UX practitioners do more than produce interface layouts or conduct usability tests. They interpret ambiguous signals from users. They translate between engineers, executives, and customers. They surface tensions between business incentives and human experience. They make judgments about what constitutes a meaningful improvement rather than a cosmetic change.

These activities involve context, interpretation, and responsibility in ways that do not map neatly onto scaling curves.

Technological history repeatedly shows that automation rarely eliminates professions outright. Instead, it changes where expertise resides. Computer-aided design did not eliminate architects. Spreadsheets did not eliminate accountants. Medical imaging did not eliminate radiologists. In each case, production became easier while judgment became more valuable.

The same dynamic may well unfold in design.

The Politics of Inevitability

This is where the story becomes larger than a single essay or discipline.

The narrative structure Nielsen adopts (paradigm shift, exponential growth, elite early adopters, inevitable displacement) has become a defining feature of AI discourse more broadly.

As the journalist Karen Hao documents in her reporting and in Empire of AI, the language of inevitability surrounding AI does more than describe technological change. It also performs political work.

The companies building frontier AI systems operate at extraordinary scale. They require vast computational infrastructure, enormous datasets, and capital flows that rival those of nation-states. In that context, the story told about technological progress becomes consequential. If the development of AI is framed as unstoppable, then questions about governance, restraint, or alternative trajectories begin to sound unrealistic. The debate shifts from whether certain developments should occur to how quickly everyone else must adapt.

In that environment, inevitability becomes a kind of intellectual gravity.

Experts repeat it. Industries reorganize around it. Professionals begin narrating their own displacement as though it were a natural law.

Seen in that light, Nielsen’s essay may be reflecting not just technological change but the power of a narrative that now saturates discussions of AI.

Where the Limits Still Show

One place where this tension becomes particularly visible is in scholarly writing.

AI systems today can produce remarkably fluent academic prose. They can summarize research themes, draft literature reviews, and assemble paragraphs that resemble a scholarly argument.

Yet anyone who spends time evaluating serious scholarship quickly recognizes the difference between text that merely looks academic and work that actually advances understanding.

A strong paper is not built from grammatical fluency alone. It requires a sense of what is genuinely at stake in the argument. It requires judgment about which sources illuminate the problem and which merely decorate the page with citations. It requires the ability to identify tensions within a field and push them forward in a meaningful way.

Above all, it requires the ability to recognize when a sentence is technically correct but intellectually empty.

Current AI systems remain far better at producing the appearance of scholarship than at generating its intellectual architecture. They can assist with drafting, summarizing, and structuring ideas. But the deeper work of synthesis, deciding what matters and why, still depends on human judgment.

Broken Succession

Which brings us back to Nielsen.

There is another way to read his essay, one that has less to do with technical prediction than with the difficulty of narrating one’s own legacy in the face of a paradigm shift.

Late in a career, integrating a disruptive new tool into one’s repertoire can be awkward. It requires experimentation, partial adoption, and public imperfection. For someone who has spent decades defining the standards of a discipline, occupying that uncertain middle ground can be uncomfortable.

There is a simpler narrative available. The craft belonged to another era. The machine is taking over. History has moved on.

That move preserves dignity. It allows the past to remain intact. But it also risks collapsing an important distinction between a workflow and a craft.

The visible techniques of usability engineering (manual tests, heuristic reviews, iterative prototypes) may indeed evolve dramatically under the influence of AI. But the craft Nielsen helped cultivate was never reducible to those techniques. It was a way of seeing technological systems through the lens of human experience.

When a senior figure narrates the transition as the end of the craft itself, what is lost is not only continuity but stewardship. A healthy succession says: the tools have changed, but the discipline still matters. Here is what must be preserved. Here is how the sensibility evolves.

Broken succession does something different. It treats the end of one generation’s repertoire as the end of the tradition.

The Seat He Helped Win

For years, Nielsen was one of the few steady voices in technology-forward industries who could cut through the false certainty of objective data by insisting on something more basic: the voice of the customer, observable behavior, recurring patterns of confusion, and the common-sense friction that sophisticated systems so often impose on ordinary people. He helped make user experience legible inside environments dominated by engineering logic, executive simplification, and market pressure. He gave organizations a way to see what technical teams, left to themselves, routinely missed.

That mattered because many of the problems usability engineering addressed were never purely technical. They emerged in organizations where engineers, lacking either the incentive or the collaborative structure to work across disciplines, designed interfaces from the inside out. UX was not ornamental. It was corrective. It secured a seat at the table for the human consequences of technical decisions.

That is why the tone of Nielsen’s essay feels so consequential. If AI now allows engineers to produce design work that appears good enough to technology-enamored executives, the danger is not simply that workflows become faster. It is that organizations begin to persuade themselves that they no longer need the discipline Nielsen helped build. In that case, we would not be transcending the old mistakes. We would be repeating them in a more automated form.

Seen this way, Nielsen’s essay does more than predict a transition. It risks legitimizing the withdrawal of advocacy from a profession that still exists because technical systems do not naturally organize themselves around human needs. What unsettles the reader is the possibility that, having spent a career fighting to secure UX a place in technical decision-making, he now speaks as though that place can be surrendered just as the pressure to defend it is returning in a new form.

The Craft That Remains

Automation will continue to reshape design and engineering, just as it will many other disciplines. AI systems will generate artifacts faster than human teams ever could. The mechanics of production will change. But the deeper question facing technological systems has not changed at all.

Someone still has to decide what those systems should do, and for what purpose. Someone still has to interpret how they affect the people who depend on them. Someone still has to recognize when apparent efficiency masks a deeper form of harm. That is the difference between using machines to support judgment and reorganizing judgment around machines.

The discipline Nielsen helped build was never really about wireframes or usability checklists. It was about protecting a space for human judgment inside rapidly expanding technical systems.

That space has not disappeared.

If anything, the faster machines become at generating solutions, the more necessary human judgment becomes.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

Subscribe now

The awards ceremony wasn’t broadcast live. The BBC aired it with a two-hour delay, meaning this was not an unfiltered moment that simply “happened” to viewers. It was an edited broadcast. Edited broadcasts are not neutral; they reflect human judgment, priorities, and power. Both the original and the aired version had “inappropriate shoutouts.” Producers cut Akinola Davies Jr., saying “Free Palestine,” making it unmistakably clear that editorial intervention was underway. Choices were made. Among those choices, the N-word shouted at two Black actors remained. That is not neutrality. That is a decision, and decisions like that deserve scrutiny.

My question: Was it malice or incompetence?

We all know the saying: never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

In ordinary life, that’s often a useful check on paranoia. Sometimes people really do just mess up.

But institutions have learned to use that phrase like a fire blanket. The second something harmful happens, we get a familiar script: “It was complex.” “No harm was intended.” “There was context.” “People are being unfair.” Or, in this case, disability becomes the instant social hot potato. Suddenly, we’re no longer talking about what happened. whether the hurt was expressed politely enough, whether the apology sounded genuine enough.

Here’s the problem as I see it: in an edited, delayed broadcast, “incompetence” is not a personality trait. It’s a systems issue.

This wasn’t a live feed where nobody had time to react. It was a curated product. Which means there were checkpoints. Humans. Standards. Editorial judgment. Maybe no one sat in a room twirling a mustache thinking, “Excellent, let’s preserve the worst possible moment.” Fine. But that still leaves the real question: what kind of decision process produces this outcome, and why does the harm so often land in such a familiar place?

Because “not malicious” can still mean:

• people didn’t recognize the harm clearly enough,

• people recognized it and deprioritized it,

• or people had no protocol for handling competing harms in a way that protected everyone’s dignity.

None of those are comforting.

We’ve seen this pattern everywhere.

• Airlines call it a “systems issue” when passengers are stranded for days, as if a software outage appeared out of thin air rather than being baked into the cost structure.

• Platforms call it a “moderation error” when abuse stays up, and legitimate speech gets swept out, as if thresholds and escalation paths were set by woodland spirits.

• Employers call it an “automation glitch” when pay or benefits are denied, but the burden of proof somehow falls on the person already harmed. (Funny how the “glitch” always comes with paperwork for the victim.)

That’s why the malice-versus-incompetence frame is too small for moments like this. It makes us argue about motive when we should be examining design.

This is also why the same logic shows up so often in conversations about AI. The output gets treated like weather. “The model returned this.” “The system flagged that.” As if technology has liberated us from human judgment instead of embedding it in settings, thresholds, and review processes.

AI isn’t neutral because people aren’t neutral.
Broadcast editing isn’t neutral because editors aren’t neutral.
Institutions aren’t neutral because they are made of tradeoffs.

So yes, maybe this wasn’t (explicit) malice. But the absence of malice does not end the inquiry. In public institutions, repeated “incompetence” is often just a polite word for a governance failure that some people are expected to survive gracefully.

When that neglect is predictable, repeated, and unevenly distributed, it is not neutral—it is institutional harm. That, I think, is what people are reacting to—not a lack of nuance, but a very clear recognition of the pattern.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Image: Firefly

I wrote it from a familiar scene: a room full of dashboards and “uplift” projections, with almost no language for what the system would do to people, how it would quietly redefine good work, care, and enough.

In the essay, I name three patterns I see repeatedly in AI-intensive environments:

• Values drift: not necessarily intentional betrayal, but a thousand plausible decisions that move the moral center to the side.

• AI anomia: when “fairness,” “governance,” “transparency,” etc., stop meaning the same thing to the people using them

• Artificial mirroring: systems that simulate attunement so well we forget to ask who owns the defaults.

What I’m most excited to do in this role is help prospective authors find their clearest voice to share the story they want to tell.

🚨 If you’re working in a university, public sector shop, lab, company, classroom, or community org: Where are you seeing “the dashboard win” while meaning leaks out the side? [View our submission guidelines, share with your networks.]

📫 Contact me if you’d like to publish with Backchannels, especially if you’ve got a story worth surfacing.

🙏 Huge thanks to Aaron Gregory, PhD, for his insightful and supportive editorial stewardship, and the editorial and production staff for assisting in getting my piece posted. It was thirty years in the making.

Link to the article here.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

In the late 1970s and 1980s, “microcomputing” was still abstract to most people: invisible processes, weird jargon, uncertain stakes. With each cover for Byte, he turned concepts like networking, programming, and eventually “AI” into instantly graspable metaphors—surreal, playful, slightly uncanny, and memorable.

That matters because metaphors become defaults. Once a community shares a set of images, it becomes a shared way of thinking.

His outsider status was the feature, not the bug. Tinney didn’t identify as a “computer person,” and that’s precisely why the covers worked. They weren’t insider diagrams; they were translation artifacts for curious amateurs, hobbyists, and future professionals. In other words, he visualized computing before computing had settled into today’s corporate self-seriousness.

He shaped icons that outlived the magazine, especially Smalltalk. The obituary nods to the August 1981 Smalltalk cover (the balloon). That image wasn’t just pretty; it became a cultural symbol in programming lore, preserved as a commemorative print in the Computer History Museum collection. The balloon story is directly tied to the Smalltalk community’s historical narrative (including recollections by Dan Ingalls).

Before most people could touch computing, they had to mentally model it, and Tinney’s covers functioned like early “UX” for the public imagination, translating specialist ideas into shareable metaphors. Robert Tinney supplied the metaphors: not diagrams, but sensemaking. His covers served as an interpretive bridge between specialists and curious outsiders, exactly the boundary where adoption, investment, and cultural confidence are made.

Image Source: Lunduke Substak

Tinney wasn’t just an illustrator for a tech magazine; he helped brand a paradigm through shared imagery…a time period, like a capsule. He captures the moment “computing” stopped being a frontier and became a product shelf. One of the most telling details: Byte eventually moved from commissioned illustration to product photography as competition intensified. That’s not just an art-director choice; it’s a signal of commodification—a shift from “imagine what this could be” to “here’s the box you should buy.”

Still Relevant Today

Tinney’s career arc mirrors the industry arc: wonder → market → optimization. He later reflected on how stock image databases changed the economics of illustration. Sounds a bit like a prequel to our current moment: abundant images, thinner meaning, collapsing pay for craft.

If early computing needed humans to translate the invisible into shared metaphor, what happens in an AI-saturated era where images are cheap, but coherent, trustworthy metaphors are not?

Tinney mattered because he helped a generation see personal computing before it was fully understood. He was an early meaning-maker for the PC era, not just a decorator, reminding us that how we picture a system gradually shapes what we permit it to become. (RIP, Tinney)

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Image: Unsplash

If the bill numbers in Transparency Coalition’s weekly roundup make your eyes blur, that’s normal, and it’s also the wrong way to read it. This isn’t “AI regulation” in the abstract. It’s a rolling, state-by-state effort to write product-safety rules for the places AI is already touching everyday life: chatbots that impersonate humans, tools that can generate sexual content, systems that can imitate your face and voice, and—most urgently—interfaces designed to keep kids engaged.

Think of this update as an AI weather report:

• What moved this week

• What’s building pressure

• What’s likely to become enforceable next

Because there won’t be a single national “AI law” that arrives all at once. There’s a patchwork forming in real time, and the pattern matters more than the bill numbers.

Landfall: Kansas enters “signature territory.”

Kansas lawmakers approved an AI-related child exploitation bill (HB 2183) and sent it to the governor’s desk.

That’s a different category of event than “a bill was introduced.” One is basically a press release with ambition. The other is the policy equivalent of the plane leaving the gate.

Whatever your views on regulation, Kansas is not debating hypotheticals. It’s treating AI-modified or AI-generated child exploitation material as an immediate enforcement problem. Not “someday.” This week.

Atmospheric River: Illinois floods the zone

Illinois legislators introduced more than a dozen AI-related measures in a single week, including multiple chatbot safety bills.

When a legislature drops that much volume at once, the subtext is simple:
“We don’t know which of these will survive, but we want to shape the field.”But the pile isn’t random. Two themes keep resurfacing across states:

• chatbot safety, especially where minors are involved

• provenance / disclosure, i.e., how AI-made content is labeled and traced

Illinois is signaling: Fine, if this is going to exist, it’s going to exist with rules.

Fast-Moving Front: Oregon + Washington hit short-session sprint mode

Meanwhile, in Oregon and Washington, chatbot safety bills moved through committee and are now awaiting floor votes.

Here is the key point: short sessions make policy brutal. Bills don’t evolve; they move or die lonely in a hallway while everyone pretends it was “always a study bill.”

So yes: last week had that specific short-session smell—Rules committee… floor calendar… now or never.

Washington isn’t just moving on one thing. The “Bills to Watch” list shows THREE lanes that tell you exactly what lawmakers think is happening in the real world:

Which weather system are you reacting to?

1) Kids + chatbots: “Stop treating minors like beta testers.”

This is the center of gravity right now.

Across multiple states, the premise is basically:

“If your product can talk like a person, it needs rules like a product that affects people.”

So we’re seeing recurring requirements like:

• clear notice you’re interacting with AI

• age verification / minor protections

• restrictions on sexual content, especially with “companion” bots

• crisis safeguards (self-harm, suicidal ideation)

Washington’s HB 2225 and SB 5984 (companion bills) are now waiting for floor votes in their chambers. Oregon’s SB 1546 could move to a floor vote early next week. California’s SB 300 is about preventing companion chatbots from producing or facilitating sexually explicit material.

Translation: states are treating certain chatbots like youth-risk products: guardrails first, innovation second.

And honestly? That’s not a crazy instinct. We regulate toys. We regulate apps. We regulate seatbelts. But until now, we’ve mostly let “emotionally persuasive software” wander around like a golden retriever at a toddler birthday party.

2) Deepfakes + digital likeness: “My face isn’t your training data’s side hustle”

Washington also has a bill moving that treats “forged digital likeness” as something people have a property right in.

That is a big rhetorical shift: it’s not just “this is creepy,” it’s “this is theft.”

It’s the state saying: your name/face/voice shouldn’t be free raw material for impersonation, profit, or coercion.

3) Training data transparency: “What did you build this thing out of?”

Washington’s HB 2503 concerns the transparency of training data.

This is part of a growing push for baseline documentation. Not “show us every record,” but “stop acting like the inputs are a sacred mystery.” Because if a system is powerful enough to shape behavior, markets, or public trust, the public will eventually ask: what is it made of?

4) Liability: “If the bot harms someone, who’s holding the bag?”

Under everything else is the question lawmakers don’t want to say too loudly yet:

If a chatbot encourages harm, simulates intimacy with minors, or offers dangerous advice—who is responsible?

That’s why we see movements toward:

• operator duties (you must build safety features)

• limits on therapy/medical posing

• liability hooks (some states)

This is the state-level version of refusing to accept: “Well, the model did what it did.”
Because that sentence is just negligence in a lab coat.

Saving you a seat at the next hearing,

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

It is 100 degrees in India. The film is halfway through its shoot, and the money has run out. Agents in London and Los Angeles begin cabling their clients: stop working; no more scenes until payment clears. Ismail Merchant, the producer whose name appears on the logo alongside James Ivory’s, wakes before the actors, walks down to the hotel desk, and quietly pockets the telegrams so they will never be delivered. ​

By afternoon, he had exclusive entry to a palace no one in the company could otherwise access, and arranged a lavish picnic on its lawns. Platters of food, cold drinks, laughter bouncing off marble. The crew is still not paid. They are also having the best meal of the shoot.

Years later, costume designer Jenny Beavan recalls being six months pregnant, dressing 150 people with a three‑person team for A Room With A View. She remembers Merchant telling her, half‑joking and not joking at all: “Jenny, I got you your Oscar. Why do I need to pay you?” Anthony Hopkins (and others) would eventually sue the company for hundreds of thousands in unpaid salary. ​

Jullian Sands and Helena Bonham Carter in A Room With a View. Photograph: Goldcrest Films/Allstar (1985)

Hugh Grant, James Wilby, and Rupert Graves in Maurice (1987)

Merchant Ivory is a mid‑scale parable: two names in the company logo; dozens of names tucked below the title; hundreds of others whose work lives only as fabric, light, movement, and memory. Their story is specific, and it is not only theirs. ​

Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson in Howards End (1992)

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

Subscribe now

Week in Review at Seattle Town Hall

Last week at Seattle Town Hall, I attended KUOW’s Week in Review, where Phyllis Fletcher described 2025 as the year “existing is resisting.” That line names what this manifesto calls stewardship for the 99 percent. This phrase used to belong to those under open attack (Black communities, immigrants, trans people). Now, it quietly names what teachers, nurses, civil servants, and renters feel when their own president tells them that affordability is imaginary. [1] The examples aren’t abstract. A teacher or civil servant endures training framed as ‘do your job with a target on your back’ while opponents mobilize overnight. A mid‑career renter or parent who did everything “right” still can’t afford to stay in the city where they work, and their instability is framed as a budgeting failure, not a policy choice. A trans person or immigrant faces renewed legal and physical threats while institutions that claim inclusion tell them to be “resilient.”

Stewards design institutions so that people do not have to be heroic to exist. Nowhere was that ethos more palpable than in Katie Wilson and Nick Brown. A millennial mayor‑elect, introduced as a renter and mother, won on affordability—linking rent, childcare, groceries, and homelessness as a single crisis. The attorney general spoke of a year spent defending basic funding and voting rights in court, treating ‘normal’ as something to be defended, not assumed. As a researcher, educator, and data professional, it stung a bit to hear commentators say progressives finally stopped talking “like professors” and started speaking in the vernacular of bills and safety, but they’re right. But what has been missing from those podiums has not just been plain language. It has been proximity (leaders who bunk with voters, share kitchen-table discussions, and are still known well enough that neighbors remember their cooking quirks, not only their talking points) that has been absent for decades (on both sides).

Joe the Plumber was always a tell: a president staging outrage about your kitchen table while keeping the ledger closed to you. Now that same president is calling affordability a hoax, turning a genuine cost-of-living crisis into just another culture-war bit. “Existing is resisting” used to be language whispered at the margins; in 2025, it finally sounds like a majority report.

In Seattle, that shift finally has some bite. The mayor-elect didn’t run on vibes. She ran on affordability in the most literal sense (housing, childcare, groceries), and she talks like a renter and a parent, not like an elite. Katie built her platform from tools voters already put on the table: a social housing tax they approved earlier in the year, zoning changes that “actually really did end single-family zoning” by legalizing fourplexes in formerly exclusive neighborhoods, and stronger renter protections designed to disincentivize large, sudden increases. Existing is resisting here because the climate over the past 30 years has been “not my problem” and “not in my backyard.” Resisting is also legislating; voters authorized new revenue. The city partnered with a social housing developer; the code changes so that more people can live where only a few once could.

The attorney general sat much in the same moral register, describing his team’s work filing dozens of suits against the administration, not as performative action, but as the minimum required to protect civil rights, voting data, and billions in federal funds from a president openly targeting political enemies and treating the Department of Justice as an extension of his will. The origin story for DOJ (as an institution created to protect newly freed Black Americans) and Brown’s sentiment and diagnosis of “spending so much energy protecting Americans from their president” is not just legal commentary. He shared what it means when existing itself becomes a liability for teachers, nurses, civil servants, trans people, immigrants, and anyone whose basic work or identity has been politicized. The “unglamorous“ work he shared (new worker-protection units, a deeper role on housing, the quiet business of consumer and antitrust enforcement) is exactly the institutional craft that keeps “existing” from having to be heroic all the time.

Existing as Design & Empowerment

“Existing is resisting” is still true for those under direct attack, but in this room, it can also serve as a design brief. The mayor-elect and the attorney general are not romantic figures. They are realistic, tangible examples of stewards with finite terms, fighting over zoning code, federal line items, childcare tables, and voter files. The Town Hall audience (teachers, renters, civil servants, sociologists, boomers, millennials, and millionaires) is not props in a populist performance. They are the ones who can demand institutions where, someday, existing does not have to count as resistance at all.

This is what it looks like when the “hoax” line collides with a city that has already started redesigning its institutions. The mayor-elect names the homelessness crisis, the cost of living, and persistent public safety concerns as shared facts rather than partisan talking points, then points to levers she can actually pull over the course of a four-year term. There is nothing ethereal about pledging 4,000 units of emergency housing and shelter while also promising to backfill threatened federal dollars for permanent supportive housing so people are not literally kicked back onto the street if Washington loses its “continuum of care” funding. The joke about there being no mayor’s mansion in Seattle lands because she is still in a one-bedroom on Capitol Hill, still riding transit, still trying to graduate to a two-bedroom like everyone else; stewardship here is not a metaphor, it is a commute.

That is what it looks like when “existing is resisting” stops being a private survival mantra for marginalized people and becomes a majoritarian demand for new institutions. The attorney general’s docket, from voting-rights fights to worker and housing enforcement, sits in the same key: using lawsuits, budgets, and boring-seeming units of government to shield people whose daily existence is already politicized (teachers, nurses, civil servants, trans people, immigrants) from a president who calls their crisis a hoax.

At the same time, the jokes and asides painted the larger frame in which most people live. Tech firms order workers back to the office and then lay them off. AI is sold as productivity and salvation while entry‑level jobs quietly disappear. Seattle’s downtown towers sit half‑empty as capital chases data centers and speculative bets instead of funding stable livelihoods locally as well as nationally. In the manifesto’s terms, this is what happens when blitz‑scale automation and asset values set the rules: online, “innovation” is marketed as inevitable. Offline, public radio and town hall become necessary pressure valves where people can laugh about the squeeze but not yet veto the doctrine that keeps tightening it. Those gathering spaces matter, but they are not enough if the people in the room cannot change the incentives that make their own existence feel like resistance.

Deliberate Shifts

Stewardship answers this not with purer rhetoric but with deliberate limits on extraction and profit‑at‑any‑cost. For a city like Seattle, that means at least three shifts.​

1. Public forums and participatory tools

   1. Make true costs visible. Create public “resource ledgers” listing power, water, public money, and risk for major AI or real‑estate projects, plus what the community gains in return.—so “innovation” can’t hide its costs behind feel‑good slogans and branding.

   2. Engage residents/participants. Invite them to download the ledger and ask, “Who approved this, and is the trade‑off worth it?” (This modest escalation from current dashboards and portals isn’t something currently done often, if at all.)

2. Veto & Appeals

   1. Give tenants, workers, and public‑sector staff clear ways to pause or challenge decisions.

   2. That way, rent hikes by AI, AI‑justified layoffs, surveillance‑heavy return‑to‑office rules, and automated scoring in housing, benefits, and policing can be paused or reversed before damage is done. (See BLM Community Control, AJL Crash Project)

3. Turn civic events into levers, not just theater. Redesign public forums so participants can move money and rules through participatory budgeting, binding votes, or oversight, rather than speaking only once a year.

Stewardship for the 99 percent demands three shifts: reveal true costs, empower veto rights, and convert public discourse into actionable policy levers. This is not abstract theory but a practical agenda—one where residents can download the neighborhood ledger, ask hard questions, and demand real accountability before any project proceeds. If cities adopt these rules, existing won’t have to resist as an act of heroism or mood, but as a standard of governance and right: transparent, defendable, and oriented toward thriving communities for everyone. I invite readers to engage, critique, and participate in pilot efforts that test these ideas in real neighborhoods, so the ledger stops being a document and starts guiding decisions.

REFERENCES

1. See Angela Y. Davis, Freedom Is a Constant Struggle; Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider; and José Esteban Muñoz, Disidentifications, for accounts of Black and queer existence as ongoing resistance to racial‑capitalist and heteronormative regimes.

Explore the Manifesto Series

• Tenet 1: Visibility Before Progress

• Tenet 2: From Whistleblower to Collective Veto

• Tenet 3: Stewardship is theater. Own it, and make theater accountable.

• Tenet 4: We need deliberate stewardship for the 99 percent (this post)

• Tenet 5: coming soon!

• Read the full manifesto here.

New tenants are published weekly (or thereabouts). Subscribe for updates.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

By now, the true innovation of our era may be in the choreography of virtue: the panel, the audit, the dashboard, the values campaign, all staged to prove responsibility without ever surrendering control. It is easy to mistake more rituals for more care. But anyone who has sat through a post-mortem town hall or glossy transparency memo knows how often these spectacles exhaust dissent instead of enabling it. What passes for transparency is frequently a technology for managing consequence, not sharing it: failure is scripted into apologies and metrics while the machinery of extraction not only survives, but earns fresh legitimacy.

The task of stewardship is not to denounce theater itself, but to seize the script. If every institution is a stage, then audits, dashboards, pledges, and “listening sessions” must be written so that those most affected can interrupt, revise, or halt the show. That means mechanisms where an apology can trigger concrete veto rights, where an ethics review can stop launch, and where the people being measured can demand receipts, not just reassurances. Performance without proof is PR; performance with shared jurisdiction becomes a tool of common governance.

This is not hypothetical. In 2018, when Google workers learned their code was being used for Project Maven, management answered with tightly scripted listening sessions and ethics language that left the underlying deal intact. Instead of accepting the ritual, more than 4,000 employees signed a public letter and coordinated walkouts, forcing the company to back away from the project and making workers, not the comms team, the real veto point. The Algorithmic Justice League has taken a similar approach to facial recognition: using participatory, community-rooted audits and public pressure to push major vendors to suspend or rework their products, proving that accountability has teeth only when those being scanned and scored can co-author the terms.

Across sectors, emergent practices show what contestable accountability looks like in the wild. Participatory data reviews give communities structured ways to examine and challenge how their data are used, rather than leaving judgment to a closed circle of experts. Cities experimenting with algorithmic appeals allow people to contest automated risk scores and demand explanations, turning “oversight” from a static report into a live, reversible process. Where journalists, workers, advocates, and affected communities share evidence, language, and timing, the old accountability rituals start to answer downward and outward, not just upward to boards and shareholders.

Stewardship does not mean abolishing performance; it means refusing one-way stages. Dashboards, audits, model cards, and values campaigns will continue to exist, but the measure of their legitimacy is whether those they name can stop them, rewrite them, or use them as leverage. If responsibility remains something performed at you, rather than with you, then autonomy has been reduced to a brand word and consent to set dressing. If, instead, the lights come up and the audience can walk onto the stage, armed with receipts, appeal rights, and shared decision power, then theater becomes a site of democratic repair.

Sidebar: Making Accountability Contestable

Here are emerging protocols that make performance truly answerable:

• Participatory Data Audits: Veto rights for those impacted; Data for Black Lives’ “Community Review” sets a new standard.

• Platform Appeals: New York and Amsterdam grant data subjects the right to contest algorithmic risk scores, setting legal and ethical precedents.

• Solidarity Coalitions: Resource ledgers and open appeals—journalists, workers, and data rights orgs co-author accountability scripts for powerful platforms.

When workers, subjects, and journalists align, rituals become real democracy; jurisdiction and veto are no longer theater, but shared governance. When cross-disciplinary coalitions act, rituals like audits and panels become answerable; jurisdiction is exercised from below, not just above. The public sees how ethical performance can be interrupted, and how jurisdiction and veto are co-authored across sectors. Collective organizing makes the stage genuinely open for revision.

Why does this matter?

Because these examples provide the path forward, they illustrate a diagnosis, visible tools, and examples of how movements make accountability real.

Every institution, whether financial, political, or economic, is a kind of stage. We’ve lived with dashboards for transparency, big speeches, and meticulously branded value promises, often substituting optics and metrics for the accountable, material change real people need. As many political campaigns and leadership dynasties have shown, the machinery of performance risks absorbing real demands, rerouting dissent into the glamour of process.

But stewardship is not about shaming the mere existence of theater. It’s about breaking the audience/actor divide. We insist: every act on this stage (e.g., every dashboard, pledge, and “values” campaign) must be written to answer those affected, not just those watching. Performance without receipts is PR. Make responsibility contestable, reversal possible, and jurisdiction public.

We must remember

The technology of accountability can become a technology of ritual if its scripts aren’t co-authored and its outcomes aren’t reversible by those it claims to protect. For example, cameras, audits, and metrics alone don’t bring justice; they require the active, ongoing participation of those most affected to ensure results are genuine, not mere performance.

Accountability tools like audits, panels, and dashboards often serve double duty: they appear to enable transparency and governance while at times insulating managers and platforms from real challenge (Power, The Audit Society; Performance Society). As organizational scholars warn, unaccountable audits are ritual compliance, not reform. That’s the whole point. (Smith, Organizational Rituals).

Emerging governance frameworks call for “co-authored” and contestable accountability systems, where oversight rights, open appeals, and shared “script-writing” grant real jurisdiction to affected publics (see Critical Issues About A.I. Accountability Answered and Algorithmic Justice League Impact).

When organizations and systems write us out of the script, our job is not just to critique the acting, but to demand jurisdiction over the story itself. As the theater metaphor reminds us, if the curtain must rise, let it be on a stage where we can rewrite the lines and bring the house lights up—transforming ritual compliance into democratic participation.

What you can do from where you stand

If you build, launch, or manage data or AI systems

• Start by asking for a real “stop” button. In every review, name who can pause or roll back a deployment, how reversals will be tracked, and how affected people can trigger them. Frame this as risk management and product quality, not rebellion.

• Where you do not yet have that clarity, document the gap and propose a lightweight first step (for example, a pilot “appeals” path for one feature, or a monthly reversal review). The move is to normalize reversals as part of responsible shipping, not as a failure.

• When you cannot secure any downward or outward accountability, withhold your endorsement of the ritual itself: be specific that you will speak to model limits, unknowns, and lack of appeal rights in decks, risk logs, and launch notes. This makes the performance harder to use as unearned cover.

If you teach, legislate, fund, or regulate

• Treat every audit, dashboard, and model card you are shown as a draft, not a verdict. Ask who helped write it, who can challenge it, and what happens when a metric reveals harm. This keeps you in “editor” mode rather than “audience” mode.

• Build practical asks into your oversight: open appeals for those who were scored, public documentation of reversals, and advisory or oversight bodies that visibly include workers, students, patients, and communities—not just executives and technical experts. Start with one pilot program or funding condition rather than trying to redesign the whole institution at once.

• Use your platform (syllabi, hearings, RFPs, policy drafts, grant calls) to normalize the language of contestability, chain of custody, and named veto points. This gives practitioners inside organizations cover to push for the same standards.

Wherever you sit

• Notice when you are being asked to applaud on command—town halls, product keynotes, “responsible AI” announcements. Instead of performative enthusiasm, pause and ask simple, concrete questions: What happens if this harms someone? Who can say not yet? How often have we reversed a decision based on this system?

• When you encounter accountability theater, ask to see receipts: at least one example of a decision reversed, a deployment slowed, or a metric changed because people affected objected. If no such example exists, name that absence and treat the ritual as unfinished work, not as proof of responsibility.

• You do not have to be the hero or the whistleblower. Start by comparing notes with one or two others (colleagues, students, community members) and agree on one shared ask (for example, an appeal path, a more straightforward explanation, or a pause on a single high-stakes use case). Organizing begins with small, specific, shared questions.

Explore the Manifesto Series

• Tenet 1: Visibility Before Progress

• Tenet 2: From Whistleblower to Collective Veto

• Tenet 3: Stewardship is theater. Own it, and make theater accountable. (this post)

• Tenet 4: coming soon!

• Read the full manifesto here.

New tenets are published weekly (or thereabouts). Subscribe for updates.

Hi, I’m Christine. 👋

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.

Subscribe now

After years of solitary warnings, the center of gravity has shifted from whistleblowing to organized constraint. Since 2018, the recent stewardship strikes have moved from the U.S. global tech hubs and European labor venues. Google employees’ revolt against Project Maven marked a pivot from ethics as branding to ethics as veto; the global walkout the same year demonstrated that action could move policy. By 2020, internal protests over the treatment of AI ethics researchers made the stakes explicit. In 2023, Hollywood turned talk into contract, codifying consent and compensation for AI use.

Meanwhile, European courts and parliaments pressed algorithmic management into law, from Italy’s rulings to Spain’s Riders Law and Dutch and UK driver cases, while news organizations advanced provenance standards so evidence would not collapse under synthetic “certainty.” Across this period, hashtags became powerful rallying points: #GlobalWalkOut, #GoogleWalkOut, #IStandWithTimnit, , #NoTechForICE, #TechWontBuildIt, #WGAStrike, #UnionStrong, #EthicalAI. What began as a ripple is now a tide—a stewardship movement with the potential to disrupt old alliances and redraw parts of capitalism’s map.

Taken together, these actions sketch the first durable pattern of collective stewardship for the 99-percent limits that take a definitive bite across sectors. These are no longer slogans varnishing sell-out optimism or sanding the ’60s smooth. They’re a return to first principles; restoring nerve and clarity with uncoached conviction, the kind that gave us seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and protective suits in nuclear facilities.

This manifesto suggests that nationally rooted actions (Google Walkout, Stop Killer Robots, Writers’ and Actors’ AI clauses) and international observances (Data Protection Day, Safer Internet Day) already set precedents for synchronized, cross-border mobilization. The next move is coordination: a Global Stewardship Month, where institutions publish AI resource ledgers, appeal and reversal rates, and no-go criteria, making jurisdiction (not slogans) the measure of progress. The spirit echoes early twentieth-century working-class mobilizations led by marginalized workers: in the U.S., the 1909 “Uprising of the 20,000” and the 1912 Bread and Roses strike; abroad, the adoption of May Day as an international day of labor action and the socialist women’s congresses that seeded International Women’s Day.

Re-animating that spirit, today’s stewardship strikes reclaim roots in worker struggle and social justice. They unite data professionals and anyone protecting their data across oceans and borders, and across quieter barriers: NDAs, non-competes, export controls, paywalls, content filters, app-store gatekeeping, and algorithmic silos. “Solidarity is our weapon” gains force when isolation (geographic, legal, and technical) is broken by design. These actions reveal stewardship’s political power: not only scaling symbolic walls, but cutting through the fragmentation that fractures daily life. When stewards halt extraction long enough to demand contestability, provenance, and human-paced deployment, they show what the 99 percent can do.

That is not all. The strike itself is changing. Walkouts now pair with march lines, demonstrations, small-business closures, blockades, and data boycotts—a repertoire thinned by decades of reform, restored by use. The scope of “labor” widens, too. People withhold not only hours, but data, attention, and tacit consent—the shadow work that keeps automated systems learning: clicks, corrections, prompts, ratings, and unpaid moderation. Naming that invisible work makes it visible, alongside care and community maintenance, the economy treats as background. Paid work widens as well: code becomes the manager; surveillance and coerced PII trail workers' homes; discipline arrives without appeal. Harassment, retaliatory NDAs, limits on reproductive care, and curbs on organizing sit with wages and hours, part of the same fight.

The new wave dissolves the tired split between “identity politics” and “class politics.” It shows how work and private life have fused—how attention, emotion, and data are harvested at home and on the job—so the fight can’t be parked in HR or pushed to the street. With coerced PII “consent” and ambient monitoring, the home has become a regulated workspace; work-from-home has become work-at-home. It also widens who counts as a worker: not only engineers and warehouse crews, but ghost-labelers, moderators, adjuncts, clinicians on AIOps dashboards, and the public whose behavioral exhaust trains the models. In that light, stewardship names a next phase of class struggle that is at once internationalist, feminist, environmentalist, and anti-racist. Contestability, chain of custody, and resource budgets are not abstractions. They are how dignity is defended where extraction now flows, through our bodies, our time, our neighborhoods, and our feeds.

Stewardship strikes arrive just as traditional union power is thinned by fissured workplaces, global supply chains, “gig” contracts, and the spread of algorithmic management from factories into offices, hospitals, and schools. To keep the conflict visible, organizers have shifted to the fight to where AI now governs daily life: the rules of pace and oversight at work; the standards of evidence in newsrooms, courts, and clinics; and the resource ledgers that tie deployments to power and water. Remote work blurred home and job; return-to-office re-tethered benefits to employers; data centers and logistics builds now compete with towns for power, water, loans, and land. The locus of struggle has moved into jurisdiction—over pace, over what counts as evidence, and over who bears the costs—so that engineered affect and synthetic fluency don’t outrun proof. Today’s stewardship sits here: teachers defending attention, critical reasoning, and the development of domain expertise; newsroom coalitions adopting provenance; drivers and riders winning transparency and appeal rights; clinicians demanding “not yet” until safety clears. The through-line isn’t a theory reproduction—it’s jurisdiction: who sets the terms, who can halt them, what counts as proof, and who pays when we’re wrong.

In the UK, Spain, Italy, and now Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and Kenya, steward actions have drawn broad coalitions against austerity and unaccountable automation. Not only marginalized information workers but warehouse crews, riders and drivers, newsroom staff, clinicians, and yes, plenty of male allies, have joined mass demonstrations against the defunding of schools, health care, housing, transport, and environmental protections. From Riders Law fights in Spain, France, and Italy to Dutch and UK driver cases, from German works councils pressing limits on monitoring to South Korean delivery unions winning safety concessions, from Brazil’s Breque dos Apps to Kenyan content moderators forcing platform accountability, the pattern holds: push back on finance-driven “efficiency,” defend public goods, demand appeal rights and transparency.

All told, this wave is rediscovering the “impossible,” asking for bread and roses (and autonomy). Bread: restored wages and public funding stripped by decades of neoliberalism. Roses: the human texture of work/time, attention, craft—kept intact. Autonomy: the right to refuse automated orders, to appeal machine-made decisions, to slow deployment when stakes touch pay, safety, identity, or due process. Progress isn’t whatever scales. It’s whatever remains answerable to the people it scores, surveils, and sometimes harms.

Not everyone can walk out of their jobs. Saying “no” to a boss, or to a Zuckerberg, is no small thing. But stewardship isn’t always an exit; it’s tempo and terms: make the “yes” earn itself, demand evidence, and name accountability before harm. That quiet stance is still jurisdiction—an intentional, practiced not yet.

Explore the Manifesto Series

• Tenet 1: Visibility Before Progress

• Tenet 2: From Whistleblower to Collective Veto (this post)

• Tenet 3: Coming soon!

• Read the full manifesto here.

New tenets are published weekly (or thereabouts). Subscribe for updates.

Hi, I’m Christine.

In a world awash in buzzwords and borrowed courage, Dative.works is a pocket of resistance—where data pros, skeptics, and stray idealists come to build something less disposable.

If you’d rather ask better questions than echo easy answers, pull up a chair. The work starts here.