Dijital Dönüşümde Adaletin Kavramsal Çerçevesi: Algoritmik Önyargı ve Yapısal Yönetişim Arayışı

Abstract

Dijital dönüşümün beraberinde getirdiği algoritmik karar alma sistemleri, toplumsal adalet ve eşitlik idealleri karşısında yeni ve karmaşık tehditler oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma, algoritmik önyargı sorununu merkeze alarak, mevcut teknoloji yönetişimi paradigmasının yapısal sınırlılıklarını eleştirel bir bakışla analiz etmekte ve yerine Yapısal Adalet Odaklı Teknoloji Yönetişimi adını verdiği yeni bir kavramsal çerçeve önermektedir. Çalışmada öncelikle, algoritmik önyargının salt teknik bir mesele olmadığı, toplumsal eşitsizliklerin bir yansıması olduğu argümanı işlenmekte ve dijital adalet kavramı dağıtımsal, işlemsel ve yapısal boyutlarıyla incelenmektedir. Ardından, hakim yönetişim yaklaşımının teknokratik, bireyci ve etnosentrik sınırlılıkları ortaya konmakta, bu sınırlılıkları aşmak üzere dört temel bileşenden oluşan (önleyici adalet ve katılımcı tasarım, sistemsel hesap verebilirlik, bağlama duyarlılık ve yeni demokratik aktörler) alternatif bir model detaylandırılmaktadır. Kamu sektöründeki otomatik fayda tahsisi sistemleri üzerinden yapılan vaka analizi, önerilen çerçevenin pratikte nasıl işleyebileceğini somutlaştırmaktadır. Çalışma, teknoloji yönetişiminde paradigmatik bir dönüşüm çağrısıyla son bulmakta ve gelecek araştırmalar için bir gündem önermektedir.

Keywords

• Algoritmik Önyargı
• Dijital Adalet
• Teknoloji Yönetişimi
• Yapısal Adalet
• Katılımcı Tasarım.

The Conceptual Framework of Justice in Digital Transformation: Algorithmic Bias and the Quest for Structural Governance

Abstract

Digital transformation has ushered in algorithmic decision-making systems that generate new and complex threats to the ideals of social justice and equality. This study places the issue of algorithmic bias at its core, offering a critical analysis of the structural limitations of the prevailing technology governance paradigm. It introduces an alternative conceptual framework, termed Structural Justice-Oriented Technology Governance. The paper argues that algorithmic bias is not merely a technical problem but rather a reflection of underlying social inequalities, and examines the notion of digital justice across its distributive, procedural, and structural dimensions. It then identifies the technocratic, individualistic, and ethnocentric constraints of dominant governance approaches and elaborates a four-pillar alternative model, composed of preventive justice and participatory design, systemic accountability, contextual sensitivity, and the inclusion of new democratic actors. A case study on automated welfare allocation systems in the public sector illustrates how this framework can be operationalized in practice. The study concludes with a call for a paradigmatic shift in technology governance and proposes an agenda for future research

Keywords

• Algorithmic bias
• Digital justice
• Technology governance
• Structural justice
• Participatory design

References

1. Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities (Open access ed.). fairmlbook.org.
2. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity Press.
3. Birhane, A. (2020). Algorithmic colonization of Africa. SCRIPTed, 17(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.170220.389
4. Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J. Y., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. T. (2016). Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29, 4349–4357.
5. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. İçinde Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAT*) (ss. 77–91). PMLR.
6. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. NYU Press. Crawford, K. (2021). The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
7. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
8. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1

9. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Çev.). Vintage Books.
10. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., & Daumé III, H. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723
11. Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a right to explanation. AI Magazine, 38(3), 50–57.
12. Green, B., & Viljoen, S. (2020). Algorithmic realism: Expanding the boundaries of algorithmic thought. İçinde Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*) (ss. 19–31). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372840
13. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Çev.). Beacon Press.
14. Hoffmann, A. L. (2019). Where fairness fails: Data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 900–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573912
15. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
16. Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2016). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. İçinde Proceedings of the 2016 Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS) (ss. 43:1–43:23). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2840728.2840760
17. Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & Yu, H. (2017). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633–705.
18. Metzinger, T. (2019, April 8). Ethics washing made in Europe. Der Tagesspiegel. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ethics-washing-made-in-europe-6353211.html
19. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. İçinde Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*) (ss. 220–229). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596
20. Mohamed, S., Png, M.-T., & Isaac, W. (2020). Decolonial AI: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 33(4), 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8
21. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
22. Mühlhoff, R. (2020). Human-aided artificial intelligence: Or, how to run large computations in human brains? Toward a media philosophy of human-aided computing. NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 28(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-020-00265-3
23. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
24. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
25. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
26. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. İçinde Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*) (ss. 33–44). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
27. Raji, I. D., & Buolamwini, J. (2022). Actionable auditing revisited: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products. Communications of the ACM, 66(1), 101–108.
28. Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., & Langbort, C. (2014). Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. İçinde Data & discrimination: Collected essays (ss. 1–23). Open Technology Institute.
29. Selbst, A. D., boyd, d., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. İçinde Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*) (ss. 59–68). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598
30. Sloane, M., Moss, E., & Awomolo, O. (2020). Participation is not a design fix: Limits of participatory design for ethical AI. İçinde Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376592
31. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841–887.
32. Zarsky, T. Z. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915605575