ANU Thursday Seminar, July 2nd -- Sean Donahue
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Joshua Pearson
Jun 29, 2026, 1:45:03 AM (5 days ago) Jun 29
to anu-phi...@googlegroups.com
Hello everyone,
This week, the Thursday Seminar warmly welcomes Sean Donahue (HKU, previously ANU), who will be presenting on July 2nd, 3.30pm, in the RSSS Auditorium (room 1.28). Title and abstract are below.
Other events in the day include:
- A grads-only pre-talk session with the speaker in room 6.68 at 2:00pm;
- Tea in the School of Philosophy tearoom at 3:00pm;
- Drinks at Badger & Co at 5:00pm;
- Dinner at Blu Ginger at 6:30pm, half-subsidized for grad students. Put your name down here by noon on Thursday if you would like to join (fyi you now need to scroll a little to the right to find the right date).
- All visitors (faculty, graduate students, undergraduates) are welcome to join for dinner. Faculty dine at a rate of ~$30.00 AUD, and graduate students and undergraduates at a rate of roughly $15.00 AUD.
Title: Clickwrap and Prioritizing Opportunity to Consent
Abstract: A widely held view is that digital institutions are legitimate because we consent to the terms and conditions they present us through clickwrap. Although various empirical studies establish that few people read clickwrap agreements, I argue the situation is even worse: people lack the attentional capacities to read many of the agreements they encounter even in ideally arranged digital societies. Digital societies themselves therefore threaten to be illegitimate for inherently failing to meet the requirements for consent. Avoiding this conclusion requires solving a dilemma: we must either lower the informational requirements for consent or view consent as unnecessary for legitimacy. I argue for the latter option. Legitimizing digital institutions requires clickwrap not to produce consent but rather to appropriately prioritize opportunity for consent. I show that achieving the appropriate prioritization requires designing clickwrap to adhere to standards entailed by what I call the Self-Protection View of consent. Nuances aside (and contra leading alternative proposals) this view requires strictly prioritizing opportunity to consent to those provisions found in terms and conditions that at least some users have a propensity to reject, regardless of how unexpected users may find the inclusion of these provisions in the terms.
Abstract: A widely held view is that digital institutions are legitimate because we consent to the terms and conditions they present us through clickwrap. Although various empirical studies establish that few people read clickwrap agreements, I argue the situation is even worse: people lack the attentional capacities to read many of the agreements they encounter even in ideally arranged digital societies. Digital societies themselves therefore threaten to be illegitimate for inherently failing to meet the requirements for consent. Avoiding this conclusion requires solving a dilemma: we must either lower the informational requirements for consent or view consent as unnecessary for legitimacy. I argue for the latter option. Legitimizing digital institutions requires clickwrap not to produce consent but rather to appropriately prioritize opportunity for consent. I show that achieving the appropriate prioritization requires designing clickwrap to adhere to standards entailed by what I call the Self-Protection View of consent. Nuances aside (and contra leading alternative proposals) this view requires strictly prioritizing opportunity to consent to those provisions found in terms and conditions that at least some users have a propensity to reject, regardless of how unexpected users may find the inclusion of these provisions in the terms.
Thankfully, you do not need to agree to a long list of complex terms and conditions in order to attend what will surely be a great talk,
Josh
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages