The whole point of switching to technology for systems like this is to block people from holding you accountable. It puts the burden of proof on the accuser to show that an inscrutable software black box is biased.

It very much resembles the shift from human tech support operators to software-based robo operators. In effect, it’s a wall to keep you away.

The apotheosis of this concept is Google, a company that goes to ridiculous lengths to stop people from being able to contact a human being that works there, unless you’ve paid them money for the privilege.

I don't think the article does that honestly. But I don't think it is helpful to forego the discussion because it might feel a bit alarmist.

If you look at modern enterprises, digital technology is most often used in the most un-imaginary way possible. For surveillance of workers. KPI and rationalization are keywords here.

That has made working profoundly worse. Until we see more constructive deployments of information technology, I think the recoil of accusations like this should be more tempered.

And yes, there is a certain subjection to data. In the health care sector, nurses get a fixed amount of minutes to be done with the patient. Based on collected data that allegedly gave us the insight to make that determination.

It should be the other way around. Managers should fear that digital technology surpasses their abilities to efficiently coordinate tasks and give nurses information about the most urgent cases. Digital technology has failed spectacularly to achieve any of that.

The article is saying the opposite: that diverting the blame like this is a big problem and that we need accountability.

See the last few paragraphs.

"I was just following orders!"