This op-ed defends the Universal Inscrutability Argument by clarifying what legal explainability actually requires: justifying reasons for institutional decisions, not access to individual motivations. The argument holds that legal standards for explainability should be based on the latter, not the former.

Fairness as crowd-pleaser

Lee Andrew Bygrave, University of Oslo

PUBLISHED ON: 24 Jul 2025

Given the ubiquity of fairness as a normative criterion in tech policy, this op-ed warns of particular risks to its legitimising potential which may, in the long term, damage the standing of fairness as crowd-pleaser.