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.
Through a combination of actor-network theory and interpretative policy analysis, multistakeholder arrangements in internet governance are conceptualised as sites of discursive production in which heterogeneous actors engage in dynamic processes of social ordering.