A Working Library

>In The Unaccountability Machine, Dan Davies argues that organizations form “accountability sinks,” structures that absorb or obscure the consequences of a decision such that no one can be held directly accountable for it. Here’s an example: a higher up at a hospitality company decides to reduce the size of its cleaning staff, because it improves the numbers on a balance sheet somewhere. Later, you are trying to check into a room, but it’s not ready and the clerk can’t tell you when it will be; they can offer a voucher, but what you need is a room. There’s no one to call to complain, no way to communicate back to that distant leader that they’ve scotched your plans. The accountability is swallowed up into a void, lost forever.[0]

This, but web scale.

- https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/accountability-sinks

Related discussion (517 pts):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694

https://aworkinglibrary.com/reading/unaccountability-machine

(A very short overview of Dan Davies' book, quoted in TFA, that came up with the term)

EDIT: complementing book mentioned in that thread

Cathy O'Neil's "Weapons of Math Destruction" (2016, Penguin Random House) is a good companion to this concept, covering the "accountability sink" from the other side of those constructing or overseeing systems.

Cathy argues that the use of algorithm in some contexts permits a new scale of harmful and unaccountable systems that ought to be reigned in.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41892299

Dan Davies wrote a whole book on this topic, The Unaccountability Machine [1]. In it, he creates the concept of "accountability sinks": organisational structures or systems which abstract the source of a decision away from individuals so that no specific person can be held accountable.

Davies writes: "For an accountability sink to function, it has to break a link; it has to prevent the feedback of the person affected by the decision from affecting the operation of the system."

For a good short overview, see this piece by Mandy Brown: https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/accountability-sinks

[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo252799883.html

I think my problem with codes of conduct is that, in my experience, they're usually just accountability sinks[1].

e.g. "all violations must be reported to the committee" => "we will forbid anyone taking action without the committee's prior approval, and insist that disclosing any reports to us is a violation of policy, then refuse to take any action on reports".

So a thing that was supposed to explicitly communicate shared expectations and norms, instead becomes a way to minimize risk of bad PR for the project by silencing anyone who believed they were operating in good faith.

[1] - https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/accountability-sinks

The most maddening part about this experience is the helplessness. Its inconvenient, sure. Ive been late because of traffic, etc. Being carried along well beyond my will without a breakglass: Fine, I'll just walk! option makes my skin crawl.

Events like this seem to only be explained by accountability sink[0]. Naming it gives me some brief sense of sanity.

I appreciate that there is a safety concern; where's the humanity in large systems, especially as we trend towards more automation?

[0] https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/accountability-sinks

Visa, Mastercard, payment processors, banks, etc act as accountability sinks[0] for governments and political group by design. They are arbiters for moving/blocking money, not taking principled stances; there is no net neutrality equivalent for financial networks.

There's a lot of wasted discussion talking about an intentional design decision because they're arguing from consumers' perspectives, ignoring the huge benefit to political organizations (e.g. freezing Russian assets).

0: https://aworkinglibrary.com/writing/accountability-sinks