Well first you would have to define 'agency' or 'freedom' in such a way, that excludes from its possessors, the possibility of creating new agency/freedom reducing technologies.
Which doesn't seem all that plausible philosophically or logically.
I don't see why we should be coming up with a definition of freedom/agency in the way you have suggested. People are free to create what they want to but should be constrained in their ability to impose those on others.
I am not sure where you are going with this. If there is a politician/a company that has developed mass surveillance or manipulation tech I would not want them to have the freedom to bypass the 'deployment constraints'.
Picking what types of agency people/organizations must have and what types they must not have is a pretty shaky endeavour, philosophically. It might not even be possible to prevent 'cross contamination'.
Comments
Well first you would have to define 'agency' or 'freedom' in such a way, that excludes from its possessors, the possibility of creating new agency/freedom reducing technologies.
Which doesn't seem all that plausible philosophically or logically.
Can you please explain your argument? I don't think I got it.
Which part don't you get?
I don't see why we should be coming up with a definition of freedom/agency in the way you have suggested. People are free to create what they want to but should be constrained in their ability to impose those on others.
How would you 'constrain' them if they are free to create technology that bypasses or remove those same constraints?
Deployment constraints. There is no need to constrain the development or research.
So then people can't have agency or freedom to bypass those 'deployment constraints' right?
I am not sure where you are going with this. If there is a politician/a company that has developed mass surveillance or manipulation tech I would not want them to have the freedom to bypass the 'deployment constraints'.
Picking what types of agency people/organizations must have and what types they must not have is a pretty shaky endeavour, philosophically. It might not even be possible to prevent 'cross contamination'.