The Hidden Premise: Smuggling Paternalism Through the Back Door
Afamiliar pattern has taken hold in platform regulation—and in the academic and policy commentary that surrounds it. Critics spot a real phenomenon, recast it as market failure, and then press for intervention that far outstrips what the evidence can support. The result: arguments that read as persuasive but collapse under scrutiny. They conflate distinct problems, gloss over the lack of a limiting principle, and land on remedies that are unadministrable, counterproductive, or both.
A recent Economist essay by a former competition lawyer offers a clean example. Writing in the magazine’s By Invitation section, Marie Potel-Saville argues that digital platforms engage in “cognitive exploitation” through infinite scroll, dark patterns, and dopaminergic feedback loops—practices that, in her view, erode the conditions necessary for functioning markets. Her proposed fix would flip the burden of proof, forcing platforms to show they are “not predatory by design” before deployment. The piece is polished and clearly motivated by real concern. It also neatly illustrates the problem it sets out to diagnose.