Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Hostility operates through digital governance that distributes burden, delay, surveillance, and contestability loss onto marginalized groups within settler colonial inequality. This paper uses the Canadian aporetic condition as counter-policy to map jurisdiction and design countermeasures.

Paper long abstract

Hostility operates through routine governance in digital portals, screening systems, identity verification tools, and compliance workflows. These systems distribute burden through documentation demands, procedural delay, opaque decisions, and intensified surveillance. Marginalized groups experience these burdens with particular force because inequality shapes exposure to administrative control and settler colonial governance shapes jurisdiction, civic standing, and institutional authority through durable asymmetries.

This paper develops an analytic vocabulary for hostile technologies by treating interface rules, evidentiary thresholds, audit practices, and maintenance routines as public code: design commitments that structure access and allocate administrative labour. Hostility is defined as a patterned relation among burden (unpaid applicant labour and verification loops), exposure (screening and risk classification), delay (tempo control and waiting), voice (practical contestability and appeal intelligibility), and responsibility (decision ownership across policy layers, vendors, and model governance).

State theory supplies a strategic-relational account of how institutional priorities are realized through administrative form. The paper advances the Canadian aporetic condition as a counter-policy tool that maps jurisdiction, legitimacy claims, civic standing, time controls, and contestability onto system requirements and user pathways. Methods draw on publicly available Canadian policy, oversight, and procurement materials, paired with structured interface walkthroughs that trace decision points, evidence demands, and appeal routes.

The paper outputs a set of implementable counter-policy clauses for democratic repair: jurisdictional traceability, evidentiary fairness, contestability pathways that function in practice, temporal non-coercion through response and retention norms, and responsibility visibility across institutional and vendor chains. The contribution provides a register usable by auditors, designers, and policy staff.