Introduction
The assertion that a user “lacks consciousness” when interacting with technology is legally and factually problematic without comprehensive evidence contextualising the complex technological, cognitive, and design factors influencing user experience (UX). Such a claim must consider:
1. The proliferation and integration of microservices and their impact on user interactions.
2. The socio-technical relationship between users and digital platforms.
3. The legal principles surrounding technology use, including autonomy, agency, and informed interaction.
I. The Proliferation of Microservices and Integrated Systems
Modern technology ecosystems are underpinned by microservices architecture, characterised by independently deployable services communicating via APIs (Newman, 2015). Social media platforms exemplify this model, integrating numerous services such as content recommendation engines, behavioural tracking systems, and dynamic ad-serving modules (Richter, 2020).
Microservices operate at various “states” based on internal logic and external inputs, often without explicit user awareness. The user interacts at the view layer, a deliberately abstracted interface designed to mask backend complexities for usability purposes (Fowler, 2016). This abstraction can create perceptual opacity, where the underlying processes driving interaction outcomes are invisible to the user.
Legal Implications of Perceptual Opacity
• Control and Agency: Courts must evaluate whether a user’s lack of insight into backend processes equates to a lack of agency or autonomy. Legal principles of reasonableness (e.g., Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]) demand that users cannot be held accountable for interactions beyond their comprehension.
• Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) studies show that users adapt their behaviour based on interface cues but do not engage with the system’s full complexity (Norman, 2013). This is not indicative of “unconsciousness” but rather a limitation imposed by design.
Without evidence establishing the user’s explicit knowledge of these processes, any claim of “lack of consciousness” would disregard the design principles intentionally limiting user insight into system behaviour.
II. The Role of Socio-Technical Context
State-dependence and variability in user interaction are influenced by external factors such as cognitive load, accessibility, and emotional state (Shneiderman et al., 2016).
These factors affect user decisions but do not eliminate consciousness or agency:
• Cognitive Load Theory posits that user capacity to process information is finite and may be overwhelmed by complex systems (Sweller, 1988). However, reduced capacity does not equate to unconscious behaviour. Instead, it highlights a potential misalignment between design and usability.
• Behavioural Evidence: Research by Kahneman (2011) shows that users often operate in a “System 1” (intuitive, fast) mode when using familiar technology. This cognitive shortcutting does not signify unconsciousness but reflects normal interaction patterns shaped by system design.
Legal Precedent on State-Dependent Behaviour
The legal doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk (e.g., Morris v. Murray [1991]) requires that individuals must knowingly engage in risky behaviour for liability to be negated. A user’s “state” or awareness when interacting with technology is highly context-dependent, and without evidence that the user explicitly understood the risks inherent in their interaction, the claim of unconsciousness lacks merit.
III. Access Control, Privilege Levels, and Interaction Outcomes
Modern platforms dynamically regulate user interactions based on privilege levels (e.g., admin vs. guest access) and contextual algorithms. These mechanisms are controlled by the system, not the user.
Examples include:
• Algorithmic Gatekeeping: Systems like Meta’s newsfeed prioritise content based on algorithmic assessments of user interest (DeVito, 2017).
• Dynamic Access Control: Platforms such as AWS or Azure rely on Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) to grant varying levels of system access (Ferraiolo et al., 2001).
Users cannot reasonably influence or fully understand these privilege-dependent interactions, further invalidating claims that their awareness or interaction is “unconscious.” Legal assessments should instead focus on foreseeability of harm arising from system design.
Legal Perspective on Access Control
Under product liability law, manufacturers and service providers bear responsibility for ensuring foreseeable user behaviour is accommodated by their design (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products [1963]).
If privilege levels or access states create unintentional risks or misleading outcomes, liability shifts to the system’s designers, not the user.
IV. The Role of Design in Shaping User Behaviour
Modern UX design explicitly seeks to reduce user complexity by limiting interaction points and abstracting backend processes (Cooper et al., 2014). This design intent is foundational to ensuring accessibility and inclusivity but can inadvertently create situations where users are unaware of system complexities.
Key Industry Insights on UX and Consciousness
• Nielsen Norman Group (2021) emphasises that good design prioritises user goals over system intricacies. Users interact based on trust in the system’s functionality, not an understanding of its architecture.
• The principle of design neutrality means users are not expected to consciously navigate backend states to use the system appropriately.
Legal Precedents on System Design and User Behaviour
In cases involving technological systems, courts have consistently held that users cannot be reasonably held accountable for system-level design choices beyond their visibility or comprehension. For example, in Riley v. California (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the search of a smartphone without judicial approval violated the Fourth Amendment. The court recognised that modern technology, such as smartphones, inherently involves layers of complex functionality, which users might not fully understand. This precedent highlights that legal responsibility for protecting user rights often falls on system designers and operators, rather than the users themselves.
Conclusion
The claim that a user “lacks consciousness” when interacting with technology is legally and factually flawed without comprehensive evidence considering the socio-technical, cognitive, and design dimensions of modern technology use. The proliferation of microservices, abstraction in UX design, and privilege-dependent interactions introduce layers of complexity beyond the user’s control or awareness.
Without demonstrating that the user knowingly disregarded their agency or intentionally engaged with the system irresponsibly, the claim remains speculative. Legal and industry standards place the burden of accountability on the system’s designers, not the users, reinforcing the need for evidence-based assessments.
References
1. Newman, S. (2015). Building Microservices. O’Reilly Media.
2. Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.
3. Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., & Jacobs, S. (2016). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson.
4. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
5. Ferraiolo, D., Kuhn, D. R., & Chandramouli, R. (2001). Role-Based Access Control. Artech House.
6. Richter, F. (2020). “The Architecture of Social Media Systems.” Journal of Information Systems.
7. Nielsen Norman Group. (2021). “Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.”
Comments