Hidden Domination: Algorithmic Power, the Erosion of Subjectivity, and a Republican Framework for Legal Checks

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Algorithmic systems now govern access to welfare, information, and markets through ranking, personalisation, and the pre-emptive adaptation of choice environments. Existing legal responses — transparency duties, explainability, data-subject rights — presuppose an informed individual able to detect and contest influence, yet the influence that matters is engineered to be undetectable. Working from the republican theory of freedom as non-domination, the paper defines algorithmic domination by three jointly required elements: an asymmetric capacity for arbitrary interference, dependency measured by the cost of exit, and a non-apparent form that presents subjection as service; it then reads this condition through Han Fei's shi (positional advantage) to locate the leverage points of legal control. The argument shows that domination here operates beneath the threshold of perceptible coercion: three concealment layers — existence, mechanism, attribution — remove the detecting subject that rights-based instruments presuppose, while anticipatory adjustment ensures that smooth outcomes conceal domination rather than evidence freedom. Legal checks must accordingly be rebuilt as structural contestability — visibility to regulators, contestation independent of user discovery, and structural remedies rather than sanctions against firms. The natural/constructed shi distinction and the conditionality logic together select portability, interoperability, and audit access as the priority instruments — and require that the checking institution itself hold a structurally secured positional advantage.