Deleuze’s (1992) modulation is frequently invoked to explain power relations in hyper-connected, sensorised environments. However, attempts to articulate the harmful implications of modulation—a critical step in the process of considering the need for legal intervention—have been modest. In this paper, we theorise four harms arising from the exercise of modulatory power: subsumption, amplification, vibration, and alienation. To do so, we outline the core features of Deleuzean modulatory power (Deleuze 1992), illustrated through contrasts with Foucauldian discipline (Foucault 1995, 1988). Then, drawing on Julie Cohen’s (2013, 2015, 2018, 2019) modulation as a two-way flow of predicted and prescripted modes of governance and knowledge production, we explore and situate our harms in the sensorised and smart home, employing Google’s patented vision as a concrete example (Fadell et al. 2020). We contend that modulation harms arise from the continuous flow and constant agitation of insistent modification (D’Amato 2019) enabled by sensorisation. The core power act that gives rise to modulation harm is the ability to harness, direct, and provide “frequency” to flows of sensor data to achieve continual behavioural modification and shape social norms about the purposes and benefits of such modification. The overarching harm we identify is subsumption, the infrastructural enclosure of all sensorised environments that enables social shaping to take place anywhere, which gives rise to the other modulation harms. Amplification harms regard auto-regulatory norms as an unquestioned facet of an automated human life. Vibration harms arise from the automated ability to prescribe changes in affect. Alienation harms regard subtle denials of access to informational networks. We show that the Google sensorised home both modulates and disciplines occupants concurrently, but more importantly, these concurrent power acts can take place wherever an individual is tethered to the modulation infrastructure and sensor data can be harnessed.

中文翻译：

---

调制危害和 Google Home

德勒兹 (1992) 的调制经常被用来解释超连接、感知环境中的权力关系。然而，阐明调制的有害影响的尝试——考虑法律干预必要性过程中的关键步骤——的尝试是适度的。在本文中，我们推测了调节性权力的行使所产生的四种危害：包容、放大、振动和异化。为此，我们概述了德勒兹调节力的核心特征（德勒兹 1992 年），通过与福柯学科的对比来说明（福柯 1995 年，1988 年）。然后，利用 Julie Cohen (2013, 2015, 2018, 2019) 的调制作为预测和规定的治理和知识生产模式的双向流动，我们探索和定位我们在感知和智能家居中的危害，以谷歌的专利愿景为例（Fadell et al. 2020）。我们认为，调制的危害来自于传感化实现的持续修改（D'Amato 2019）的持续流动和持续搅动。导致调制危害的核心权力行为是利用、引导和提供“频率”传感器数据流的能力，以实现持续的行为修改，并形成关于此类修改的目的和好处的社会规范。我们确定的首要危害是包容，即所有感知环境的基础设施外壳，使社会塑造可以在任何地方发生，这会引起其他调制危害。放大危害将自动监管规范视为自动化人类生活的一个不容置疑的方面。振动危害来自于规定影响变化的自动化能力。疏离危害涉及对访问信息网络的微妙拒绝。我们展示了谷歌感应家庭同时调节和训练居住者，但更重要的是，这些并发的权力行为可以发生在个人被束缚到调制基础设施并且可以利用传感器数据的任何地方。