Technical and governance choices have repeatedly shifted agentic tools from user control to enclosure; as Agentic AI standards consolidate under vendor-led protocols and foundations, opportunities for public contestation and durable user-aligned agency are at risk of being foreclosed before alternatives can form.

Main Finding

The paper argues that whether agentic AI empowers users or encloses them depends less on algorithmic capability than on how contestable choices about infrastructure, knowledge, and objectives are resolved. Across four historical domains (browser ad blockers, recommender systems, financial robo‑advisors, email spam governance), contestable decisions were progressively "depoliticized"—embedded in technical and institutional form—so that user-aligned agency was either sustained (where adversarial governance and independent infrastructure existed) or foreclosed (where proprietary infrastructure, closed standard‑setting, and default configurations absorbed contestation). The authors show this pattern is re-emerging at protocol scale in agentic AI (via the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation), risking early lock‑in of configurations that limit users' ability to shape what agents can do.

Key Points

• Constitutive politics lens: three binding dimensions determine the "boundaries of possible agency":
  • Infrastructural — compute, APIs, protocols, and access rights that determine what agents can technically do.
  • Epistemic — how agents produce and represent knowledge (data sources, models, filter lists) and who can contest those representations.
  • Teleological — the embedded objectives, defaults, fee structures and legal norms that determine whom agents optimize for.
• Depoliticization mechanism: contestable political choices are moved out of public/adversarial arenas by embedding them in technical standards, default configurations, or proprietary governance, making reversal and public contestation harder.
• Divergence dynamic: individual-level improvements (e.g., better inboxes, smoother browsing) can coincide with collapse of collective contestation capacity; short‑term user gains do not imply durable user empowerment.
• Comparative evidence:
  • Ad blockers: community curated filter lists (EasyList, uBlock Origin) initially enabled user control; commercial settlements (Acceptable Ads), standards bodies (Coalition for Better Ads), and Chrome’s Manifest V3 (declarativeNetRequest) progressively constrained extension capability and centralized decision‑making.
  • Robo‑advisors: regulatory frameworks shaped standardized questionnaires and documentation, yet platform defaults, opaque mappings from answers to portfolios, and revenue ties (affiliated products, sweep programs) produced conservative defaults and hidden conflicts despite apparent automation benefits.
  • (Recommender systems and spam governance are treated similarly in the paper: where independent intermediaries and open standards existed, contestation and user‑aligned options survived; where standards and infrastructure centralized, contest was absorbed and options narrowed.)
• Governance in agentic AI: the rapid adoption of the Model Context Protocol and its donation to an Agentic AI Foundation governed primarily by platform providers exemplifies the same foreclosure pattern at protocol level—decisions about APIs, defaults, allowed actions, data flows, and governance are being set in a venue lacking formal user or public‑interest representation.

Data & Methods

• Methodological approach: qualitative comparative case analysis of four mature, historically traceable domains where user‑acting agents emerged (browser ad blockers, recommender systems, robo‑advisors, email spam governance).
• Evidence sources:
  • Technical artifacts (browser API specs, Manifest V2→V3 change logs, protocol documents).
  • Governance and standards records (Coalition for Better Ads, M3AAWG, Agentic AI Foundation governance).
  • Legal and regulatory records and proposals (court rulings, SEC/FINRA/ MiFID II / GDPR related materials, rule proposals).
  • Prior empirical studies, audits, field experiments, and scholarly literature documenting ecosystem behavior (filter lists analyses, ad blocking adoption statistics, robo‑advisor audits, studies on anti‑adblocker countermeasures).
  • Public statements, industry announcements (Anthropic, Linux Foundation), and documented organizational structures (composition of governing boards).
• Analytical frame: the constitutive politics framework (infrastructural, epistemic, teleological) is used to trace where and how contestable choices were settled; comparison focuses on turning points, actors’ incentives, and mechanisms of foreclosure versus sustained contestation.
• Limitations acknowledged in the paper: historical/qualitative method limits causal quantification; interpretive judgement in assigning political significance to technical changes; context specificity across domains.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market structure and competition:
  • Early protocol and API choices can create high fixed‑cost chokepoints and raise barriers to entry (network effects, interoperability constraints), enabling platform concentration and rent extraction even if user experience improves short run.
  • Closed governance and proprietary defaults can advantage incumbent providers and affiliated business models (e.g., steering users to in‑ecosystem services), reducing competitive pressure that otherwise disciplines prices and quality.
• Distribution of surplus and welfare:
  • Short‑term gains (convenience, personalization) may be offset by long‑run losses in consumer bargaining power, lower contestability of defaults, and reduced ability to opt out or implement alternative agent objectives that better match diverse user preferences.
  • Hidden teleological choices (default objectives, fee structures, monetization hooks) can extract consumer surplus or undermine consumer interests (e.g., nudging to conservative financial allocations, serving platform revenue goals).
• Innovation and dynamic efficiency:
  • Depoliticized, centralized protocol governance can reduce exploratory innovation paths (fewer alternative agent objectives, fewer independent infrastructures), increasing systemic risk and lowering social returns from diverse experiments in agent design.
• Policy and regulation recommendations (implications for economic policy):
  • Preserve contestability at the protocol layer: require open, auditable governance processes for foundational protocols; mandate seats or formal standing for user organizations, consumer advocates, and public‑interest representatives in governance bodies.
  • Insist on modularity and interoperability: design standards and APIs to enable alternative agents, third‑party audits, and data portability to lower entry barriers and sustain competition.
  • Mandate transparency and accountability for teleological choices: require disclosure of default objectives, fee structures, and mappings from inputs (user signals) to actions; impose conflict‑of‑interest safeguards where platforms monetize defaults.
  • Support independent intermediate institutions and infrastructure (e.g., open filter lists, community‑maintained datasets, public reference implementations) to maintain adversarial governance and alternatives.
  • Use competition and sectoral regulation proactively: antitrust and sectoral regulators should consider protocol governance and standard‑setting as potential sites of market foreclosure, not only downstream consumer pricing.
• Research directions for AI economics:
  • Quantify welfare tradeoffs between short‑term usability gains from centralized protocols and long‑term losses from reduced contestability.
  • Empirically measure how protocol governance composition affects entry, prices, and product diversity in agentic markets.
  • Develop models of dynamic contestability showing how infrastructural lock‑in affects innovation paths and consumer surplus over time.

Limitations and caveat: the paper’s conclusions are based on historical, comparative analysis and interpretive framing; while the mechanisms it identifies (infrastructural, epistemic, teleological embedding) are plausible and supported by the documented cases, precise empirical magnitudes and general equilibrium outcomes in agentic AI markets require further quantitative and causal work.