This chapter considers the emergence of data-driven analytics and its algorithmic techniques of imposing consequences as defining not just new modalities of governance but also as redefining governance forms, and consequently the ways that legalities entangle. The first step is to understand how data-driven governance differs from conventional forms of governance. One can then examine the points of entanglement and their character, whether within, between or beyond the conventional public law containers of legal space. At the centre is an examination of entanglement of law-norm systems and data-driven or social credit systems. That entanglement requires rationalizing a disjunction in how law/regulation systems understand data-driven metrics-based governance and vice versa, with the disjunction complicating entanglement. The first section briefly sketches the emerging legalities that neither embrace the form nor the language of law. The two sections that follow examine the nature of intersystemic entanglements when data-driven governance legal orders are thrown into the already plural mix. The first is the Chinese ‘social credit’ initiative. The second is US and Western private initiatives around emerging markets for data. Each exhibit distinct characteristics and therefore different forms and qualities of entanglement that suggest a more complex fracture and interacting among ever more different systems of legalities emerging around global trade regimes.

What is critical thinking? To paraphrase the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, it is the emergence from one’s self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s mind without another’s guidance. This inability is self-imposed if its cause lies not in the limits of one’s mind but in the lack of courage to use it independently, without others’ guidance. Yet, in the age of powerful algorithms that play better chess and Go than humans, recommend the music and books we like, predict criminal behavior, and even find us the ideal romantic partner, why would we still need to think critically? Would it not be more economical to cease wasting time on thinking and reflecting, and just click and like? I argue that we need more, not less, critical thinking in the digital age. I discuss several tools for critical thinking, including asking the right questions and detecting misleading statistics, and illustrate these by online dating sites, HIV tests, cancer diagnosis, big data predictive analytics, the Social Credit System, and more. Advances in technology require risk-literate people who can control digital media rather be controlled by it.