Defenders of 'default' policies — automatically enrolling workers in a pension unless they opt out — often present them as the rare intervention that respects freedom while improving outcomes. No one is forced; the forgetful are simply spared a form. The empirical record on enrollment is genuinely impressive, and I do not dispute it here. My worry lies one level up. A default is not neutral furniture; someone chooses it, and that someone is rarely the person it acts upon. When the chooser's interests align with ours, the arrangement feels like benevolence. But the same machinery that enrolls us in a pension can enroll us in a subscription we never read the terms of, and the psychology it exploits — our tendency to accept whatever we find already switched on — is identical in both cases. To praise defaults for their results while ignoring who holds the switch is to admire a tool without asking whose hand is on it.