"consent to something" is a grammatically correct phrase and can be used in written English.
It is often used to indicate giving permission or agreement to something. Example: The patient's parent must sign a form to consent to the surgery.
You can't give your consent to something that you don't know about.
Similarly, discussion of "informed consent" around these algorithms is pretty moot if people have no idea what they are – you can't consent to something in any meaningful way if you don't understand what it is.
How can you consent to something you don't know or understand?
To consent to something is to reverse a prima facie supposition about what may and may not be done.
It may seem that Locke is guilty of self-contradiction here at least if we suppose that to consent to something, even tacitly, is to give the "power", that is, the right to do it.
The one implication this might have is that one may ask the person again until he agrees, whereas normally if a person refuses to consent to something you must leave them alone.
Abbas, for his part, has consented to something like this interdependence, though without daring to make it a part of his strategic plan.
In a recent interview he said: "The phrase 'honour killing' is not something I have introduced, but we have to investigate the possibility that Shafilea was killed because she has not consented to something".
For all his physical capability and credibility, he seems out of place: why is a supernova like Cruise consenting to something this secondhand, something in which he seems so replaceable?
A person who has consented to something deeply immoral doesn't thereby refuse consent to that action, the person simply has failed to do anything morally productive.
