Technological Seduction and Self-Radicalization

Alfano, Mark; Carter, Adam; Cheong, Marc

doi:10.1017/apa.2018.27

Cited by 65 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But it might also zoom in on specific fields where choice architecture is being applied. In our view, a particularly fruitful and underresearched area is “digital choice architecture,” that is, the way data‐driven nudges in smartphones, social networks, websites, and so on steer us in evermore precise ways (Alfano, Carter, & Cheong, ; Susser, Roessler, & Nissenbaum, ; Weinmann, Schneider, & Brocke, ; Yeung, ). Several features make this a particularly fertile ground for ethical inquiry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of nudging: An overview

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

So‐called nudge policies utilize insights from behavioral science to achieve policy outcomes. Nudge policies try to improve people's decisions by changing the ways options are presented to them, rather than changing the options themselves or incentivizing or coercing people. Nudging has been met with great enthusiasm but also fierce criticism. This paper provides an overview of the debate on the ethics of nudging to date. After outlining arguments in favor of nudging, we first discuss different objections that all revolve around the worry that nudging vitiates personal autonomy. We split up this worry into different dimensions of autonomy, such as freedom of choice, volitional autonomy, rational agency, and freedom as nondomination. We next discuss worries that nudging is manipulative, violates human dignity, and prevents more important structural reform. Throughout, we will present responses that proponents of nudging can muster. On the whole, we conclude that the objections fail to establish that the nudge program as a whole should be rejected. At the same time, they give us important guidance when moving towards an ethical assessment of nudges on a case‐by‐case basis. Towards the end, we provide some possible ways forward in debates around the ethics of nudging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of nudging: An overview

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alfano, Carter, and Cheong [104] have dubbed this process “self-radicalization”. We suspect that a similar self-radicalization process may be at work in online forums.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many individuals who engage with conspiracy theories come to do so through a combination of individual and social factors. The interaction between these factors is challenging to study using traditional experimental designs. Reddit.com is a large connected set of online discussion forums, including one (r/conspiracy) devoted to wide-ranging discussion of conspiracy theories. The availability of large datasets of user comments from Reddit give a unique opportunity to observe human behavior in social spaces and at scale. Using a retrospective case control study design, we analyzed how Reddit users who would go on to engage with a conspiracy-related forum differed from other users in the language they use, differences in the social environments where they posted, and potential interactions between the two factors. Together, the analyses provide evidence for self-selection into communities with a shared set of interests which can feed into a conspiratorial world-view, and that these differences are detectable relative to controls even before users begin to post in r/conspiracy. We also suggest that survey-based and experimental studies may benefit from differentiating between passive private endorsement by individuals and active engagement with conspiracy theories in social spaces.

show abstract

“…In conclusion, the paper provides a novel analysis of manipulation, shows that some software-to-human interactions are manipulative, and explains how such interactions are detrimental to digital well-being. 2 Though intelligent software agents indubitably exert an influence on human users, it is unclear whether that influence qualifies as, for example, persuasive, manipulative, or coercive; see (Alfano, Carter, and Cheong 2018). The concept of manipulation, in particular, is often used too coarsely, as something "in-between" persuasion and coercion; cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Well-Being and Manipulation Online

Klenk

2020

Philosophical Studies Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media use is soaring globally. Existing research of its ethical implications predominantly focuses on the relationships amongst human users online, and their effects. The nature of the software-to-human relationship and its impact on digital well-being, however, has not been sufficiently addressed yet. This paper aims to close the gap. I argue that some intelligent software agents, such as newsfeed curator algorithms in social media, manipulate human users because they do not intend their means of influence to reveal the user's reasons. I support this claim by defending a novel account of manipulation and by showing that some intelligent software agents are manipulative in this sense. Apart from revealing a priori reason for thinking that some intelligent software agents are manipulative, the paper offers a framework for further empirical investigation of manipulation online.

show abstract

Technological Seduction and Self-Radicalization

Cited by 65 publications

References 49 publications

The ethics of nudging: An overview

The ethics of nudging: An overview

Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum

Digital Well-Being and Manipulation Online

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About