Technology, autonomy, and manipulation

Susser, Daniel; Roessler, Beate; Nissenbaum, Helen

doi:10.14763/2019.2.1410

Cited by 178 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

104

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

“…There are further harms that flow from digital marketing practices [ 12 ]. The widespread extraction of personal data breaches children’s privacy rights, and the use of these data and of the design affordances of digital media to extract attention and engagement constitutes a form of behavioural manipulation, infringing on children’s right to be free from exploitation, as we argue elsewhere [ 12 , 93 ]. Any complete assessment of the impact of food marketing on children’s well-being also needs to take this manipulation of their selves, identities and social relationships into account.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Devil Is in the Detail: Challenging the UK Government’s 2019 Impact Assessment of the Extent of Online Marketing of Unhealthy Foods to Children

Tatlow‐Golden

Parker

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: How much unhealthy marketing do children see on digital devices? Marketing of unhealthy food and beverages has long been identified as a factor in children’s preferences, purchase requests and consumption. Rising global obesity mandates States to craft environments that protect children and young people’s health, as recommended by the World Health Organization, among others. However, assessing the impact of marketing restrictions is particularly challenging: the complexity of digital advertising markets means that measurement challenges are profound. In 2019, the UK Department of Health published an Impact Assessment that applied a novel method aiming to calculate costs and benefits of restricting unhealthy food and beverage advertising on digital devices (planned for implementation by 2022). It estimated UK digital unhealthy marketing to children at 0.73 billion advertising impressions annually, compared to television impacts of 3.6 billion. Aim and Method: We assessed this conclusion by reviewing the UK Department of Health/Kantar Consulting’s Online Baseline Methodology (the “Government Model”). We examined the model’s underlying premise and specified the seven analytic steps undertaken. For each step, we reviewed industry and academic evidence to test its assumptions and the validity of data applied. Results: We found that, in each step, the Government Model’s assumptions, and the data sources selected, result in underestimates of the scale of digital advertising of unhealthy foods—at least tenfold, if not substantially more. The model’s underlying premise is also problematic, as digital advertising spend data relate poorly to digital advertising exposure, leading to further underestimation of market scale. Conclusion: We conclude that the Government Model very substantially underestimates the impact of digital unhealthy food advertising restrictions on health. This analysis has relevance for global policy and for the impact of regulation on children’s health and well-being.

show abstract

“…91 With regard to information about our current preferences and behaviour, data-driven companies are increasingly able to uncover unconscious behavioural patterns and irrational belief systems that persons themselves are unaware of. 92 By registering which photos people click on or which videos they like, for example, a data-driven organisation can distil potential racial biases a person is unaware of herself and would fervently deny having when asked. To give another example, emotion detection now implemented in facial recognition technologies enables organisations to remotely measure physical phenomena e.g.…”

Section: Omnipresence Of the Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

The right to be let alone by oneself: narrative and identity in a data-driven environment

Sloot

2021

Law, Innovation and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Privacy is predominantly understood as the right to be let alone by others. It protects an individual against intrusions upon the private sphere by governments, companies and fellow citizens and focusses on the right to withhold from them access to one's data, body or home. In the data-driven environment, the fact that others may have access to personal information will only be one concern; equally importantly, a person will be confronted with unwanted information about herself. Being frequently confronted with information about one's past, present and future fundamentally challenges an individual's capacity to form and maintain an identity, which depends on her ability to select and prioritise information about herself. This article suggests that the current privacy paradigm could be ameliorated by treating privacy not only as the right to be let alone by others, but in addition, as the right to be let alone by oneself. But before such a right could be introduced, a number of difficult questions need to be answered, such as the scope of the right, its legal-philosophical underpinnings and its relationship vis-à-vis countervailing interests.

show abstract

Technology, autonomy, and manipulation

Cited by 178 publications

References 18 publications

The ethics of nudging: An overview

The ethics of nudging: An overview

The Devil Is in the Detail: Challenging the UK Government’s 2019 Impact Assessment of the Extent of Online Marketing of Unhealthy Foods to Children

The right to be let alone by oneself: narrative and identity in a data-driven environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About