پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 163 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,763 |
| تعداد مقالات | 72,846 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 131,938,581 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 103,556,932 |
The Commodification of Attention: Revisiting the Harms of the Attention Economy | ||
| Journal of Cyberspace Studies | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 11 تیر 1404 اصل مقاله (313.53 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcss.2025.394786.1145 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Douglas R Campbell* | ||
| Department of Philosophy, Alma College, Alma, Michigan, USA. Alma College, Alma, MI, USA | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Background: The economy wrongly commodifies attention. The commodification is morally objectionable because our attention is not properly subject to market forces. Aims: A crucial aim of this article is to broaden the debate about the attention economy. Methodology: Conceptual analysis of the attention economy, the right to attention, and the influence of market forces on commodities. Discussion: In the first section, I survey the conventional approach to the attention economy, which treats the ethical problems here as instances of questions about the moral limits of markets. I agree that this approach is justified, but I aim to broaden the debate by focusing on whether attention should be commodified at all. In the second section, I argue that attention is not properly subject to market forces. In the third section, I argue that subjecting attention to market forces leads, predictably, to the development and use of technology that violates the right to attention. In the fourth section, I argue that coercive paternalism offers the correct response to these problems and that two other solutions— the reliance on nudges and the reliance on social antibodies— are inferior. Conclusion: The attention economy is a rights-violating and noxious market. Its wrongful commodification of attention produces a market that does not respect the boundaries between commercialized and non-commercialized spaces. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| attention economy؛ attention merchants؛ coercive paternalism؛ commodity؛ moral limits of markets | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology. New York: Penguin Press.
Anderson, E.S. (1990). “Is Women's Labor A Commodity?”. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 19(1): 71-92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265363.
Barrett, D. (2010). Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. W.W. Norton & Company: New York.
Bhargava, V.R. & Velasquez, M. (2021). “Ethics of the attention economy: The problem of social media addiction”. Business Ethics Quarterly. 31(3): 321-59. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2020.32.
Campbell, D.R. (2023). “In defense of (some) online echo chambers”. Ethics and Information Technology. 25(3): 1-11. https://philarchive.org/rec/CAMIDO-14.
----------------. (2022). “Nudging and Social Media: The Choice Architecture of Online Life”. Giornale Critico di Storia Delle Idee. 2: 93-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.53129/gcsi_02-2022-06.
Castro, C. & Pham, A. (2020). “Is the Attention Economy Noxious?”. Philosophers' Imprint. 20(17): 1-13. https://philarchive.org/rec/CASITA-6.
Chomanski, B. (2023). “Mental integrity in the attention economy: In search of the right to attention”. Neuroethics. 16: 8-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09514-x.
Conly, S. (2013a). “Coercive Paternalism in Health Care: Against Freedom of Choice”. Public Health Ethics. 6(3): 241-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/phe/pht025.
---------------. (2013b). Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enoch, D. (2024). “How Nudging Upsets Autonomy”. Journal of Philosophy. 121(12): 657-685. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d15df295-fa8f-4694-86a0-11b0a8a56931.
Eyal, N. (2019). Indistractable. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books.
Grodzinsky, F. & Tavani, H. (2010). “Applying the ‘Contextual Integrity’ Model of Privacy to Personal Blogs in the Blogosphere”. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics. 3: 39-47. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/computersci_fac/2/.
Hull, Gordon, Lipford, Heather R., and Latulipe Celine. 2011. “Contextual Gaps: Privacy Issues on Facebook,” Ethics and Information Technology 13: 289-302.
Lewis, P. (2017). “Our minds can be hijacked’: the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia”. The Guardian. October 6. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia.
Nguyen, T.T.H. (2020). “Measuring financial inclusion: A composite FI index for the developing countries”. Journal of Economics and Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-03-2020-0027.
Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books: New York.
Parsell, M. (2008). “Pernicious Virtual Communities: Identity, Polarisation, and the Web 2.0”. Ethics and Information Technology. 10: 41-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-008-9153-y.
Puri, A. (2021). “The Right to Attentional Privacy”. Rutgers Law Record. 48(1): 206-221. https://philpapers.org/rec/PURTRT-5.
Satz, D. (2010). Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Sulleyman, A. (2017). “Netflix’s biggest competition is sleep, says CEO Reed Hastings”. The Independent. 19 April. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/netflix-downloads-sleep-biggest-competition-video-streaming-ceo-reed-hastings-amazon-prime-sky-go-now-tv-a7690561.html.
Sunstein, C. (2017). #republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
---------------. (2015). Choosing Not to Choose. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
--------------. (2012). Why Nudge? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sunstein, C. & Thaler, R. (2003). “Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron”. The University of Chicago Law Review. 70(4): 1159-1202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.405940.
Tannenbaum, D.; Craig R.F. & Rogers, T. (2017). “On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions”. Nature Human Behavior. 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0130.
Tran, J.L. (2015). “The Right to Attention”. Indiana Law Journal. 91: 1023-1064. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol91/iss3/9?utm_source=www.repository.law.indiana.edu%2Filj%2Fvol91%2Fiss3%2F9&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
Wu, T. (2016). The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. Vintage Books: New York. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 7 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب