2023
Bombaerts, Gunter; Anderson, Joel; Dennis, Matthew; Gerola, Alessio; Frank, Lily; Hannes, Tom; Hopster, Jeroen; Marin, Lavinia; Spahn, Andreas
Attention as Practice Journal Article
In: glob. Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 2, 2023, ISSN: 2948-1538.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Attention economy, Buddhism, Ethical practice, Persuasive technology
@article{Bombaerts2023b,
title = {Attention as Practice},
author = {Gunter Bombaerts and Joel Anderson and Matthew Dennis and Alessio Gerola and Lily Frank and Tom Hannes and Jeroen Hopster and Lavinia Marin and Andreas Spahn},
doi = {10.1007/s10516-023-09680-4},
issn = {2948-1538},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-00},
urldate = {2023-04-00},
journal = {glob. Philosophy},
volume = {33},
number = {2},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
abstract = {The “attention economy” refers to the tech industry’s business model that treats human attention as a commodifiable resource. The libertarian critique of this model, dominant within tech and philosophical communities, claims that the persuasive technologies of the attention economy infringe on the individual user’s autonomy and therefore the proposed solutions focus on safeguarding personal freedom through expanding individual control. While this push back is important, current societal debates on the ethics of persuasive technologies are informed by a particular understanding of attention, rarely posited explicitly yet assumed as the default. They share the same concept of attention, namely an individualistic and descriptive concept of attention that is a cognitive process, an expendable resource, something that one should control individually. We step away from a negative analysis in terms of external distractions and aim for positive answers, turning to Buddhist ethics to formulate a critique of persuasive technology from a genuinely ethical perspective. Buddhist ethics points at our attention’s inescapable ethical and ontological embeddedness. Attention as practice requires “the right effort” to distinguish desirable and undesirable states, the “right concentration” to stop the flow we are caught in, and the “right mindfulness” to fortify the ability to attend to the present situation and keep in mind a general sense of life’s direction. We offer input for further philosophical inquiry on attention as practice and attention ecology. We put forward comfort/effort and individualism/collectivism as two remaining central tensions in need of further research.},
keywords = {Attention economy, Buddhism, Ethical practice, Persuasive technology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The “attention economy” refers to the tech industry’s business model that treats human attention as a commodifiable resource. The libertarian critique of this model, dominant within tech and philosophical communities, claims that the persuasive technologies of the attention economy infringe on the individual user’s autonomy and therefore the proposed solutions focus on safeguarding personal freedom through expanding individual control. While this push back is important, current societal debates on the ethics of persuasive technologies are informed by a particular understanding of attention, rarely posited explicitly yet assumed as the default. They share the same concept of attention, namely an individualistic and descriptive concept of attention that is a cognitive process, an expendable resource, something that one should control individually. We step away from a negative analysis in terms of external distractions and aim for positive answers, turning to Buddhist ethics to formulate a critique of persuasive technology from a genuinely ethical perspective. Buddhist ethics points at our attention’s inescapable ethical and ontological embeddedness. Attention as practice requires “the right effort” to distinguish desirable and undesirable states, the “right concentration” to stop the flow we are caught in, and the “right mindfulness” to fortify the ability to attend to the present situation and keep in mind a general sense of life’s direction. We offer input for further philosophical inquiry on attention as practice and attention ecology. We put forward comfort/effort and individualism/collectivism as two remaining central tensions in need of further research.
2021
Hopster, Jeroen
Mutual Affordances. The Dynamics between Social Media and Populism Journal Article
In: Media, Culture & Society, vol. 43, iss. 3, pp. 551-560, 2021.
Links | BibTeX | Tags: Affordances, Algorithms, Attention economy, Populism, Social media, Socially disruptive technologies
@article{Hopster2021c,
title = {Mutual Affordances. The Dynamics between Social Media and Populism},
author = {Jeroen Hopster},
doi = {10.1177/0163443720957889},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-01},
urldate = {2021-04-01},
journal = {Media, Culture & Society},
volume = {43},
issue = {3},
pages = {551-560},
keywords = {Affordances, Algorithms, Attention economy, Populism, Social media, Socially disruptive technologies},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}