Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Social Media Ethics: A Rawlsian Approach to Hypertargeting and Psychometrics in Political and Commercial Campaigns

Published: 21 December 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Targeted social media advertising based on psychometric user profiling has emerged as an effective way of reaching individuals who are predisposed to accept and be persuaded by the advertising message. This article argues that in the case of political advertising, this may present a democratic and ethical challenge. Hypertargeting methods such as psychometrics can “crowd out” political communication with opposing views due to individual attention and time limitations, creating inequities in the access to information essential for voting decisions. The use of psychometrics also appears to have been used to spread both information and misinformation through social media in recent elections in the U.S. and Europe. This article is an applied ethics study of these methods in the context of democratic processes and compared to purely commercial situations. The ethical approach is based on the theoretical, contractarian work of John Rawls, which serves as a lens through which the author examines whether the rights of individuals, as Rawls attributes them, are violated by this practice. The article concludes that within a Rawlsian framework, use of psychometrics in commercial advertising on social media platforms, though not immune to criticism, is not necessarily unethical. In a democracy, however, the individual cannot abandon the consumption of political information, and since using psychometrics in political campaigning makes access to such information unequal, it violates Rawlsian ethics and should be regulated.

References

[1]
Berit Anderson and Brett Horvath. 2017. The Rise of the Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine. Retrieved from https://scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine.
[2]
Azy Barak. 1999. Psychological applications on the internet: A discipline on the threshold of a new millennium. Appl. Prev. Psychol. 8, 4 (1999), 231--245.
[3]
Oana Barbu. 2014. Advertising, microtargeting and social media. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 163 (2014), 44--49.
[4]
Solon Barocas. 2012. The price of precision: Voter microtargeting and its potential harms to the democratic process. In Proceedings of the 1st Edition Workshop on Politics, Elections, and Data. 31--36.
[5]
Morten Bay. 2018. The ethics of psychometrics in social media: A Rawlsian approach. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
[6]
Felix Beierle, Kai Grunert, Sebastian Gondor, and Viktor Schluter. 2017. Towards psychometrics-based friend recommendations in social networking services. In Proceedings of the IEEE 6th International Conference on AI and Mobile Services (AIMS'17). 105--108.
[7]
Jacqueline Lorene Bender, Alaina B. Cyr, Luk Arbuckle, and Lorraine E. Ferris. 2017. Ethics and privacy implications of using the internet and social media to recruit participants for health research: A privacy-by-design framework for online recruitment. J. Med. Internet Res. 19, 4 (2017), e104.
[8]
David J. Berndt. 1983. Ethical and professional considerations in psychological assessment. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 14, 5 (1983), 580.
[9]
Allen Buchanan and Dan W. Brock. 1986. Deciding for Others. Milbank Q. 64 (1986), 17.
[10]
Carole Cadwallr and Emma Graham-Harrison. 2018. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach | News. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election.
[11]
Robyn Caplan, Lauren Hanson, and Joan Donovan. 2018. Dead reckoning - Navigating content moderation after “fake news.” Data and Society (2018), 40.
[12]
Jianqing Chen and Jan Stallaert. 2014. An economic analysis of online advertising using behavioral targeting. MIS Q. 38, 2 (2014), 429--A7.
[13]
Brian Duignan. 2010. The 100 most influential philosophers of all time. Britannica Educational Publishing.
[14]
Irina Dykhne. 2018. Persuasive or deceptive? Native advertising in political campaigns. South. Calif. Law Rev. 91, (2018), 339--373.
[15]
Georges Enderle. 2016. How can business ethics strengthen the social cohesion of a society? J. Bus. Ethics (2016), 1--11.
[16]
Georges Enderle and Patrick E. Murphy. 2009. Ethics and corporate social responsibility for marketing in the global marketplace. In SAGE Handbook of International Marketing (2009), 504--531.
[17]
Jeffrey C. Esparza. 2015. The personal computer vs. the voting rights act: how modern mapping technology and ethically polarized voting work together to segregate voters. UMKC Law Rev. 84 (2015), 235--261.
[18]
Facebook. Advertising Policies. Facebook.com. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/policies/ads/#.
[19]
Facebook. Community Standards. Facebook.com. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards.
[20]
Facebook. Terms of Service. Facebook.com. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/terms.
[21]
Facebook. 2018. Hard Questions: Q&A with Mark Zuckerberg on Protecting People's Information | Facebook Newsroom. FB.com. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/hard-questions-protecting-peoples-information/.
[22]
Don Fallis. 2007. Information ethics for twenty-first century library professionals. Libr. Hi Tech 25, 1 (2007), 23--36.
[23]
Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M. Rao. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opin. Q. 80, S1 (2016), 298--320.
[24]
Luciano Floridi. 2008. Understanding epistemic relevance. Erkenntnis 69, 1 (2008), 69--92.
[25]
Luciano Floridi, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2016. What is data ethics? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 374, 2083 (2016), 1--5.
[26]
Michel Foucault. 1970. The archaeology of knowledge. Soc. Sci. Inf. 9, 1 (1970), 175--185.
[27]
Edward R. Freeman and William M. Evan. 1979. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: kantian capitalism. Ethical Theory Bus. 3 (1979), 97--106. Retrieved from http://www.business.uzh.ch/professorships/strategy/stu/BS/lecture/Evan_Freeman_1988.pdf.
[28]
Christian Fuchs. 2017. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. Sage.
[29]
Antonio Garcia-Martinez. 2017. I'm an ex-facebook exec: Don't believe what they tell you about ads. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/02/facebook-executive-advertising-data-comment.
[30]
Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel, Elisa Shearer, and Amy Mitchell. 2018. Where Americans Are Getting News About the 2016 Presidential Election. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/04/the-2016-presidential-campaign-a-news-event-thats-hard-to-miss/.
[31]
Kevin Granville. 2018. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need to Know as Fallout Widens. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-explained.html.
[32]
Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus. 2017. The data that turned the world upside down. Vice. Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump.
[33]
Richard A. Grusin. 2017. Donald trump's evil mediation. Theory Event 20, 1 (2017), 86--99.
[34]
David J. Gunkel. 2018. Gaming the System: Deconstructing Video Games, Games Studies, and Virtual Worlds. Indiana University Press.
[35]
Jürgen Habermas. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.
[36]
Itai Himelboim, Ruthann Weaver Lariscy, Spencer F. Tinkham, and Kaye D. Sweetser. 2012. Social media and online political communication: The role of interpersonal informational trust and openness. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 56, 1 (2012), 92--115.
[37]
Anna Lauren Hoffman. 2017. Beyond distributions and primary goods: assessing applications of Rawls in information science and technology literature since 1990. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68, 7 (2017), 1601--1618.
[38]
Jeroen Van den Hoven and Emma Rooksby. 2008. Distributive justice and the value of information: A (broadly) Rawlsian approach. In Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, Jeroen Van Den Hoven and John Weckert (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
[39]
Philip N. Howard, Samantha Bradshaw, Gillian Bolsover, Lisa-Maria Neudert, and Bence Kollanyi. 2017. Junk News and Bots During the U.S. Election: What Were Michigan Voters Sharing Over Twitter? Retrieved from http://275rzy1ul4252pt1hv2dqyuf.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2206.pdf.
[40]
David John Hughes, Moss Rowe, Mark Batey, and Andrew Lee. 2012. A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Comput. Human Behav. 28, 2 (2012), 561--569.
[41]
M. Jill Austin and Mary Lynn Reed. 1999. Targeting children online: Internet advertising ethics issues. J. Consum. Mark. 16, 6 (1999), 590--602.
[42]
Justin P. Johnson. 2013. Targeted advertising and advertising avoidance. RAND J. Econ. 44, 1 (2013), 128--144.
[43]
Monica Kaminska, John D. Gallacher, Bence Kollanyi, Taha Yasseri, and Philip Howard. 2017. Social Media and News Sources During the 2017 UK General Election. Oxford, UK.
[44]
Robert M. Kaplan and Dennis P. Saccuzzo. 2001. Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Psychol. Test. Princ. Appl. Issues (5th ed.) 44, (2001), 1--11.
[45]
Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign, Slo Duell (Ed.). Oxford.
[46]
Chei Sian Lee and Long Ma. 2012. News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Comput. Human Behav. 28 (2012).
[47]
Sam Levin. 2017. Facebook told advertisers it can identify teens feeling “insecure” and “worthless.” The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-advertising-data-insecure-teens.
[48]
David Lumb. 2018. Facebook will label political ads and note who paid for them. Engadget. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/06/facebook-label-political-ads-and-note-who-paid/.
[49]
Neil Macfarquhar and Andrew Rossback. 2017. How russian propaganda spread from a parody website to fox news. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/07/world/europe/anatomy-of-fake-news-russian-propaganda.html.
[50]
Sapna Maheswari. 2017. How fake news goes viral: A case study. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html?login=google.
[51]
Veronica Marotta, Kaifu Zhang, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2017. Not all privacy is created equal: The welfare impact of targeted advertising. SSRN. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2951322
[52]
Alice E. Marwick. 2015. Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Cult. 27, 1 -75 (2015), 137--160.
[53]
Alice E. Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2014. Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media Soc. 16, 7 (2014), 1051--1067.
[54]
R. R. McCrae and O. P. John. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60, 2 (1992), 175--215.
[55]
David McPherson. 2013. Vocational virtue ethics: Prospects for a virtue ethic approach to business. J. Bus. Ethics 116, 2 (2013), 283--296.
[56]
Rani Molla. 2018. Facebook lost nearly $50 billion in market cap since the cambridge analytics data scandal—Recode. Recode. Retrieved from https://www.recode.net/2018/3/20/17144130/facebook-stock-wall-street-billion-market-cap.
[57]
Megan A. Moreno, Natalie Goniu, Peter S. Moreno, and Douglas Diekema. 2013. Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical considerations. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 16, 9 (2013), 708--713.
[58]
Patrick E. Murphy. 2002. Ethics in social marketing. J. Public Policy Mark. 21, 1 (2002), 168--169. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211139899?accountid=14549%5Cnhttp://hl5yy6xn2p.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article&sid===ProQ:&atitle===Ethics+in+Social+Marketing&title===Journal+of+Public+Policy+&+++Marketing&issn===07439156&date===2002-04-01&volume===21&iss.
[59]
Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.
[60]
William O'Donohue and Kyle E. Ferguson. 2003. Handbook of Professional Ethics for Psychologists: Issues, Questions, and Controversies. Sage Publications.
[61]
John Rawls. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
[62]
John Rawls. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press.
[63]
John Rawls. 2005. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.
[64]
Stephen Cory Robinson. 2015. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Applying Rawlsian ethics in data mining marketing. J. Media Ethics Explor. Quest. Media Moral. 30, 1 (2015), 19--30.
[65]
John Rust and Susan Golombok. 2014. Modern Psychometrics: The Science of Psychological Assessment. Routledge.
[66]
Safiya Umoja Noble. 2013. Google search: Hyper-visibility as a means of rendering black women and girls invisible. Invis. Cult. an Electron. J. Vis. Cult. 19 (2013), 1--35. Retrieved from http://ivc.lib.rochester.edu/google-search-hyper-visibility-as-a-means-of-rendering-black-women-and-girls-invisible/.
[67]
Ralph Schroeder and Rich Ling. 2014. Durkheim and Weber on the social implications of new information and communication technologies. New Media and Society 16, 5 (2014), 789--805.
[68]
Jan H. Schumann, Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene. 2014. Targeted online advertising: Using reciprocity appeals to increase acceptance among users of free web services. J. Mark. 78, 1 (2014), 59--75.
[69]
Guosong Shao. 2009. Understanding the appeal of user‐generated media: A uses and gratification perspective. Internet Res. 19, 1 (2009), 7--25.
[70]
Elisa Shearer and Jeffrey Gottfried. 2017. News use across social media platforms 2017. Pew Research Center—Journalism 8 Media. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/.
[71]
Wanita Sherchan, Surya Nepal, and Cecile Paris. 2013. A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput. Surv. 45, 4 (2013), 1--33.
[72]
Ramesh Srinivasan. 2017. Whose Global Village?: Rethinking how Technology Shapes Our World. NYU Press.
[73]
Statista. 2018. Global social media ranking 2018 | Statistic. Statista.com. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.
[74]
Cass R. Sunstein. 2018. # Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
[75]
Leanne Townsend and Claire Wallace. 2016. Social media research: A guide to ethics. University of Aberdeen. Retrieved from https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_487729_en.pdf.
[76]
Zeynep Tufekci. 2013. “Not this one” social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 7 (2013), 848--870.
[77]
Zeynep Tufekci. 2018. Facebook's surveillance machine. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/facebook-cambridge-analytica.html.
[78]
Jason Turcotte, Chance York, Jacob Irving, Rosanne M. Scholl, and Raymond J. Pingree. 2015. News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. J. Comput. Commun. 20, 5 (2015), 520--535.
[79]
Sherry Turkle. 2011. Alone together. Basic Books.
[80]
Tracy L. Tuten and Michael R. Solomon. 2014. Social media marketing strategy. In Social Media Marketing. Sage, 63--96.
[81]
Dennis G. Wilson. 2017. The ethics of automated behavioral microtargeting. AI Matters 3, 3 (2017), 56--64.
[82]
Wu Youyou, Michal Kosinski, and David Stillwell. 2015. Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 4 (2015), 1036--1040.
[83]
Michael Zimmer. 2010. “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics Inf. Technol. 12, 4 (2010), 313--325.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Global Perspectives of Digital Political CommunicationSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4817955Online publication date: 2024
  • (2023)An Analytical Review of Industrial Privacy Frameworks and Regulations for Organisational Data SharingApplied Sciences10.3390/app13231272713:23(12727)Online publication date: 27-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Acceptance of social media recruitment for clinical studies among Hepatitis B patients in Germany: A mixed methods study (Preprint)Journal of Medical Internet Research10.2196/54034Online publication date: 27-Oct-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Social Computing
ACM Transactions on Social Computing  Volume 1, Issue 4
Special Issue on HICSS 2018
December 2018
106 pages
EISSN:2469-7826
DOI:10.1145/3301392
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 December 2018
Accepted: 01 September 2018
Revised: 01 September 2018
Received: 01 April 2018
Published in TSC Volume 1, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Social media
  2. data collection
  3. ethics
  4. psychometrics
  5. targeting

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)98
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Reflects downloads up to 23 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Global Perspectives of Digital Political CommunicationSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4817955Online publication date: 2024
  • (2023)An Analytical Review of Industrial Privacy Frameworks and Regulations for Organisational Data SharingApplied Sciences10.3390/app13231272713:23(12727)Online publication date: 27-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Acceptance of social media recruitment for clinical studies among Hepatitis B patients in Germany: A mixed methods study (Preprint)Journal of Medical Internet Research10.2196/54034Online publication date: 27-Oct-2023
  • (2022)»Demokratische digitale Souveränität«Was heißt digitale Souveränität?10.14361/9783839458273-005(127-158)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
  • (2021)The Theory, Practice, and Ethical Challenges of Designing a Diversity-Aware Platform for Social RelationsProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society10.1145/3461702.3462595(905-915)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2021
  • (2021)Ethical design in social media: Assessing the main performance measurements of user online behavior modificationJournal of Business Research10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.001129(271-281)Online publication date: May-2021
  • (2021)Digital campaigning as a policy of democracy promotion: Applying deliberative theories of democracy to political partiesDigitaler Wahlkampf als Politik der Demokratie – die Anwendung deliberativer Demokratietheorien auf politische ParteienZeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft10.1007/s41358-021-00308-w32:2(507-530)Online publication date: 23-Dec-2021
  • (2020)Designing for human rights in AIBig Data & Society10.1177/20539517209495667:2(205395172094956)Online publication date: 18-Aug-2020
  • (2020)Public evaluation of the ethics of tobacco marketing in Indonesia: symbiotic ethical approachQualitative Market Research: An International Journal10.1108/QMR-01-2020-0011ahead-of-print:ahead-of-printOnline publication date: 7-Jun-2020
  • (2020)Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformationComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2020.106633(106633)Online publication date: Nov-2020

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media