Dylan J. White

This paper develops an empirically responsible account of the attention economy. Almost all existing philosophical accounts of the moral and psychological harms of the attention economy rely on vague metaphors and folk psychological theorizing about the nature of attention and control. Drawing on recent work from across the cognitive sciences, we argue that a valuationist approach provides a more empirically robust and conceptually rich account than prevailing models of the attention economy, which emphasize addiction, compulsion, and loss of control. The valuationist framework posits that decision-making, including attention allocation and self-control, is fundamentally driven by representations of value. We contend that the attention economy’s impact is best understood as shaping these value representations that influence decision-making. Contrary to folk psychological notions of irresistible urges or hijacked autonomy, we argue that users maintain the capacity for choice and control. Moreover, our account can still capture the common phenomenology of feeling “pulled” towards digital distractions. The first half of the paper unpacks the valuationist framework, with a special emphasis on valuationist accounts of attention and control. The second half of the paper applies this framework to better understand the moral and psychological harms associated with the attention economy.

Automated influence is one of the most pervasive applications of artificial intelligence in our day-to-day lives, yet a thoroughgoing account of its associated individual and societal harms is lacking. By far the most widespread, compelling, and intuitive account of the harms associated with automated influence follows what I call the control argument. This argument suggests that users are persuaded, manipulated, and influenced by automated influence in a way that they have little or no control over. Based on evidence about the effectiveness of targeted advertising as well as empirical results about the nature of attentional control, I provide reasons to reject this argument. In turn, I use C. Thi Nguyen's theory of value collapse to develop a new account of the harmfulness of automated influence.

In recent years, philosophers have identified a number of moral and psychological harms associated with the attention economy (Alysworth & Castro, 2021; Castro & Pham, 2020; Williams, 2018). Missing from many of these accounts of the attention economy, however, is what exactly attention is. As a result of this neglect of the cognitive science of attention, many of these accounts are not empirically credible. They rely on oversimplified and unsophisticated accounts of not only attention, but self- control, and addiction as well. Of note are accounts of the attention economy that rely on the ‘brain disease’ rhetoric of addiction and subsequent control failures (Aylsworth & Castro, 2021; Bhargava & Velasquez, 2021), accounts that rely on a strict dichotomy of top-down vs. bottom-up attention (Williams, 2018; Aylsworth & Castro, 2021), and accounts that construe attention as a limited resource (Williams, 2018). Drawing on recent work from the neuroscience and psychology of attention, I demonstrate the shortcomings of these accounts and sketch a way forward for an empirically grounded account of the attention economy. These accounts tend to uphold strict dichotomies of voluntary control (e.g., compulsion versus choice, dual-process models of self-control, and top-down versus bottom-up) that cannot account for the complexities of attentional control, mental agency, and decision-making. As such, these empirically and conceptually impoverished accounts cannot adequately address the current so-called crisis of attention. To better understand the harms associated with the attention economy, we need an empirically responsible account of the nature and function of attention and mental agency.