Giacomo Figà-Talamanca

I aim to illustrate how the recommender systems of digital platforms create a particularly problematic kind of vulnerability in their users. Specifically, through theories of scaffolded cognition and scaffolded affectivity, I argue that a digital platform’s recommender system is a cognitive and affective artifact that fulfills different functions for the platform’s users and its designers. While it acts as a content provider and facilitator of cognitive, affective and decision-making processes for users, it also provides a continuous and detailed amount of information to platform designers regarding users’ cognitive and affective processes. This dynamic, I argue, engenders a kind of vulnerability in platform users, structuring a power imbalance between designers and users. This occurs because the recommender system can not only gather data on users’ cognitive and affective processes, but also affects them in an unprecedentedly economic and capillary manner. By examining one instance of ethically problematic practice from Facebook, I specifically argue that rather than being a tool for manipulating or exploiting people, digital platforms, especially by their underlying recommender systems, can single out and tamper with specific cognitive and affective processes as a tool specifically designed for mind invasion. I conclude by reflecting how the understanding of such AI systems as tools for mind invasion highlights some merits and shortcomings of the AI Act with regards to the protection of vulnerable people.

Our aim in this chapter is to analyze the conditions for exploitative prac- tices online through the application of the theories of cognitive integration. In this case, we examine Facebook as a technology that, thanks to its high cognitive inte- grability, can foster and exploit the ignorance of users and be used to perpetrate epistemic injustice. Facebook enables other agents—the service providers—to place the platform’s users in a position of high vulnerability. They achieve this through manipulative design; they are able to remain hidden to users’ awareness while still being in a position of power towards those users. By examining the way the interface of this website integrates and accommodates certain cognitive prac- tices, we will show how the reach of the online service provider goes further than we originally might have thought. The case of the Facebook Emotional Contagion Experiment is a prime example to illustrate the dangerous implications of this dynamic of not just cognitive integration, but covert mind invasion. In this experi- ment, Facebook manipulated the emotional state of their users through their Newsfeed, without their knowledge. Since social media can invade our mind, rather than just influence it, it is crucial that our relationship with them is well understood and safeguarded.

In this paper, I will argue that the rise in hostility and polarization on social media is explainable by taking into account a radical difference between online and face-to- face interaction. In everyday offline environments, socially shared and context-de- pendent norms frame the understanding of other people’s minds based on their behavior. I will argue that, on social media platforms, social cognition is distorted thanks to two deliberate design choices that are a means for financial gain for the platform’s designers: namely, the lack of socially shared norms on these platforms (entailed by what is known as context collapse) and their interfaces’ extreme us- er-centeredness. I will argue that such design features not only cause frustration in the understanding of others but encourage testimonial injustice in interaction.

Joint action among human beings is characterized by using elaborate cognitive feats, such as representing the mental states of others about a certain state of affairs. It is still debated how these capacities evolved in the hominid lineage. I suggest that the consolidation of a shared practice over time can foster the predictability of other’s behavior. This might facilitate the evolutionary passage from inferring what others might know by simply seeing them and what they are viewing towards a mutual awareness of each other’s beliefs. I will examine the case for cooperative hunting in one chimpanzee community and argue that it is evidence that they have the potential to achieve common ground, suggesting that the consolidation of a practice might have supported the evolution of higher social cognition in the hominid lineage.

In this paper, we will re-elaborate the notions of filter bubble and of echo chamber by considering human cognitive systems’ limitations in everyday interactions and how they experience digital technologies. Researchers who applied the concept of filter bubble and echo chambers in empirical investigations see them as forms of algorithmically-caused systems that seclude the users of digital technologies from viewpoints and opinions that oppose theirs. However, a significant majority of empirical research has shown that users do find and interact with opposing views. Furthermore, we argue that the notion of filter bubble overestimates the social impact of digital technologies in explaining social and political developments without considering the not-only-technological circumstances of online behavior and interaction. This provides us with motivation to reconsider this notion’s validity and re-elaborate it in light of existing epistemological theories that deal with the discomfort people experience when dealing with what they do not know. Therefore, we will survey a series of philosophical reflections regarding the epistemic limitations of human cognitive systems. In particular, we will discuss how knowledge and mere belief are phenomenologically indistinguishable and how people’s experience of having their beliefs challenged is cause of epistemic discomfort. We will then go on to argue, in contrast with Pariser’s assumptions, that digital media users might tend to conform to their held viewpoints because of the “immediate” way they experience opposing viewpoints. Since online people experience others and their viewpoints as material features of digital environments, we maintain that this modality of confronting oneself with contrasting opinions prompts users to reinforce their preexisting beliefs and attitudes.