We are all familiar with the tendency of online digital engagement algorithms to plunge the merely inquisitive or even mildly curious down the dreadful abyss of incrementally spurious and exponentially alarming, yet emotionally resonant and psychologically compelling information, rapidly and systematically degrading them from rational and autonomous agents into frightened, stressed, anxious, sorrowful or angry subjects who are highly vulnerable to radicalisation, fraud, incitement and other forms of manipulation.
Equally familiar is embarking on online research into the most quotidian and mildest of symptoms, only to inspire algorithms to dredge up horrifying diagnoses and prognoses.
A significant proportion of contemporary financial, political and social upheaval is, in essence, the legacy of digital technology in the internet era. It has been credibly established that diverse types of catastrophic mischief, from organised crime to illegitimate and undemocratic regime-change schemes, benefit from catalytic facilitation by digital technology, especially the social media. Hate speech and cyberbullying have now joined the roster of depravities that are amplified online.
That the internet is replete with information is incontrovertible. Notwithstanding this embaras de richesse, never has it more daunting to extract truth from the turbulent stew of misinformation and conspiracy sloshing capriciously about the informational universe, rocking our world, distorting discourse and poisoning humanity.
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has spawned technologies that are no longer content to merely mimic reality, but are intent to, and, which is more worrisome, are demonstrating an astonishing capacity to substitute reality. Our relationship with the truth, an existential sine qua non is under tremendous stress.
Facts, which we are conditioned, be it through evolution or socialisation, to rely on as the veritable beacons of our physical, social and moral universes can now be manipulated with ease in a manner that severely impairs our agency while escalating the power of external actors to enslave us either ephemerally or perennially.
If we work with a definition of slavery as a condition of unfreedom at another’s instance, we notice at once that many users of technology, and innumerable influential actors on the social media, are often slaves, notwithstanding that they appear to command legions of followers.
As unwitting, strategically primed amplifiers of narratives who propagate unexamined information and abet radicalisation, hate, anger and misinformation in the name of engagement and acquisition of clout, these craven slaves are reckless and dangerous to the extent that they are not in full control of the broader policy, nor are they properly seized of the whys and wherefore of the strategies that keep them occupied.
AI is rapidly graduating to decision-making, with the implication that humanity is liable to be enslaved by a powerful, if not impregnable agency that is perfectly indifferent to our values and inimical to our well-being.
Given that most engagement algorithms exist to maximise engagement in order to maximise revenue for the corporations that develop and operate them, it stands to reason that their foremost agenda is to monopolise attention and intensify “virality” by means both fair and foul.
As a matter of fact, outrage, anger and misinformation rank highly as dependable drivers of engagement and virality, while truthfulness, goodwill, joy and optimism are as appealing as a wet blanket.
Anyone with the flimsiest inkling of the state of public discourse will appreciate that the truth is under siege. Legitimate desire for moderation and regulation is no match for an ecosystem animated by perverse capitalist incentives and impelled by exponential technological advancement.
The forces of cynicism have converged to weaponise freedom of expression, resist all regulation and subvert endeavours to engender more benign algorithms, minimise antisocial proclivities and entrench order.
Prof. Noam Chomsky established that a convergence of certain dynamics had made it easy for powerful actors to control consciousness, discourse and decision-making by “manufacturing consent”.
It is clear that another convergence now capacitates cynical agencies to “manufacture dissent” and profit from the pandemonium.
We have all borne witness to the brazen weaponisation of liberty in aid of criminality. Abuse and cyberbullying are forms of violence that are as grievous as assault and battery, while infringements of personal data and violations of online privacy are analogous to trespass and burglary.
Claiming a right to bully and abuse under freedom of expression is egregious cynicism masquerading as boldness in the face of tyranny. Resisting regulation, including inalienable parental authority, under the pretext of righteous protest to safeguard liberty, is problematic.
