Introduction
The world has never been so interconnected and rapidly changing. Any piece of information, events, people, fatal diseases are spreading with incredible speed. All this, of course, is thanks to technology and the Internet. People were able to make decisions in seconds with unlimited access to content and information. However, who is controlling this data flow? Does a person create his reality, or does artificial intelligence do it for him? The Netflix film “The Social Dilemma” tries to find an answer to this and other questions.
Background
The Social Dilemma is a 90-minute Netflix documentary in which former employees of Google, Facebook, Instagram talk about how social networks manipulate people. The algorithms that underlie their actions help track and predict users’ actions and interact more effectively with them, thanks to which social networks promote advertising. But these algorithms can lead to addiction in users. The developers also say that the algorithms that underlie the actions of social networks can be used to destabilize the situation in society, influence election results, and spread fake news and false information.
Therefore, the film certainly reflects on the ethically moral component of social networks and the Internet space. It is especially interesting to consider the ethical concept of defining what reality is and who creates it. Thus, “Social Dilemma” shows that the usual Google search is not universal for all users. In fact, depending on the country, Google changes the search suggestions and the order of the links.
Moreover, the news feed on Instagram or Facebook is also formed based on a person’s preferences. On the one hand, the user receives the informational content that they like the most. On the other hand, an illusory subjective awareness of the world is created. A potentially false perception of events is presumed one-sidedly to interest a person, not allowing them to think critically. Hence, as Roger McNamee, Facebook’s early investor capitalist, rightfully stated, “Over time, you have a false sense that everyone agrees with you because everyone in your news feed sounds just like you” (The Social Dilemma 00:56:20). Furthermore, once a person gets this distorted impression, “it turns out you are easily manipulated” (The Social Dilemma 56:40). Overall, this understandably raises a crucial ethical concern among people today.
Theories of Ethics
To examine this concern, it is essential to understand the classical ethical theories, including utilitarian, deontological perspectives, and Rawlsian justice. By utilitarianism, it is customary to mean such an ethical theory that considers use as the basis of moral duty (or a criterion for distinguishing between good and evil). According to Beatty et al., “a correct decision is the one that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes overall pain, thereby producing the greatest net benefit” (p. 30). According to classical utilitarian moral theory, when one evaluates human actions or practices, they do not consider the nature of the activities or practical steps, nor the motives for which people do what they do.
In contrast to utilitarianism, deontological ethics considers the inner side of human actions. Deontological ethics goes back to the ethics of duty, developed by the great German philosopher Kant, according to whom a person acts morally when they follow their commitment. A common feature of deontological theories is that they protect the intrinsic value and significance of specific actions. Different versions of the deontological approach may also consider the consequences of our efforts. However, they still insist that external means (for example, by measuring utility) cannot be used to evaluate or justify what has value in itself. The critique towards Kant’s concept is that it appears to be too naive. Indeed, as Beatty et al. state, “Yes, it is wrong to kill, but a country might not survive unless it is willing to fight wars” (p. 30). Therefore, both utilitarian and deontological are incomplete to some extent but provide a primary ground for ethical considerations.
Finally, the Rawlsian concept is based on the assertion that fair distribution will maximize the welfare of the poorest member of society. To substantiate his approach, John Rawls, whose name gave this concept, uses a specific mental structure known in economic theory as the “veil of ignorance” (Beatty et al., p.31). This means that when forming the principles of fair distribution, one needs to abstract from the possible consequences for one’s well-being. Rawls argues that everyone would prefer to hedge against a likely fall into the abyss under the veil of ignorance. Therefore, one would approve of the distribution of benefits in which society would be concerned about maximizing the income of the community’s poorest members.
Application of Theories to The Social Dilemma Movie
Thus, coming back to the concern raised in the movie “The Social Dilemma,” it is worth considering the matter from the perspectives discussed above. In this way, the algorithm is created by people to address’ everyone’s preferences, thus, maximizing the well-being of the society. In other words, when everyone obtains exactly what they want, utilitarian ethics is reached. No matter what is at stake – privacy, adequacy, critical considerations, etc. – since the main goal of entertaining people is achieved. However, such an approach seems to be very primitive and does not reflect real-world agenda. In fact, society is preoccupied with privacy issues. Hence, after watching the documentary, many users claimed they would significantly reduce the unconscious consumption of the information and hide their geolocation and personal data whenever possible. Therefore, this proves that even enjoying personalized content, people are not ready to give all other things away. In this sense, utilizing the utilitarian approach, in this case, would be a solution to the ethical concern
However, Kant’s vision seems radical, too. “The Social Dilemma” refers to the famous movie “Truman’s Show,” using it as a metaphor for today’s events. However, in contrast to Truman, these are the individuals who make this choice of embracing themselves into the fake world of social media. Although people indeed do not control the algorithms letting artificial intelligence manipulate their choices decisions, in most cases, they do not have anything against this matter of things.
In this way, Rawlsian justice is the closest to reality to provide a guideline for this ethical concern resolution. Thus, the vital question is whether there are individuals who fail to recognize the “veil of ignorance.” In fact, the latter is essentially what makes people the main characters of the “Truman Show.” Therefore, to ensure the ethical existence of the Internet and social media, it is crucial to keep informed and aware of the algorithm’s work which in turn should definitely be regulated not to threaten the rights for privacy and freedom.
Conclusion
Overall, analysis of the ethical theories and a particular concern raised by “The Social Dilemma” regarding living in a world distorted by social media algorithms concludes that Rawlsian justice can be the best benchmark. Utilitarian and deontological approaches seem too naive and helpless to incorporate the complexity of the issue and the multiple parties and interests involved. Indeed, people make their choices by themselves, mainly thanks to such documentaries. However, it is essential to keep individuals aware and able to assess the situation critically.
Works Cited
Beatty, Jeffrey, et al. “Chapter 2: Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Essentials of Business Law, 6th ed., Cengage Learning, 2018, pp. 24–33.
The Social Dilemma. Directed by Jeff Orlowski, Exposure Labs, 2020. Netflix, Web.