THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN PRIVATE SECTOR PROFIT ALGORITHMS AND SOCIAL LIABILITIES: IMPACTS ON EXTREMIST MOVEMENTS, AUTOCRATIZATION, AND CONSUMERISM

APA full citation: Filho, C. I. (2024, November 4). The Interplay Between Private Sector Profit Algorithms and Social Liabilities: Impacts on Extremist Movements, Autocratization, and Consumerism. EBS I&D Centre. https://www.ebscentre.org/law-and-politicalscience/

Abstract

This article examines the complex relationship between the private sector's profit-maximizing algorithms and their influence on social and political dynamics. It argues that algorithm-driven profit models not only amplify consumerist behavior but also contribute to pressing societal issues, such as the spread of extremist ideologies, political polarization, and autocratization. By prioritizing engagement through sensational and controversial content, these algorithms foster environments that empower divisive movements, encourage autocratic sentiments, and promote excessive consumerism, creating a range of social liabilities. Drawing from sociology and political science, this paper explores the ethical dilemmas and regulatory challenges in addressing these algorithmic impacts and emphasizes the urgent need for comprehensive frameworks to balance profitability with social responsibility. Recommendations include regulatory reforms aimed at transparency, accountability, and ethical standards to mitigate the adverse social consequences of algorithmic influence.

Keywords: Algorithms, private sector, consumerism, autocratization, extremism, social influence, political polarization, regulatory reform, ethics, societal impact

Article - The Interplay Between Private Sector Profit Algorithms and Social Liabilities.pd

Download PD • 141KB

---

Introduction

In recent decades, the private sector has increasingly employed algorithmic technology to maximize profits, targeting consumer behavior with unprecedented accuracy and efficiency. While these algorithms have driven financial success, they also pose significant risks to social stability, democracy, and public health (Zuboff, 2019). The algorithms, powered by big data, shape online environments that promote engagement but may inadvertently fuel extremist ideologies, empower autocratic influences, and promote consumerism, creating complex liabilities within society (Pasquale, 2015). This paper examines the sociopolitical implications of profit-driven algorithms, drawing on both sociology and political science to explore how they contribute to and exacerbate contemporary social issues.

1. Algorithms as Tools for Consumerist Empowerment and Social Influence

The use of algorithms by corporations to drive consumer engagement is well-documented. By analyzing consumer behavior and preferences, companies can influence purchasing patterns and heighten consumerist tendencies (Cheney-Lippold, 2017). These algorithms have a dual role in society: while they facilitate economic growth and consumer satisfaction, they also deepen consumerism by encouraging individuals to make purchases based on psychologically and behaviorally targeted advertisements (Lanier, 2018). This practice fosters a culture of instant gratification and dependency on consumer products, which may have broader social implications, such as weakened community ties and individual reliance on material goods for self-validation (Bauman, 2007).

Impact on Identity and Self-Perception

The algorithmic marketing strategies extend beyond mere consumption to the construction of identity. According to Bauman (2007), identity in consumer society is increasingly associated with possession and status symbols. Social media algorithms reinforce this by creating environments where material acquisitions equate to social validation, which has implications for both mental health and societal values (Turkle, 2011).

2. Autocratization and the Role of Algorithmic Profit Models

Algorithmic profit models that prioritize engagement may inadvertently contribute to the process of autocratization. These algorithms tend to favor sensational content, as it drives user engagement more effectively than neutral or fact-based information (Tucker et al., 2018). This dynamic has provided a platform for autocratic figures to disseminate their ideology widely, exploiting algorithmic bias to rally support and spread misinformation (Guriev & Treisman, 2019).

Influence on Political Polarization and Public Opinion

Algorithms designed to maximize profits through engagement often amplify divisive political content, creating polarized information bubbles that hinder rational political discourse. Research has shown that users exposed to algorithmically curated content are more likely to encounter political messaging that confirms existing biases, contributing to ideological segregation and even radicalization (Sunstein, 2017). This polarization benefits populist and autocratic leaders who thrive in divided societies, exploiting these divisions to maintain power and influence (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).

3. Extremist Movements and the Role of Algorithmic Amplification

The algorithmic design of social media platforms has also been implicated in the spread of extremist ideologies. Algorithms prioritize content that is likely to provoke engagement, often surfacing extreme or controversial material (Tucker et al., 2018). This not only normalizes radical views but also fosters online communities where these beliefs are reinforced (Bail et al., 2018). As a result, algorithms have been found to contribute to a feedback loop that exacerbates extremist attitudes and potentially leads to real-world actions based on these ideologies (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017).

Case Studies of Algorithmic Radicalization

Notable incidents, such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal, highlight the potential of algorithms to manipulate political sentiment and radicalize individuals (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018). This raises concerns about how the private sector's pursuit of profit intersects with national security and public safety, as the misuse of algorithmic technology by third parties can have destabilizing effects on society (Zuboff, 2019).

4. Corporate Liability and the Ethical Dilemmas of Algorithmic Influence

The private sector's use of algorithms raises profound ethical and legal questions regarding corporate responsibility. While these companies prioritize shareholder profit, they are often insufficiently held accountable for the societal impacts of their technologies (Pasquale, 2015). As Zuboff (2019) argues, there is a pressing need for regulatory frameworks that hold corporations liable for the adverse social effects of algorithm-driven business models, especially as their influence grows in realms traditionally governed by public institutions.

Potential for Regulatory Solutions and Ethical Reforms

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic harm include legislative initiatives aimed at transparency and algorithmic fairness (Pasquale, 2015). The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for instance, attempts to enforce accountability for data-driven practices, though its effectiveness in curbing social liabilities remains contested (Helbing et al., 2019). Similar reforms, adapted globally, could ensure that private companies are incentivized to consider the societal impacts of their algorithms alongside their profitability.

Conclusion

The private sector's reliance on algorithms for profit maximization has profound implications for society, influencing everything from consumer habits to political ideologies. While these algorithms offer significant economic benefits, they also present serious liabilities, contributing to social issues like extremism, autocratization, and heightened consumerism. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, incorporating insights from sociology and political science, along with regulatory intervention to ensure that the pursuit of profit does not come at the expense of societal well-being.

Carlos I. Filho

References 

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236.

Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., ... & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221.

Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Polity Press.

Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian.

Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. NYU Press.

Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2019). Informational autocrats. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 100-127.

Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hofstetter, Y., ... & Zwitter, A. (2019). Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence? In J. Zuboff (Ed.), The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

Lanier, J. (2018). Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now. Henry Holt and Company.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.

Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.

Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P. (2018). Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 61-73.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.