Diego Galvez
Professor Korzukhin
Philosophy 10100
29 March 2018
Feeds: A Threat to Free Will?
In our day to day lives, we are faced with thousands of choices and our society only continues to provide us with more and more.Whether important or trivial, most people like to think the decisions we ‘make’ are our own and independent of any outside forces. In a “Ted Talk,” Tristan Harris describes in his presentation how companies are using their research findings to influence how we make the decision on how to spend our time. The phenomena he describes is how companies like Snapchat and Facebook use certain methods that can captivate us through using methods like commitment or convenience. In Snapchat’s case, there is a level of commitment that we feel to our friends due to the “streaks” feature that displays how many consecutive days two people have been messaging each other. According to Harris this idea of commitment makes us allot time for the app without even thinking about it. He also describes how Facebook, and several other companies, manipulate its feed to push content onto the public so that it is convenient to its users. A common feature on many platforms now is to automatically introduce videos that a user may find interesting based on data collected or may want to watch due to the similarity of the content originally viewed by the user. This makes it so that the user doesn’t have to scroll or click anything, they simply sit back and continue watching. Harris says that this manipulation of feeds and platforms exploits our tendency to have “lizard brains,” while on these kinds of platforms. Though it is true that most people go on social media with a “lizard brain” determined to be entertained or “outraged” by whatever they see, it is my view that it is not due to the manipulation of platforms by companies. My view is that people log into platforms having already made the decision on what they plan to see, do, and type. I believe this because it is common to use social media or similar platforms when one is bored, this leads to the ‘lizard brain” attitude that Harris describes during his presentation. If it is pre-determined by one’s self to go on social to seek the latest news it is what one will do, in the same way, one would use these platforms to pursue social interaction. With this being said I don’t believe that the phenomena Harris describes is a threat to free will nor will it constrain it.
A.J. Ayer, the British philosopher, has contemplated and theorized about free will, concluding that free will and determinism exist together and need each other. This meaning that determinism, the idea that everything is already pre-determined, free will, and the universe lay out a decision for a person that has already decided, however, it is up to the person whether they act upon it or not. He also believes in constraints of free will where one would have no other choice but to act in a certain way. Perhaps it is best to say that Ayer simply believes in free action unless there is a constraint. Under this understanding of Ayer’s views on free will, it is probable that he would not describe Harris’ phenomena as a threat to free will. If a user of a platform were to have a weapon pointed at his head held by the CEO of a platform whilst they scroll through the app perhaps Ayer would agree with what Harris has to say, but this is not the case.
Another view on free will comes from Roderick Chisholm who views free will as a cause and effect situation. In simple terms, he believes that if event ‘A’ occurs then event ‘B’ will happen, however, event ‘A’ is caused by some person’s actions. He also believes that there is a distinction between the actions we perform and the events that are caused by those actions. Ultimately this means that Chisholm views free will as real and it is commonplace in our world. With this in mind, Harris’s description of the manipulation of our news, social media, and entertainment platforms would not threaten free will if we are truly living under the theory conceptualized by Chisholm. It would not threaten free will in Chisholm’s world because it would be up to the user whether or not they would even use a platform. Additionally, it would be up to the user whether or not they would purposefully use the available platforms under the “lizard brain” attitude and how much time they choose to spend doing so. Chisholm’s libertarianism ideology leads us to conclude that no matter what method companies implement the ultimate factor in deciding how one wants to use platforms is the user and there is no threat to free will.
American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt has another view on free will that differs than his peers. He argues that free will and determinism work together in our world. He says that we act based on desires and motives that make us want to act. He believes that if we desire something we will act in a way where we try to satisfy our desire for example if we desire to be lazy and sit on the couch we will do so. Likewise, he says that it is possible that we can desire a desire, for example, desiring that one would go to the gym rather than sitting on the couch. Finally, he says that we are free to act on desires, however, the question of free will lies on whether or not we want to have a certain will. Going back to the example of the couch and gym, it would only be acting on free will if one were to go to the gym. Basically, free will comes from our ability to act on the desire of a desire. If all the gyms were wiped from existence then it would be pre-determined that our desire would be to sit on the couch and be lazy. Applying this to what Harris speaks about in his “Ted Talk” means that there would still be some sort of threat to will. There is a threat to free will under Frankfurt’s theory because the companies that are modifying the way we consume information to exploit our time are making it harder for one to desire a different, secondary desire. It is almost like the companies are creating a grip that holds us to using these platforms utilizing our natural inclination towards concepts like commitment and convenience.
To understand Harris’ point when he says that there is a threat to free will one must adopt a similar intendment to that of Frankfurt’s. By applying Frankfurt’s theory to our world and combining it with the phenomena labeled a threat by Harris it is possible that there is a threat to our free will. By making it harder to desire a different desire than just sitting on our devices all day watching video after video companies with platforms are manipulating our free will. Returning to the aforementioned example of the couch and gym, suppose not all gyms were wiped off the face of the Earth but just enough so that nearest one to each person was ten miles away. Suppose also that there was no other way to reach those gyms other than on foot. Under these circumstances, it is much harder to desire anything other than sitting on the couch. According to Frankfurt’s theory, companies like Snapchat and Facebook are doing a similar thing to our desires by making it so convenient and seemingly worthwhile to use their sites. In conclusion, if we are living in Frankfurt’s world then our free will is under threat by companies who make it so it is easier to use their sites than to simply desire anything else.
As a firm believer of libertarianism, where every person is under their own control and should be held morally responsible for their actions, I believe that what Harris describes is not a threat to our free will. It is my view that there is no threat to our free will since there a person chooses how much time they want to or can afford to spend on sites that target our time. Furthermore, I believe that it is up to one’s self to decide how they will use the site, entertainment, information, social connection, etc. Finally, I believe that it is up to the user to decide their own reaction and feelings towards what they view. To conclude, my belief of absolute free will leads me to believe that Harris’ phenomena do not influence free will in any way.