Morality and Social Media | Alexandria French

Moral Influence in the Digital Age: Social Media’s Role as a Moral Architect

Abstract:

Social media platforms undeniably play a powerful role in shaping modern moral perspectives by influencing how users interact with one another, share information, and form beliefs. This paper examines the ethical impact of algorithmic curation on social media by exploring how platforms shape user beliefs and behaviors by prioritizing certain types of content. Using Michel Foucault’s concept of surveillance, the analysis considers how algorithms function as digital tools of moral influence and subtly guiding users toward particular norms and behaviors. Applying Social Contract Theory, this paper also argues that social media platforms have an ethical responsibility to foster transparency and fairness in their algorithmic practices, as users enter implicit agreements expecting ethical standards. From a utilitarian perspective, the study evaluates the potential harm and benefits of algorithmic curation, particularly in relation to echo chambers and the spread of misinformation. Ultimately, it advocates for ethical guidelines that promote balanced content representation aimed at ensuring that algorithmic systems support a fair and inclusive digital moral environment.

Introduction

Social media has quickly emerged as a powerful tool for communication and information sharing. These platforms that are driven by highly sophisticated, and closely guarded algorithms curate content that align with user preferences based on stereotypical assumptions. This arguably influences how individuals interact with one another and form beliefs. This phenomenon also raises critical questions about the inevitable ethical responsibilities of platforms whose algorithms serve as de facto moral architects in the digital realm. By prioritizing content that maximizes user engagement these algorithms inadvertently shape social norms and moral perspectives. This is quite often done without our awareness or even consent.

This paper examines the moral implications of this algorithmic curation on social media by focusing on a philosophical controversy: whether algorithms act as morally neutral tools or as active agents of moral influence. I will draw on Michel Foucault’s concept of surveillance and explore how algorithms function as digital tools of moral guidance that subtly shape users behavior and beliefs. By applying Social Contract Theory this paper argues that social media platforms indeed hold ethical obligations to foster transparency and fairness in their practices. This study further evaluates the potential harms and benefits of algorithmic curation through a utilitarian lens and gives particular attention to the formation of echo chambers and the spread of misinformation. Ultimately this paper advocates for ethical guidelines that promote balanced content representation to ensure that algorithmic systems contribute to a fair and inclusive digital moral environment.

Through this analysis this paper argues that algorithmic systems are not just passive technological tools anymore. The internet has since grown to a place where they are now active participants in shaping modern moral landscapes. With this argument, the need for ethical oversight in algorithm design and implementation to mitigate harm and foster societal well-being is underscored as well as its imminent importance highlighted.

Algorithmic Curation as Digital Moral Influence

How Algorithms Shape User Behavior

Algorithms. We’ve all hear it at least once by now. They process and prioritize content we view online based on our user data to maximize engagement. They analyze our behavior (likes, shares, comments, and times spent on certain posts) to curate content that keeps us engaged with the platform. [1] Eventually, this process creates a feedback loop. As users interact with certain types of content algorithms prioritize similar content which reinforces user preferences and interests, whatever they may be. While this may at first feel benign, the engagement driven nature of algorithms incentivizes sensational or polarizing content that garners more interactions.

Foucault’s concept of surveillance provides us a useful lens for understanding this incredible phenomenon. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault describes the Panopticon as a metaphor for modern surveillance. He argues that individuals modify their behavior under the assumption that they are being observed.[2] Similarly, social media algorithms create a digital Panopticon that sees users’ behaviors are constantly monitored, recorded, and analyzed. This surveillance eventually shapes behavior through subtle reinforcement of certain actions and beliefs rather than through direct coercion. By controlling what content is seen and when, these algorithms exercise a form of power that arguably shapes the digital moral landscape.

Echo Chambers and Norm Reinforcement

One of the most significant consequences of this algorithmic curation is the creation of echo chambers. The online echo chamber is a digital space where users are primarily exposed to information and opinions that confirms their preexisting beliefs. Similar to a confirmation bias stuck in a self-perpetuating loop based on what you’re seeing online. As algorithms prioritize engagement, they often amplify content that evokes strong emotional reactions like outrage, fear and validation. This rather selective exposure reinforces users’ existing norms and values and discourages exposure to diverse perspective.

One of the most notable (and possibly historically significant) example is the spread of misinformation. During the 2016 U.S. Presidential election Facebook’s algorithm amplified sensationalized and falsified stories because they generated high engagement. [3] Similarly, YouTube’s recommendation system has been criticized for radicalizing users by guiding them toward increasingly extreme content. These echo chambers are not only distorting individual beliefs. They are contributing to societal polarization by fragmenting public discourse and creating a new real world divisionary problem.

Subtle Moral Guidance

Algorithmic curation notably influences users’ perceptions of what is normal or acceptable as well as shaping their beliefs and behaviors. By repeatedly exposing users to certain types of content these algorithms are creating a framework of digital norms. For example if users are consistently shown posts that glorify a particular lifestyle, political ideology or cultural trend, these perspectives may begin to feel inherently “correct” or “popular” regardless of the ethical implications. This process is completely unconscious since users absorb these norms without questioning their source or intent.

Algorithms act as moral architects that shape societal values by controlling what narratives gain visibility. Unlike the historical religious and political leaders, algorithms exert their influence invisibly and make their moral guidance all the more pervasive and difficult to resist.

Social Contract Theory and Algorithmic Responsibility

Implicit Social Contracts

Social media platforms operate within an implicit social contract with the users that are grounded in the principles of fairness, transparency, and ethical responsibility. According to Social Contract Theory, individuals consent to certain rules and systems in exchange for protection, order, or mutual benefits. [4][5] In the context of social media, users agree to provide their own data and attention with the expectation that in exchange platforms will act responsibly in curating content. This agreement assumes that platforms will uphold ethical practices like avoiding harm, providing balanced content and fostering a fair digital environment.

These expectations however are rarely made explicit. Users often assume (incorrectly) that algorithms operate neutrally and that platforms prioritize the public good over profit. This misplaced trust highlights that asymmetry of power in the digital age: platforms hold significant control over the content users see while users have little insight into how algorithms function or the moral frameworks guiding their design.

Breach of Expectations

Social media platforms often fail to meet the ethical standards that users expect based on the implicit social contract. Examples include:

Biased Algorithms: These algorithms frequently reinforce societal biases such as racial or gender discrimination. For example, studies have shown that facial recognition systems often misidentify individuals from minority groups. [6]
Spread of Misinformation: Social media platforms have faced criticism for their role in amplifying false information, particularly during elections or public health crisis which undermines public trust. [7]
Lack of Transparency: Users are rarely informed about how algorithms decide which content to prioritize. This opacity prevents meaningful scrutiny or accountability which leaves users vulnerable to manipulation.

These breaches inevitably highlight the moral gap between user expectations and platform behavior. When profit is prioritized over ethics there is a violation of the implicit social contract that erodes trust and exposes users to harm.

Platform Accountability

With the profound influence on modern society social media platforms have unarguably had, they have a moral responsibility to ensure that their algorithms promote ethical and inclusive practices. This responsibility comes from the underlined social contract and their unique position as gatekeepers of information and public discourse.

To fulfill this responsibility effectively, platforms must:

Implement Transparency Measures: The must clearly communicate how algorithms function and what factors influence their content prioritization. They must effectively answer: how is our data being used and in what ways?
Adopt Fairness Standards: They must regularly audit algorithms for bias and ensure that content curation promotes diverse perspectives, not just the opinions of the ones who own them.
Prioritize Ethical Design: They must develop algorithms that optimize for societal well-being as opposed to engagement or profit.

Accountability requires collaboration among all social platforms, policymakers, and users. Ethical guidelines, regulatory frameworks, and independent oversight mechanisms can help bridge the gap between user expectations and platform practices and ensure a more just and equitable digital environment.

Utilitarian Evaluation of Algorithmic Curation

Potential Harms

There is an incredible potential for algorithmic curation to cause a significant amount of societal harm by prioritizing engagement over ethical considerations and reinforcing harmful ideologies and behaviors. Three of these innumerable potential harms that can be argued are reinforcement of harmful ideologies, polarization and social division, and spread of misinformation.

Algorithms tend to amplify the extreme content because it generates more engagement, regardless of the kind of engagement. For example, YouTube’s recommendation system has been criticized for leading users in increasingly radical content. This is a phenomenon that the internet has dubbed the “rabbit hole effect” [8] This creates an environment where harmful ideologies (racism, misogyny, conspiracy theories) can flourish unchecked like the plague during the 14th century.

Social media algorithms contribute to this polarization by segregating users into these echo chambers. These environments that are created discourage dialogue across differing viewpoints and create fragmented online communities further exacerbating societal divisions. The 2016 U.S presidential election and Brexit referendum greatly highlighted how algorithmic curation fueled a polarization through targeted misinformation campaigns [9]

Conclusion

Algorithmic curation on social media platforms represents a powerful force in shaping modern beliefs, behaviors, and moral norms. These systems may be technologically neutral in design but due to their prioritization of engagement-driven content, they hold profound ethical implication. As the analysis has shown, the harms of algorithmic curation are substantial and demand accountability. As a double edge sword, they also hold an immense potential to amplify positive outcomes like raising awareness for social issues and fostering connections among diverse communities.

Through the lens of Social Contract Theory, it arguably becomes evident that users enter an implicit agreement with platforms expecting transparency, fairness and ethical standards in algorithmic practices. Platforms often fail to meet these expectations and there are currently little to no accountabilities for these failures. From a utilitarian perspective the ethical obligation of platforms lies in balancing the trade offs that are inherent in algorithmic design to optimize societal well being while minimizing the harm.

In the end, this paper argues that algorithmic systems are not just passive tools online. They are now active participants in shaping the overall moral landscape of the digital age. As such, social media platforms must adopt transparent practices, prioritize fairness, and design algorithms with ethical oversight to ensure that their influence promotes inclusivity, equality, and informed public discourse. By addressing the ethical challenges and opportunities of algorithmic curation we can move towards a more equitable and morally responsible future, both on and offline.

Sources:

[1] Reyman, Jessica. “User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation.” College English 75, no. 5 (2013): 513–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24238250.

[2] Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

[3] KHOSRAVINIK, MAJID. “Right Wing Populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo Chambers.” Insight Turkey 19, no. 3 (2017): 53–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26300530.

[4] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999

[5] Pollock, Frederick. “Hobbes and Lo>http://www.jstor.org/stable/752187.

[6] Kindt, Els J. “Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms for Facial Recognition.” German Marshall Fund of the United States, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep28527.

[7] Ehrenberg, Rachel. “Social Media Sway: Worries over Political Misinformation on Twitter Attract Scientists’ Attention.” Science News 182, no. 8 (2012): 22–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23351069.

[8] Caliandro, Alessandro, Alessandro Gandini, Lucia Bainotti, and Guido Anselmi. “YouTube and the Radicalisation (?) Of Consumption.” In The Platformisation of Consumer Culture: A Digital Methods Guide, 73–94. Amsterdam University Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.14443784.6.

[9] Unver, H. Akin. “DIGITAL CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY: POLITICS OF AUTOMATION, ATTENTION, AND ENGAGEMENT.” Journal of International Affairs 71, no. 1 (2017): 127–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26494368.