Abstract
In this chapter we argue that emotions are mediated in an incomplete way in online social media because of the heavy reliance on textual messages which fosters a rationalistic bias and an inclination towards less nuanced emotional expressions. This incompleteness can happen either by obscuring emotions, showing less than the original intensity, misinterpreting emotions, or eliciting emotions without feedback and context. Online interactions and deliberations tend to contribute rather than overcome stalemates and informational bubbles, partially due to prevalence of anti-social emotions. It is tempting to see emotions as being the cause of the problem of online verbal aggression and bullying. However, we argue that social media are actually designed in a predominantly rationalistic way, because of the reliance on text-based communication, thereby filtering out social emotions and leaving space for easily expressed antisocial emotions. Based on research on emotions that sees these as key ingredients to moral interaction and deliberation, as well as on research on text-based versus non-verbal communication, we propose a richer understanding of emotions, requiring different designs of online deliberation platforms. We propose that such designs should move from text-centred designs and should find ways to incorporate the complete expression of the full range of human emotions so that these can play a constructive role in online deliberations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Examples of such platforms are LiquidFeedback https://liquidfeedback.org/, Debate Hub https://debatehub.net/ , DemocracyOS http://democracyos.org/
- 2.
Optical texts are texts written in such a way as to be readable at a glance, in silence. Before the twelfth century, most manuscripts were written in scripta continua, demanding users to read them out loud so to understand the content (see Marin et al. 2018 for a more comprehensive discussion).
- 3.
- 4.
There are currently other solutions being investigated by tech companies such as Apple – for example dynamic avatars – but we do not have the space to go into these here.
References
Alfano, Mark, J. Adam Carter, and Marc Cheong. 2018. Technological Seduction and Self-Radicalization. Journal of the American Philosophical Association 4 (3): 298–322.
Brady, William J., and Molly J. Crockett. 2019. How Effective Is Online Outrage? Trends in cognitive sciences 23 (2): 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.004.
Burr, C., M. Taddeo, and L. Floridi. 2020. The Ethics of Digital Well-Being: A Thematic Review. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00175-8.
Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Derks, Daantje, Agneta H. Fischer, and Arjan E.R. Bos. 2008. The Role of Emotion in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Review. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (3): 766–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004.
Han, Byung-Chul. 2017. In the Swarm: Digital Prospects; Translated by Erik Butler. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Illich, Ivan. 1993. In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh’s Didascalicon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Isin, Engin F., and Evelyn Sharon Ruppert. 2015. Being Digital Citizens. London/ Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaliarnta, Sofia. 2016. Using Aristotle’s Theory of Friendship to Classify Online Friendships: A Critical Counterview. Ethics and Information Technology 18: 65–79.
Lazarus, Richard S. 1994. Emotion and Adaptation. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Little, Margaret Olivia. 1995. Seeing and Caring: The Role of Affect in Feminist Moral Epistemology. Hypatia 10 (3): 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb00740.x.
Marin, Lavinia, Jan Masschelein, and Maarten Simons. 2018. Page, Text and Screen in the University: Revisiting the Illich Hypothesis. Educational Philosophy and Theory 50 (1): 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1323624.
Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Ramona S. McNeal. 2008. Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT.
Nadkarni, Ashwini, and Stefan G. Hofmann. 2012. Why Do People Use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences 52 (3): 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001. Upheavals of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, Robert Campbell. 2003. Emotions: An Essay in Aid of Moral Psychology. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roeser, Sabine. 2006. The Role of Emotions in Judging the Moral Acceptability of Risks. Safety Science 44 (8): 689–700.
———. 2011. Moral Emotions and Intuitions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2018. Risk, Technology, and Moral Emotions. London: Routledge.
Roeser, Sabine, and Cain Samuel Todd. 2014. Emotion and Value. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, Klaus R. 1984. On the Nature and Function of Emotion: A Component Process Approach. In Approaches to Emotion, ed. Klaus R. Scherer and Paul Ekman, 293–317. Hillsdale/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slovic, Paul. 2010. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. London: Earthscan.
Solomon, Robert C. 1993. The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
Spring, Victoria L., C. Daryl Cameron, and Mina Cikara. 2018. The Upside of Outrage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22 (12): 1067–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.09.006.
Verdiesen, E. P., M. V. Dignum, M. J. van den Hoven, Martijn Cligge, Jan Timmermans, and Lennard Segers. 2016. MOOD: Massive Open Online Deliberation Platform-A Practical Application. In ECAI 2016: 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29 August-2 September 2016, The Hague, The Netherlands, Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS 2016): Proceedings, ed. Gal A. Kaminka et al. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Wojcieszak, Magdalena E., Young Min Baek, Michael X. Delli, and Carpini. 2009. WHAT IS REALLY GOING on? Structure Underlying Face-to-Face and Online Deliberation. Information, Communication & Society 12 (7): 1080–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180902725768.
Zagzebski, Linda. 2003. Emotion and Moral Judgment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1): 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00245.x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marin, L., Roeser, S. (2020). Emotions and Digital Well-Being: The Rationalistic Bias of Social Media Design in Online Deliberations. In: Burr, C., Floridi, L. (eds) Ethics of Digital Well-Being. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 140. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50585-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50585-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50584-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50585-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)