top of page

The Attention Economy

Is our attention bought and sold online? What (if anything) is wrong with that?

Buying and Selling Attention

The ethical question of what we should pay attention to arises everywhere. Which books should we read? Is it ok that I think so much about my new love? But the topic of attention seems to become especially prominent when we think about the digital world online. Why is that? In this lesson we learn about one aspect of what is special online, namely how attention is treated as something that can be bought and sold.

 

As we are faced with more and more information (as we are online), choices about what we should pay attention to become increasingly more difficult. As economist and political scientist Herbert Simon (who coined the term “The Attention Economy”) said:

 

[I]n an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it [1, pp.40-41].

 

The above quote was written before the days of the internet. Nowadays, in our current digital world, the amount of information that we have at our fingertips is endless. We can Google pretty much anything we want. This makes the question what we should focus on—or what we should pay attention to—even more significant.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Photo by Darwin Vegher on Unsplash
 

Simon treats attention as a resource – one that is limited and that needs to be carefully distributed. We have seen that when we pay attention to one thing, other things fade into the background. When you pay attention to the fire alarm in the café, for example, your attention is taken away from reading your book. In this way, attention is limited. And the more information there is, the more things there are as possible objects of our attention. Compare trying to read in the busy café with reading in quiet room in a library. In the café there are simply more things that can grab one’s attention, and it seems not enough attention to go around. One then must make a choice about how to use one’s attention – should one focus on reading one’s book or on the barista making coffee? In this way, attention can be seen as a scarce resource.

 

This resource is particularly valuable in our current digital environment. We have seen that attention is not only controllable by us, but also by others. Advertisement companies, for example, try to grab our attention and direct it in ways that they want. Influence over our attention is, in fact, a major part of how technology companies make their money.

 

You have probably noticed that you don't have to pay any money to create an account on Facebook, Instagram, Gmail, or TikTok.  But how do the technology companies that run these platform—companies that are worth billions of dollars—make their money? 

 

One way to explain the exchange that happens between users of technological services and the companies that provide them is in terms of the commodification of attention [2, 3]. Commodification is a term used to describe the treatment of certain goods or services as things that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. Typical commodities include things like cars, toothbrushes, houses, and wheat. But as we have seen, attention is not like these typical commodities. Attention is a mental process. In this way, attention resembles belief or memory more than it does cars and toothbrushes. How, then, can it be treated as something that is bought and sold?

 

One way of understanding how attention is bought and sold is in the following way. We as users of technological services pay for the relevant services by giving up some control over our attention [3]. What this means is that we consent to having some of our attention diverted by advertisements that show up, for example, on our Facebook page. Facebook, in turn, makes money by selling advertisement space to advertisers, who pay based on how much engagement with their ads—or how much of our attention—they can expect to receive [2, 4].

 

To illustrate how this works, consider that you would like to watch an instructional video on YouTube. You do not have to pay money to watch this video, but you do give up some control over your attention. In this case, you have to watch a short advertisement before the video plays. Google (who owns YouTube) in turn makes money through the advertisement company that has paid them to run their advertisement. The same goes for Facebook. You do not have to pay money when you sign up, but you give up some control over what you pay attention to. You will have to navigate between your friends’ posts and the advertisements that Facebook runs on your feed.  Facebook in turn makes its money through advertisement.

 

In both of these cases, individuals exchange something (specifically, control over their attention) for access to technological services. And control over that attention is sold to advertisers by technology companies. It is in these ways that attention is commodified: it (or, control over it) is treated as something that is exchanged in the marketplace. (Meta users in Europe are now offered a subscription option, which enables them to access Facebook and Instagram without advertisement. This subscription effectively offers users a choice to pay for these services with money or with their attention.) 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Why is attention valuable? As we have seen earlier in our sunglasses example, an opportunity to grab one’s attention is an opportunity to influence consumer behaviour. Advertisement companies want our attention so that they can influence us to buy their products. And the more time we spend online means advertisers have more opportunity to grab our attention.

 

Given that our attention has become a valuable commodity, companies are incentived to get us to spend as much time as is possible glued to our devices. As a result, these companies design their platforms to “hook” us [5 - 7]. Our phones will send us alerts when someone we know has posted something new to Facebook; we can scroll for hours through Instagram because the feed of new information never stops; social media platforms will get us to start counting how many “likes” we get; YouTube will automatically queue up another video related to the one we are currently watching. These are deliberate features of these platforms to keep us on our devices.

​

Diagram showing how watching advertisement gives access to technological services.
Woman browsing used bookstore

Reflection Exercises

  1. What does it mean to say that attention is a scarce resource? Do you think this is a good way to describe attention? Why/why not?
     

  2. In what sense do we pay for technological services with our attention? Is attention the kind of thing that can be used to buy services? In what way is it similar to money? In what ways is it different?
     

  3. What are some possible advantages of “paying” for technological services with our attention?  What are some disadvantages?
     

  4. Do you think it is morally wrong that technology companies design their platforms to keep us engaged on them for as long as possible?

Ethical Issues in the Attention Economy

What, if anything, is wrong with treating attention as the kind of thing that can be bought and sold? There are several potential concerns that can be raised about buying and selling attention in the attention economy.

 

Should Attention Ever Be Bought and Sold?

One objection is that attention is simply not the kind of thing that should ever be bought or sold.  That is, there is something about attention—the kind of thing that it is—that makes it wrong, under all conditions, to buy or sell.

 

This is the same kind of criticism that is raised about markets in so-called contested commodities.  These commodities include reproductive labour (which is commodified in commercial surrogacy arrangements, which involve paying a woman to carry and birth a child for another couple) and organs (such as kidneys). Many people think that these are simply not the kinds of things that should ever be for sale [8, 9].

 

In the case of selling reproductive labour in commercial surrogacy arrangements, for example, some people think that this uses women in an inappropriate way for mere financial profit and fails to show them proper respect [10]. Women are reduced to mere “baby making machines” and not viewed as persons with their own goals worthy of respect.

 

One might take similar issue in the case of selling attention. One might argue, for example, that technology companies are using their users for financial profit and failing to show them the proper respect [3]. We are reduced to mere “attention machines.” Our own goals and desires are disregarded and our attention is used by technology companies for their own gains.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

prm

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Photo by Gilles Lambert on Unsplash
 

Do Technology Companies Have Too Much Power?

Another ethical problem that might be raised is that in buying control over our attention from us, technology companies gain too much power.  Remember that attention both shapes how we see the world and serves as a gateway to our preferences, beliefs, and actions. In giving up control over our attention, we thus give technology companies the ability to shape our experiences, as well as our preferences, beliefs, and how we act. This gives these companies a significant amount of power over us—we are in many respects at their mercy—and that seems problematic [3, 11].

 

Of course, we as users do in principle decide to sign up for the relevant technological services. Yet we might think that the transaction between us as users and technology companies is unfair. We might think that control over what we pay attention to (and the ability to influence what we want, believe, and how we act) is too high a price to pay for the services that we get in return [3]. Or we might think that technology companies are taking advantage of the fact that we rely so much on their services [3, 5]. These days it is very difficult to go without an email address, or access to Facebook or other social media services. There is a sense in which we don’t have much of a choice but to agree to give up control over our attention, since the cost of going without the services these companies offer to us is too high.

 

Targeted Ads: Manipulative or Giving the Consumer What They Want?

The previous two ethical issues about the attention economy were about whether buying attention from us is disrespectful and whether in doing so technology companies take unfair advantage of our dependency on them. A different ethical concern can be raised about the specific ways online companies direct our attention. In this regard, some critics warn that advertisement companies may manipulate us to get us to buy their products [12]. Online algorithms rely on an individual’s search history, personalized data, and other online activity to get an idea of what they’re interested in, and tailor ads to those interests. This is a much more powerful way of advertising than traditional print or television ads, since the advertisements that I am presented with will be specifically tailored to my interests and (we can suppose) are more likely to have an influence on my behaviour than ads that are not relevant to what I am interested in. On the one hand, some people argue that these advertisements are just giving me what I want – they are helping me to connect to products and services that I would like to be connected to [13]. On the other hand, others argue that targeted advertisement is taking advantage of what they know about me and manipulating my desires and behaviour for their own personal gain [14]. It’s like a friend who knows you very well and knows how to exploit your weaknesses to get what they want.

​

Does the Attention Economy Cause Mental Health Problems & Lead to Unwanted Distraction?
The previous ethical issues arose from the type interactions individuals have with technology companies. Other concerns are often raised about the harmful consequences that the attention economy has on individuals. We have seen that the attention economy incentivizes technology companies to design their platforms to get people hooked. After all, the more time people spend online, the more money these companies make. But this comes at a cost to their users.

 

In some cases, online activity and social media use becomes an addiction [4, 15, 16]. And excessive time spent online—whether the result of an addiction or not—is associated with harmful effects on individuals. There are, for example, links between prolonged use of social media and lower levels of individual well-being. One study, for example, has demonstrated links between the use of social media and higher levels of anxiety and depression in American college students [17].  There is also evidence that suggests that limiting the time one spends online can lead to less feelings of loneliness and depression [18].

 

Some people also worry that distractions from our devices may lead to overall shortened attention spans, even going so far as to claim that our attention spans are now shorter than that of goldfish [19]!  While that myth has been debunked [20], there is reason to believe that interruptions from our digital devices do affect our concentration and how effectively one is able to complete certain tasks. In one study, it was shown that people who are interrupted from work tasks do not immediately return to that work after being interrupted. [21].  This means that when switching between reading a book and checking text messages, you likely lose more than just the 3 seconds it might take you to read the text! 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Photo by Ahmed Hasan on Unsplash

​

Another worry is that digital distraction takes us away from other things that we could be doing – like socializing with friends and family [22]. It is not uncommon to see a group of people out and about, paying attention to their phones rather than to what is around them and to each other.  When one pays attention to one thing, one doesn’t pay (as much) attention to other things. Think about Charly in our earlier example, who spends their time watching cat videos. We might think that they are missing out on thinking about and doing things that matter – things that matter to others and that could matter to them. This invites the question we raised earlier: what should we pay attention to? Are there some things that are more deserving of our attention than others?

 

Selling our attention arguably also affects the kinds of things that it is possible for us to pay attention to. In selling our attention, we open ourselves up to distraction. This will make it difficult to engage in activities that require focused and sustained attention. This includes things like going to school or work, and engaging in politically important matters, to which we will turn in the next lesson.

 

There are thus potential negative effects that digital distraction and social media use has on individuals. Given all these bad consequences, is it morally wrong that technology companies design their platforms to maximize user engagement? Utilitarians will say that it depends on whether the benefits that people get from technological services (e.g., access to email, the ability to search for information, social networking opportunities) outweigh these costs. Deontologists, on the other hand, might say that technology companies should never use persons as profits, and that doing so is wrong even if there are good consequences.

 

If we think that digital distractions are problematic, we can ask another question: whose responsibility it is to minimize these distractions? On the one hand, we might say that we as individuals have the responsibility to resist these distractions – to unplug, take part in a digital detox, practice mindfulness, and so on [23]. On the other hand, we might think that solutions like these are like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound: the problem is too deep for the proposed solution or solutions [24]. Instead, we might say that the companies that are responsible for these distractions should be restricted in those activities. Any company that sells some product will be responsible to ensure that it is safe to use. Likewise, if technological companies design their platforms in ways that are harmful to individuals (because they are addictive or manipulative), the companies should be responsible for fixing that. We might think, for example, that regulations should be introduced to limit the extent to which and way that our devices call for our attention.

​

Hand scrolling on phone
Goldfish in a bowl

Reflection Exercises

  1. Is all distraction bad? Is there a difference between being distracted by an advertisement for a new pair of sunglasses and being distracted by a WhatsApp message from a friend?
     

  2. Write a list of your 5 most important goals for the year. Does your social media/online use get in the way of achieving those goals? How are those goals different from the goals that advertisement companies and Facebook have?
     

  3. Do you think that there are some things that should never be bought and sold? Give examples. Do you think there is anything wrong with “paying” for technological services with our attention? Why/why not?
     

  4. Do you think that online advertisement is problematic? Why or why not?
     

  5. Do you think that the trade we make with technology companies is fair? Or, do you think we give up too much and get too little in return?
     

  6. Whose responsibility is it to minimize distractions online? How much do you think that individuals are able to resist digital distractions themselves?

References

[1] Simon, H. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest (pp.37-52). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.


[2] Wu, T. (2017). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads. Vintage.

 

[3] Browne, K. and Watzl, S. “What’s wrong with how attention is commodified?” in preparation.

​

[4] Wu, T. (2018). Blind spot: The attention economy and the Law. Antitrust LJ, 82, 771.
 

[5] Bhargava, V. R., & Velasquez, M. (2021). Ethics of the attention economy: The problem of social media addiction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(3), 321-359.

 

[6] Castro, C., & Pham, A. K. (2020). Is the attention economy noxious?. Philosophers' Imprint, 20(17), 1-13.

 

[7] Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit-forming products. London: Penguin.

​

[8] Satz, D. (2010). Why some things should not be for sale: The moral limits of markets. Oxford University Press.

 

[9] Sandel, M. J. (1998). What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. Brasenose College, Oxford.
 

[10] Anderson, E. S. (1990). Is women’s labor a commodity? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(1), 71–92.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265363
 

[11] Lovett, F. "Republicanism." In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelmen (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/republicanism/
 

[12] Crisp, R. (1987). Persuasive advertising, autonomy, and the creation of desire. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 413-418.
 

[13] Packard, V. O. (1958). The hidden persuaders. (Pocket Books New York).
 

[14] Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Online manipulation: Hidden influences in a digital world. Geo. L. Tech. Rev., 4, 1.
 

[15] Block, J. J. (2008). Issues for DSM-V: Internet addiction. American Journal of Psychiatry,165, 306–7.

 

[16] Young, K. S. 2004. Internet addiction: A new clinical phenomenon and its consequences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 402–15.
 

[17] Braghieri, L., Levy, R. E., & Makarin, A. (2022). Social media and mental health. American Economic Review, 112(11), 3660-3693.
 

[18] Hunt, M. G., Marx, R., Lipson, C., & Young, J. (2018). No more FOMO: Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 37(10), 751-768.
 

[19] McSpadden, K. (2015 May 14). You now have an attention span shorter than a goldfish. Time. https://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/
 

[20] Maybin, S. (2017). Busting the attention span myth. BBC News, 10. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790
 

[21] Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005, April). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 321-330).

 

[22] Williams, J. (2018). Stand out of our light: Freedom and resistance in the attention economy. Cambridge University Press.
 

[23] Syvertsen, T., & Enli, G. (2020). Digital detox: Media resistance and the promise of authenticity. Convergence, 26(5-6), 1269-1283.
 

[24] Watzl, S. Quoted in Lilleslåten, M (2021 October 28). “Big Tech’s power in the attention economy is a challenge to democracy.” https://partner.sciencenorway.no/democracy-ethics-internet/big-techs-power-in-the-attention-economy-is-a-challenge-to-democracy/1928123.

bottom of page