{"id":5489,"date":"2024-01-09T15:22:51","date_gmt":"2024-01-09T15:22:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mpelembe.net\/?p=5489"},"modified":"2024-05-04T17:13:52","modified_gmt":"2024-05-04T17:13:52","slug":"freedom-of-thought-is-being-threatened-by-states-big-tech-and-even-ourselves-heres-what-we-can-do-to-protect-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mpelembe.net\/index.php\/freedom-of-thought-is-being-threatened-by-states-big-tech-and-even-ourselves-heres-what-we-can-do-to-protect-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of thought is being threatened by states, big tech and even ourselves. Here\u2019s what we can do to protect\u00a0it"},"content":{"rendered":"

Simon McCarthy-Jones<\/a>, Trinity College Dublin<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The idea of free speech sparked into life 2,500 years ago in Ancient Greece<\/a> \u2013 in part because it served a politician\u2019s interests. The ability to speak freely was seen as essential for the new Athenian democracy, which the politician Cleisthenes<\/a> both introduced and benefited from.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Today, we debate the boundaries of free speech around kitchen tables and watercoolers, in the media and in our courtrooms. The right to freedom of thought<\/a>, however, is more rarely discussed. But thanks to the growing influence of social media, big data and new technology, this \u201cforgotten freedom<\/a>\u201d needs our urgent attention.<\/p>\n

In democratic societies ruled by ballots not bullets, power is won through persuasion. Efforts at persuasion are ramping up: there will be more than 50 national elections<\/a> involving half the world\u2019s population in 2024, including in seven of the ten most populous countries<\/a>. The results will shape our century<\/a>, making it paramount that we protect people\u2019s ability to think and vote freely. <\/p>\n

But corporate and political actors know more about how our minds work than we do. They activate our biases rather than appeal to our reason, push us to share information without thinking, and control our attention to the point of addiction.<\/p>\n

Advances in neuroscience may heighten this threat to free thought. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg are among those in a race to read our minds<\/a> with the help of artificial intelligence (AI). In 2021, the UN warned of<\/a> the risks of neural technologies predicting, identifying and modifying our thoughts. Manhattan projects of the mind threaten to make lab rats of us all.<\/p>\n

\n \"Suited<\/a>
\n Elon Musk\u2019s brain implant company Neuralink received regulatory approval to conduct the first clinical trial in humans in 2023.<\/span>
\n Steve Jurvetson\/Wikimedia<\/a>, CC BY-SA<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

We could respond by calling on our right to freedom of thought. It\u2019s there waiting for us, created in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> (Article 18) and later becoming international law<\/a>. But anyone reaching for this right may be horrified to find it hollow, bereft of any clear definition and unfit for purpose.<\/p>\n

In recent years, the UN has sought to give this right more substance<\/a>. One of its special rapporteurs, Ahmed Shaheed, has made a series of recommendations<\/a> (which I will outline) that should, eventually, lead to a better defined, more muscular right to free thought. This process has promise \u2013 it could help shield our thoughts from prying eyes and protect our minds from manipulation.<\/p>\n

But it also has the potential for harm. In international law, freedom of thought is an absolute right. This means it could run roughshod over other important concerns. Activists could, for example, use this right to silence their political opponents by claiming their opponents\u2019 speech is manipulating thoughts.<\/p>\n

This right could also go wrong by failing to protect all forms of thought. We must ask where \u201cthinking\u201d ends and \u201cspeaking\u201d begins in today\u2019s world: should performing an online search, writing a personal diary, or asking a question in a WhatsApp group be regarded as forms of thought, or outright speech?<\/p>\n

\n
\n \"\"
\n <\/span><\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This article is part of Conversation Insights<\/em><\/strong>
\n
The Insights team generates long-form journalism<\/a> derived from interdisciplinary research. The team is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

History suggests the right to free thought will only become globally relevant if political factions or states<\/a> use it to serve their purposes. And this looks increasingly likely as accusations of mental manipulation<\/a> and \u201cthoughtcrime\u201d creation<\/a> fly between the political right and left, and the US looks for new weapons in its developing cold war with China<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For both technological and (geo)political reasons, the right to freedom of thought\u2019s time may have come. Whatever it is decided to mean, it will bind us all. As I argue in my new book Freethinking<\/a>, this makes it crucial that we can all have input into its design. <\/p>\n

Free thought past<\/h2>\n

The term \u201cfreethinker\u201d came into common use during the Enlightenment in late 17th-century Europe, describing people who questioned religious authorities. Today, freethinking typically refers to being guided by evidence and reason, not authority<\/a> \u2013 although this hasn\u2019t stopped people who play fast and loose with evidence appropriating the term too.<\/p>\n

Up against the freethinkers are those who seek to control thought to achieve and cement power. George Orwell\u2019s classic vision of this threat, Nineteen Eighty-Four, actually came out 20 years after Japan\u2019s Peace Preservation Law<\/a> had already termed many people on the political left as \u201cthought criminals\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n