On Kant’s categorical imperative as applied to social media companies and search engines

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a highly influential German philosopher most known for an idea called the categorical imperative first published in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). 

Categorical Imperative: Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law otherwise -- familiar to many people as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Here is an example from Wikipedia:

Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. In the Groundwork, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty). With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. In each case, the proposed action becomes inconceivable in a world where the maxim exists as law. In a world where no one would lend money, seeking to borrow money in the manner originally imagined is inconceivable. In a world where no one trusts one another, the same is true about manipulative lies. - Wikipedia based on Kant in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Technology companies are primarily driven by the same motivation as most capitalist institutions: maximize shareholder value. This principle has nothing to do with, and is often at odds, with the categorical imperative.

Fictional Tech Imperative: Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should not become a universal law and one will be able to extract maximum profit

But what if technology companies and the boards, management teams, and individual contributors adhered to the categorical imperative?

Here are three examples:

1. Push notifications would be relevant and useful, not interruptive and self-interested.
   
   Push notifications are used to maximize profit, not maximize well-being. These are sent by GrubHub to get you to order takeout food (instead of cooking), Twitter to look at the latest remotely-relevant tweet (instead of listening to your kid talk about their day), and Instagram to alert you of a new follower (a bot, but who cares).
   
   The question would transform from “Should we build a notification system to increase our orders / views / app-opens?” to “Should every company send as many notifications as possible to maximize its own profit?”
   
   The decision would be different. It would go from “Yes” to “No”. The outcome would be better for society.
   

2. Algorithms and feed design would prioritize well-being, knowledge, and personal growth.
   
   Algorithms are used to maximize profit, not maximize well-being. These are leveraged by Facebook to get you to engage with posts more (whether it’s out of outrage or genuine interest), YouTube to get you to watch as many videos as possible for as long as possible (whether it’s healthy for you or not), and Google to get you to click on as many ads as possible (whether that result is best for you or it’s buried below the fold / list of ads).
   
   The question would transform from “Should we optimize the algorithm for engagement?” to “Should every company create algorithms that maximize engagement at the expense of all other human behavior?”
   
   The decision would be different. It would go from “Yes” to “No”. The outcome would be better for society.
   

3. Content published would seek to promote well-being rather than self-promotion.

Technology companies and individuals using technology platforms publish content seeking to maximize profit and self-interest, not maximize well-being of the collective. Tweets are published to attract retweets and likes to reach more people and posts are shared to Linkedin to drive more consumption of “content marketing” which in truth is fundamentally an advertisement that is free because it is not overt.

The question would transform from “Should we publish this content to drive more views and sales?” to “Should every organization and individual with something to sell publish ads disguised as trojan horses of content?”

The decision would be different. It would go from “Yes” to “No”. The outcome would be better for society.

---

The unfortunate reality is that companies do not think based on the categorical imperative - not even as an input - let alone as a guiding framework. As a result, each company operates in a silo whereas humans live among those silos. While organizations think as isolated entities, humans experience the world as a collective exposed to all silos.

The categorical imperative is a more accurate reflection of reality. It understands that a behavior taken by an individual will be adopted by the collective if it provides any advantage to the individual or organization that participates. As a result, those who ignore the categorical imperative ignore the effects of their own actions when inevitably multiplied. 

As soon as a specific strategy or tactic works effectively - like push notifications, algorithmic feeds, and effective content marketing - it becomes co-opted by others, with a diminishing but never-zero benefit to the originator and growing, immeasurable cost to society.

What if consumers expected companies to adhere to this standard? What if companies considered it - the same way humans who work for those companies consider it as a basic premise of moral existence?

Sources:

Immanuel Kant. https://www.amazon.com/Kant-Groundwork-Metaphysics-Cambridge-Philosophy/dp/1107401062

The School of Life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsgAsw4XGvU

Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals

Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant