Artificial intelligence (AI) is (re)shaping communication and contributes to (commercial and informational) need satisfaction by means of mass personalization. However, the substantial personalization and targeting opportunities do not come without ethical challenges. Following an AI-for-social-good perspective, the authors systematically scrutinize the ethical challenges of deploying AI for mass personalization of communication content from a multi-stakeholder perspective. The conceptual analysis reveals interdependencies and tensions between ethical principles, which advocate the need of a basic understanding of AI inputs, functioning, agency, and outcomes. By this form of AI literacy, individuals could be empowered to interact with and treat mass-personalized content in a way that promotes individual and social good while preventing harm.
AnannyMCrawfordK (2018) Seeing without knowing: limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. new media & society20(3): 973–989.
2.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
3.
BankerSKhetaniS (2019) Algorithm overdependence: how the use of algorithmic recommendation systems can increase risks to consumer well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing38(4): 500–515.
4.
Barredo ArrietaADíaz-RodríguezNDel SerJ, et al. (2020) Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion58: 82–115.
5.
BaruhLPopescuM (2017) Big data analytics and the limits of privacy self-management. new media & society19(4): 579–596.
6.
BatmazZYurekliABilgeA, et al. (2019) A review on deep learning for recommender systems: challenges and remedies. Artificial Intelligence Review52(1): 1–37.
7.
BenigerJR (1987) Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community. Communication Research14(3): 352–371.
8.
BermanRKatonaZ (2020) Curation algorithms and filter bubbles in social networks. Marketing Science39(2): 296–316.
9.
BodóB (2019) Selling news to audiences—A qualitative inquiry into the emerging logics of algorithmic news personalization in European quality news media. Digital Journalism7(8): 1054–1075.
10.
BodóBHelbergerNEskensS, et al. (2019) Interested in diversity: the role of user attitudes, algorithmic feedback loops, and policy in news personalization. Digital Journalism7(2): 206–229.
11.
BolNStrycharzJHelbergerN, et al. (2020) Vulnerability in a tracked society: combining tracking and survey data to understand who gets targeted with what content. new media & society22(11): 1996–2017.
12.
BozdagE (2013) Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology15(3): 209–227.
13.
BozdagEvan den HoevenJ (2015) Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology17(4): 249–265.
14.
BreyPAE (2000) Method in computer ethics: towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics and Information Technology2(2): 125–129.
15.
BreyPAE (2012) Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology14(4): 267–284.
16.
CappellaJN (2017) Vectors into the future of mass and interpersonal communication research: Big data, social media, and computational social science. Human Communication Research43(4): 545–558.
17.
CathC (2018) Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A376(2133): 20180080.
18.
ChoiJRStraubhaarJSkourasM, et al. (2020) Techno-capital: theorizing media and information literacy through information technology capabilities. new media & society. Epub ahead of print 27 May 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820925800.
19.
CloarecJ (2020) The personalization–privacy paradox in the attention economy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change161: 120299.
20.
CowlsJTsamadosATaddeoM, et al. (2021) A definition, benchmark and database of AI for social good initiatives. Nature Machine Intelligence3(2): 111–115.
21.
D’AcquistoG (2020) On conflicts between ethical and logical principles in artificial intelligence. AI & Society35(4): 895–900.
22.
DattaATschantzMCDattaA (2015) Automated experiments on ad privacy settings: a tale of opacity, choice, and discrimination. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies1: 92–112.
23.
DylkoIDolgovIHoffmanW, et al. (2017) The dark side of technology: an experimental investigation of the influence of customizability technology on online political selective exposure. Computers in Human Behavior73: 181–190.
24.
FlaxmanSGoelSRaoJM (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly80(S1): 298–320.
25.
FletcherRNielsenRK (2018) Automated serendipity. Digital Journalism6: 8976–8989.
26.
FloridiL (2016) Tolerant paternalism: pro-ethical design as a resolution of the dilemma of toleration. Science and Engineering Ethics22(6): 1669–1688.
27.
FloridiL (2019) Establishing the rules for building trustworthy AI. Nature Machine Intelligence1(6): 261–262.
28.
FloridiLCowlsJBeltramettiM, et al. (2018) AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines28(4): 689–707.
29.
FloridiLCowlsJKingTC, et al. (2020) How to design AI for social good: seven essential factors. Science and Engineering Ethics26(3): 1771–1796.
30.
FordHHutchinsonJ (2019) Newsbots that mediate journalist and audience relationships. Digital Journalism7(8): 1013–1031.
31.
GerlitzCHelmondA (2013) The like economy: social buttons and the data-intensive web. new media & society15(8): 1348–1365.
32.
GunkelDJ (2012) Communication and artificial intelligence: opportunities and challenges for the 21st century. Communication+11(1): 1.
33.
GuzmanAL (2019) Prioritizing the audience’s view of automation in journalism. Digital Journalism7(8): 1185–1190.
34.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. new media & society22(1): 70–86.
35.
HagendorffT (2020) The ethics of AI ethics: an evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines30(1): 99–120.
36.
HaimMGraefeABrosiusHB (2018) Burst of the filter bubble? Effects of personalization on the diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism6(3): 330–343.
37.
HancockJTNaamanMLevyK (2020) AI-mediated communication: definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 89–100.
38.
HarariGMLaneNDWangR, et al. (2016) Using smartphones to collect behavioral data in psychological science: opportunities, practical considerations, and challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science11(6): 838–854.
39.
HelbergerN (2019) On the democratic role of news recommenders. Digital Journalism7(8): 993–1012.
40.
HelbergerNKarppinenKD’AcuntoL (2018) Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society21: 2191–2207.
41.
HillRK (2016) What an algorithm is. Philosophy & Technology29(1): 35–59.
Ishowo-OlokoFBonnefonJFSoroyeZ, et al. (2019) Behavioural evidence for a transparency–efficiency tradeoff in human–machine cooperation. Nature Machine Intelligence1(11): 517–521.
44.
JobinAIencaMVayenaE (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence1(9): 389–399.
45.
JustNLatzerM (2017) Governance by algorithms: reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society39(2): 238–258.
46.
KalyanaramanSSundarSS (2006) The psychological appeal of personalized content in web portals: does customization affect attitudes and behavior?Journal of Communication56(1): 110–132.
47.
KangHSundarSS (2016) When self is the source: effects of media customization on message processing. Media Psychology19(4): 561–588.
48.
KaplanAHaenleinM (2019) Siri, Siri, in my hand: who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons62(1): 15–25.
49.
KitchinR (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20(1): 14–29.
50.
KleinbergJLudwigJMullainathanS, et al. (2020) Algorithms as discrimination detectors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science117(48): 30096–30100.
51.
KönigRUphuesSVogtV, et al. (2020) The tracked society: interdisciplinary approaches on online tracking. new media & society22(11): 1945–1956.
52.
KotkovDWangSVeijalainenJ (2016) A survey of serendipity in recommender systems. Knowledge-Based Systems111: 180–192.
53.
KotrasB (2020) Mass personalization: predictive marketing algorithms and the reshaping of consumer knowledge. Big Data & Society7(2): 1–14.
54.
KunertJThurmanN (2019) The form of content personalization at mainstream, transatlantic news outlets: 2010–2016. Journalism Practice13(7): 759–780.
55.
LazerD (2015) The rise of the social algorithm. Science348(6239): 1090–1091.
56.
LeeDHosaganarK (2019) How do recommender systems affect sales diversity? A cross-category investigation via randomized field experiment. Information Systems Research30(1): 239–259.
57.
LepriBOliverNLetouzéE, et al. (2018) Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. The premise, the proposed solutions, and the open challenges. Philosophy & Technology31(4): 611–627.
58.
LevyR (2021) Social media, news consumption, and polarization: evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Review111(3): 831–870.
59.
LewisSCGuzmanALSchmidtTR (2019) Automation, journalism, and human–machine communication: rethinking roles and relationships of humans and machines in news. Digital Journalism7(4): 409–427.
60.
LokotTDiakopoulosN (2016) News bots: automating news and information dissemination on Twitter. Digital Journalism4: 6682–6699.
61.
Luengo-OrozM (2019) Solidarity should be a core ethical principle of AI. Nature Machine Intelligence1(11): 494.
62.
LuryCDayS (2019) Algorithmic personalization as a mode of individuation. Theory, Culture & Society36(2): 17–37.
63.
McLennanSFiskeACeliLA, et al. (2020) An embedded ethics approach for AI development. Nature Machine Intelligence2(9): 488–490.
64.
MartinK (2019) Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics160(4): 835–850.
65.
MatzSCNetzerO (2017) Using big data as a window into consumers’ psychology. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences18: 7–12.
66.
MatzSCAppelREKosinskiM (2019a) Privacy in the age of psychological targeting. Current Opinion in Psychology31: 116–121.
67.
MatzSCKosinskiMNaveG, et al. (2017) Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science114(48): 12714–12719.
68.
MatzSCSegalinCStillwellDJ, et al. (2019b) Using computational methods to predict personal image appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology29(3): 370–390.
69.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
70.
MilanoSTaddeoMFloridiL (2020) Recommender systems and their ethical challenges. AI & Society35(4): 957–967.
71.
MilanoSTaddeoMFloridiL (2021) Ethical aspects of multi-stakeholder recommendation systems. The Information Society37(1): 35–45.
72.
MilosavljevićMVobičI (2019) Human still in the loop. Digital Journalism7: 81098–81116.
MittelstadtBDAlloPTaddeoM, et al. (2016) The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data & Society3(2): 1–21.
75.
MöllerJTrillingDHelbergerN, et al. (2018) Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. Information, Communication & Society21(7): 959–977.
76.
MoorJH (1985) What is computer ethics?Metaphilosophy16(4): 266–275.
77.
MoorJH (2005) Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology7(3): 111–119.
78.
MorleyJFloridiLKinseyL, et al. (2020) From what to how: an initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and Engineering Ethics26(4): 2141–2168.
79.
NechushtaiELewisSC (2019) What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior90: 298–307.
80.
O’SullivanPBCarrCT (2018) Masspersonal communication: a model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. new media & society20(3): 1161–1180.
81.
PotterWJ (2010) The state of media literacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media54: 4675–4696.
82.
ReviglioU (2019) Serendipity as an emerging design principle of the infosphere: challenges and opportunities. Ethics and Information Technology21(2): 151–166.
83.
RichASGureckisTM (2019) Lessons for artificial intelligence from the study of natural stupidity. Nature Machine Intelligence1(4): 174–180.
84.
RoyakkersLTimmerJKoolL, et al. (2018) Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology20(2): 127–142.
85.
RudinC (2019) Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence1(5): 206–215.
86.
RyanM (2020) In AI we trust: ethics, artificial intelligence, and reliability. Science and Engineering Ethics26(5): 2749–2767.
87.
SamuelAL (1960) Some moral and technical consequences of automation—A refutation. Science132(3429): 741–742.
88.
ScharkowMMangoldFStierS, et al. (2020) How social network sites and other online intermediaries increase exposure to news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science117(6): 2761–2763.
89.
SchwartzSAMahnkeMS (2021) Facebook use as a communicative relation: exploring the relation between Facebook users and the algorithmic news feed. Information, Communication & Society24(7): 1041–1056.
90.
SelbstADPowlesJ (2017) Meaningful information and the right to explanation. International Data Privacy Law7(4): 233–242.
91.
SingerJB (2014) User-generated visibility: secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. new media & society16(1): 55–73.
92.
SofferO (2019) Algorithmic personalization and the two-step flow of communication. Communication Theory2019: qtz008.
93.
StachlCAuQSchoedelR, et al. (2020a) Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science117(30): 17680–17687.
94.
StachlCPargentFHilbertS (2020b) Personality research and assessment in the era of machine learning. European Journal of Personality34(5): 613–631.
95.
StahlBCAndreouABreyP, et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence for human flourishing—Beyond principles for machine learning. Journal of Business Research124: 374–388.
96.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
97.
SundarSS (2020) Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 74–88.
98.
SundarSSMaratheSS (2010) Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research36(3): 298–322.
99.
SunsteinCR (2016) The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
100.
TaddeoMFloridiL (2018) How AI can be a force for good. Science361(6404): 751–752.
101.
TheodorouADignumV (2020) Towards ethical and socio-legal governance in AI. Nature Machine Intelligence2(1): 10–12.
102.
ThiebesSLinsSSunyaeA (2020) Trustworthy artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets. Epub ahead of print 1 October 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s12525-020-00441-4.
103.
ThurmanNSchifferesS (2012) The future of personalization at news websites. Journalism Studies13(5-6): 775–790.
104.
ThurmanNLewisSCKunertJ (2019a) Algorithms, automation, and news. Digital Journalism7(8): 980–992.
105.
ThurmanNMoellerJHelbergerN, et al. (2019b) My Friends, editors, algorithms, and I. Digital Journalism7(4): 447–469.
106.
TurilliMFloridiL (2009) The ethics of information transparency. Ethics and Information Technology11(2): 105–112.
107.
TurowJCouldryN (2018) Media as data extraction: towards a new map of a transformed communications field. Journal of Communication68(2): 415–423.
108.
VamplewPDazeleyRFoaleC, et al. (2018) Human-aligned artificial intelligence is a multiobjective problem. Ethics and Information Technology20(1): 27–40.
109.
WienerN (1960) Some moral and technical consequences of automation. Science131(3410): 1355–1358.
WinterSMaslowskaEVosAL (2021) The effects of trait-based personalization in social media advertising. Computers in Human Behavior114: 106525.
112.
WrightD (2011) A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology13(3): 199–226.
113.
ZaroualiBDobberTDe PauwG, et al. (2020) Using a personality-profiling algorithm to investigate political microtargeting: assessing the persuasion effects of personality-tailored ads on social media. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 20 October 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0093650220961965.
114.
Zuiderveen BorgesiusFJTrillingDMöllerJ, et al. (2016) Should we worry about filter bubbles?Internet Policy Review5(1): 1–16.
