Surveillance Capitalism in Mental Health: When Good Apps Go Rogue (and What Can Be Done about It)

IF 1.7 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Nicole Gross, David Mothersill
{"title":"Surveillance Capitalism in Mental Health: When Good Apps Go Rogue (and What Can Be Done about It)","authors":"Nicole Gross, David Mothersill","doi":"10.3390/socsci12120679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research shows that a large proportion of the world’s population has experience with mental health difficulties, and reliable as well as scalable care is urgently needed. Digital mental health seems to be an obvious solution to provide the better delivery of care but also the delivery of better care. With an imagined future of real-time information sharing, improved diagnosis and monitoring of mental health conditions, and remote care, supported by advances in artificial intelligence, many tech companies have emerged over the last three decades to plug the treatment gap and provide services. The evidence base seems compelling: some online treatments have the capability to treat individuals quite successfully. However, the introduction, utilisation, and expansion of digital mental health technologies have not always focused on public health only. Using a surveillance capitalism perspective, this paper approaches the democratisation–privatisation dichotomy in digital mental health with a critical lens. In particular, the paper details how (commercially valuable) mental health data are extracted, “shared”, and claimed as an asset by big tech companies. Reviewing the terms, conditions, and practices of ten popular mental health apps, the paper polemically argues that mental digital health cannot unlock real value for society—better treatment, good quality care, and efficient delivery—if power, politics, and profits remain in the hands of big tech companies. To conclude, the paper draws attention to contemporary discourses that seek to promote democracy and public value for digital mental health apps, technologies, and solutions.","PeriodicalId":37714,"journal":{"name":"Social Sciences","volume":"96 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research shows that a large proportion of the world’s population has experience with mental health difficulties, and reliable as well as scalable care is urgently needed. Digital mental health seems to be an obvious solution to provide the better delivery of care but also the delivery of better care. With an imagined future of real-time information sharing, improved diagnosis and monitoring of mental health conditions, and remote care, supported by advances in artificial intelligence, many tech companies have emerged over the last three decades to plug the treatment gap and provide services. The evidence base seems compelling: some online treatments have the capability to treat individuals quite successfully. However, the introduction, utilisation, and expansion of digital mental health technologies have not always focused on public health only. Using a surveillance capitalism perspective, this paper approaches the democratisation–privatisation dichotomy in digital mental health with a critical lens. In particular, the paper details how (commercially valuable) mental health data are extracted, “shared”, and claimed as an asset by big tech companies. Reviewing the terms, conditions, and practices of ten popular mental health apps, the paper polemically argues that mental digital health cannot unlock real value for society—better treatment, good quality care, and efficient delivery—if power, politics, and profits remain in the hands of big tech companies. To conclude, the paper draws attention to contemporary discourses that seek to promote democracy and public value for digital mental health apps, technologies, and solutions.
心理健康中的监控资本主义:当好的应用程序变得不可靠时(以及可以采取的措施)
研究表明,世界上很大一部分人都有心理健康方面的困难,因此迫切需要可靠和可扩展的医疗服务。数字心理健康似乎是一个显而易见的解决方案,不仅能更好地提供医疗服务,还能提供更好的医疗服务。在人工智能进步的支持下,人们对实时信息共享、改善精神健康状况的诊断和监测以及远程护理的未来充满想象,在过去的三十年里,许多科技公司纷纷涌现,以填补治疗缺口并提供服务。证据基础似乎令人信服:一些在线治疗方法有能力对个人进行相当成功的治疗。然而,数字心理健康技术的引入、利用和扩展并不总是只关注公共健康。本文从监控资本主义的视角出发,以批判性的视角探讨了数字心理健康领域民主化与私有化的二元对立。特别是,本文详细介绍了(具有商业价值的)心理健康数据是如何被提取、"共享 "并被大型科技公司宣称为资产的。通过审查十款流行的心理健康应用程序的条款、条件和实践,本文论证了如果权力、政治和利润仍然掌握在大型科技公司手中,心理数字健康就无法为社会带来真正的价值--更好的治疗、优质的护理和高效的交付。最后,本文提请人们注意当代的一些论述,这些论述旨在促进数字心理健康应用程序、技术和解决方案的民主和公共价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Sciences
Social Sciences Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
494
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760) is an international, peer-reviewed, quick-refereeing open access journal published online monthly by MDPI. The journal seeks to appeal to an interdisciplinary audience and authorship which focuses upon real world research. It attracts papers from a wide range of fields, including anthropology, criminology, geography, history, political science, psychology, social policy, social work, sociology, and more. With its efficient and qualified double-blind peer review process, Social Sciences aims to present the newest relevant and emerging scholarship in the field to both academia and the broader public alike, thereby maintaining its place as a dynamic platform for engaging in social sciences research and academic debate. Subject Areas: Anthropology, Criminology, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Political science, Psychology, Social policy, Social work, Sociology, Other related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信