Social Listening and its Issues: What can the Precautionary Principle Advice?

IF 1.1 Q3 ETHICS
Hai Thanh Doan
{"title":"Social Listening and its Issues: What can the Precautionary Principle Advice?","authors":"Hai Thanh Doan","doi":"10.1007/s41649-025-00369-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently initiated “social listening”. The first section of this paper investigates conceptual aspects of social listening. It demonstrates that the WHO’s descriptions of social listening are vague and inconsistent. Notwithstanding this, <i>possibly</i>, the WHO-envisaged social listening is constituted by three core components: (i) listening and monitoring, (ii) understanding, and (iii) engaging and nudging. It follows that there is an inherent relatedness between WHO-envisaged social listening and other “social-listening” activities. It follows that to investigate issues of or related to social listening, the inquiry should be broadened to general practices of “social listening”, and experiences related to these must be considered. In the second section, this paper finds several issues with or related to social listening, including bad faith uses, the difficulty of identifying misinformation and punishing it, the echo chambers problem, issues concerning nudging, concerns about policy preset position, concerns for the management and prioritization of resources, and concerns about overlapping between social listening activities. Thus, social listening should be subject to certain rules. In the third section, this paper argues that social listening should be subject to the precautionary principle. Doan, Nie, and Fenton projected that the central teleology, the purpose, and the modus operandi of the precautionary principle could be identified in various policy and legal instruments and propositions, accordingly, the precautionary principle entails, <i>inter alia</i>, proactive preparation for public health matters, specifically emergencies, and assessment, e.g. risk–benefit analysis, taking into account uncertainty and past experiences. They showed the normative validity and necessity of applying the precautionary principle in its “<i>moderate versions</i>” to public health matters. It follows from this and the rationale underlying and the range of rules of the precautionary principle that the precautionary principle can offer some insights, solutions, and mechanisms to remedy issues posed by or related to social listening.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"17 3","pages":"401 - 423"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12304371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-025-00369-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently initiated “social listening”. The first section of this paper investigates conceptual aspects of social listening. It demonstrates that the WHO’s descriptions of social listening are vague and inconsistent. Notwithstanding this, possibly, the WHO-envisaged social listening is constituted by three core components: (i) listening and monitoring, (ii) understanding, and (iii) engaging and nudging. It follows that there is an inherent relatedness between WHO-envisaged social listening and other “social-listening” activities. It follows that to investigate issues of or related to social listening, the inquiry should be broadened to general practices of “social listening”, and experiences related to these must be considered. In the second section, this paper finds several issues with or related to social listening, including bad faith uses, the difficulty of identifying misinformation and punishing it, the echo chambers problem, issues concerning nudging, concerns about policy preset position, concerns for the management and prioritization of resources, and concerns about overlapping between social listening activities. Thus, social listening should be subject to certain rules. In the third section, this paper argues that social listening should be subject to the precautionary principle. Doan, Nie, and Fenton projected that the central teleology, the purpose, and the modus operandi of the precautionary principle could be identified in various policy and legal instruments and propositions, accordingly, the precautionary principle entails, inter alia, proactive preparation for public health matters, specifically emergencies, and assessment, e.g. risk–benefit analysis, taking into account uncertainty and past experiences. They showed the normative validity and necessity of applying the precautionary principle in its “moderate versions” to public health matters. It follows from this and the rationale underlying and the range of rules of the precautionary principle that the precautionary principle can offer some insights, solutions, and mechanisms to remedy issues posed by or related to social listening.

社会倾听及其问题:预防原则能提供什么建议?
世界卫生组织(卫生组织)最近发起了“社会倾听”。本文的第一部分探讨了社会倾听的概念方面。这表明世界卫生组织对社交倾听的描述是模糊和不一致的。尽管如此,世卫组织设想的社会倾听可能由三个核心部分组成:(i)倾听和监测,(ii)理解,以及(iii)参与和推动。因此,世卫组织设想的社会倾听与其他“社会倾听”活动之间存在内在联系。因此,为了调查社会倾听的问题或与之相关的问题,调查应扩大到“社会倾听”的一般做法,并必须考虑到与这些有关的经验。在第二部分,本文发现了与社交倾听相关的几个问题,包括恶意使用、识别和惩罚错误信息的困难、回声室问题、助推问题、对政策预设立场的担忧、对资源管理和优先排序的担忧,以及对社交倾听活动之间重叠的担忧。因此,社交倾听应该遵循一定的规则。在第三部分,本文认为社会倾听应遵循预防原则。Doan、Nie和Fenton预计,预防原则的中心目的论、目的和操作方法可以在各种政策和法律文书和主张中确定,因此,预防原则特别需要对公共卫生问题,特别是紧急情况,以及评估,例如风险-效益分析,考虑到不确定性和过去的经验。它们表明了在公共卫生问题上应用“适度版本”的预防原则的规范性有效性和必要性。从预防原则的基本原理和规则范围出发,预防原则可以提供一些见解、解决方案和机制,以纠正由社会倾听引起的或与之相关的问题。
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信