The digital economy treats human attention as a raw material to be mined without limit. However, this extraction produces a specific, harmful byproduct: it breaks our focus, fractures shared reality, and wears down the patience required for moral reasoning. Unlike physical pollution, which damages the air or water, this cognitive waste damages our ability to think. While corporations are increasingly held accountable for their physical footprint through ESG criteria, we ignore the mental damage caused by the product itself. What we are witnessing is the intentional fragmentation and manipulation of citizenry to the point of inability to functionally contribute to democracy. In this paper, I argue that this damage is a hidden cost that must be pro-actively regulated within specifically designed metrics and cognitive impact protocols, specifically expanding Scope 3 regulations to include “Cognitive Emissions.”
To understand why this regulation is necessary, we must look at what is being lost. While the market views attention as a commodity to be sold, ethical philosophy defines it as the foundation of morality. French philosopher Simone Weil argued that “attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity” (Weil 1951, 105); it is the ability to pause one’s own ego to recognize the reality of another person. When digital platforms take over this “Attentional Commons” (Crawford 2015, 12), they do not merely distract us; they dismantle the mental tools, specifically the capacities for self-regulation and deliberation, required to govern ourselves (Crawford 2015, 23). Without the capacity for sustained, coherent thought, the self becomes fragmented, losing the sense of stability required to be a responsible citizen (Giddens 1991, 92).
This fragmentation is not accidental. It is the result of a specific design philosophy that makes apps as tailored and easy to use as possible. Using Daniel Kahneman’s distinction, modern algorithms keep users trapped in “System 1” (fast, instinctive thinking) while bypassing “System 2” (slow, logical thinking) (Kahneman 2011, 20). System 2 governs executive control, a high-metabolic function that relies on cognitive resistance to maintain neural integrity. Neurobiologically, this follows the principle of use-dependent plasticity: neural pathways responsible for complex reasoning strengthen through challenge and degrade through disuse (Mattson 2008, 1). When an algorithm molds users into passive consumption, it removes the necessary friction required to sustain these pathways, leading to a functional degradation of critical thought.
Consequently, this process is invasive. By predicting our desires, algorithms bypass our will, seizing our attention before we can decide where to place it. While Shoshana Zuboff calls this “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff 2019, 8), the mechanism is closer to a slot machine. As Natasha Dow Schüll observes, these interfaces use design loops to induce a trance-like state that overrides conscious choice (Schüll 2012, 166). This is built-in user manipulation. Neuroscience research on “Facebook addiction” confirms that these platforms activate the brain’s impulse systems while suppressing the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning and control (Turel et al. 2014, 685). The result is a depletion of critical thought, creating a population that reacts rather than reflects.
Regulating this harm means looking to the precedent of carbon reporting. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s “Scope 3” covers indirect emissions, including those generated by the use of sold products (WRI/WBCSD 2004, 25). I propose applying this exact reasoning to the digital economy: a tech company must be responsible for the mental effects of product use. They are destructive because they erode the basic cognitive foundations required for a functioning society (Habermas 1989, 27). If a platform’s design creates measurable addiction, radicalization, or a loss of attention span, these are “emissions” that incur a cost to humanity.
To develop sustainable and reliable policies, we require new auditing metrics. We must calculate the speed at which content triggers emotional responses and establish a fragmentation index to measure how often an app interrupts deep work. This is a necessary (albeit complicated) metric given that regaining focus after an interruption takes significant time and energy (Mark 2008, 108). Furthermore, we must assess the deficit of serendipity, determining whether an algorithm narrows a user’s worldview or introduces the necessary friction of new ideas.
Once measured, these emissions can be mitigated through cognitive impact protocols. This includes mandating friction by design to force users to pause and think. For example, when Twitter introduced prompts asking users to read articles before retweeting, “blind” sharing dropped significantly (Twitter Inc. 2020). This proves that simple friction can measurably reduce cognitive waste. Beyond individual features, firms must submit to independent audits to ensure their code promotes agency rather than addiction. Finally, just as carbon sinks absorb physical waste, digital firms should be mandated to fund zones (libraries, parks, and phone-free spaces) where our attention can recover.
It can be argued that introducing friction impedes innovation and destroys value. This view, however, fails to account for the long-term liability of cognitive degradation. A market that incentivizes the depletion of user agency creates a systemic risk to the public. By implementing “Scope 3 Cognitive Emissions,” we operationalize the cost of this damage, forcing platforms to account for the mental impact of their design choices. We are currently operating with a dangerous separation between our technological power and our institutional controls (Wilson 2012, 7). Closing this gap requires a shift, moving away from design that exploits immediate impulse. We must engineer digital environments that protect, rather than degrade, the cognitive autonomy required for a free society.
References
Crawford, Matthew B. 2015. The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an
Age of Distraction. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Mark, Gloria, and Deepti Gudithala. 2008. “The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and
Stress.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
107–110.
Mattson, Mark P. 2008. “Hormesis Defined.” Ageing Research Reviews 7 (1): 1–7.
Pigou, Arthur C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.
Schüll, Natasha Dow. 2012. Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Turel, Ofir, Qinghua He, Gui Xue, Lin Xiao, and Antoine Bechara. 2014. “Examination of Neural
Systems Sub-Serving Facebook ‘Addiction’.” Psychological Reports 115 (3): 675–695.
Twitter Inc. 2020. “Read before you Retweet.” Twitter Blog, September 24.
United Nations Global Compact. 2004. Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a
Changing World. New York: United Nations.
Weil, Simone. 1951. “Reflections on the Right Use of School Studies with a View to the Love of
God.” In Waiting for God, translated by Emma Craufurd, 105–116. New York: Harper & Row.
Wilson, Edward O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright.
World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WRI/WBCSD). 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard, Revised Edition. Washington, DC: WRI/WBCSD.
Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at
the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.
Jessica Cole 