Algorithmic manipulation and mental self-determination: Operationalizing freedom of thought as a neuroright

The human mind has long been considered a private sanctuary, a place where thoughts form in silence, free from outside interference. For decades, international law has protected this inner space, known as the forum internum, as an absolute right that no government or technology can violate. This protection was originally designed to stop people from being forced to change their beliefs or punished for what they think. However, a new kind of threat has emerged that does not require wires, implants, or direct access to the brain. Instead, it comes from the everyday algorithms that power social media, news feeds, and online shopping. These systems do not read our minds directly; they watch our behavior, learn our habits, and subtly arrange the world around us to guide our choices. The danger is that we often feel we are making our own decisions, even when those decisions have been carefully engineered by a computer program to exploit our weaknesses.

Two researchers from Hanoi Law University, Thi Long Nguyen and Ngoc Hiep Tran, have examined whether our existing laws are strong enough to stop this invisible influence. They argue that current rules, which focus on protecting personal data or regulating specific types of artificial intelligence, miss the real problem. The issue is not just about who sees our information, but about how our ability to think for ourselves is being quietly reshaped. The authors propose that we need to understand "mental self-determination" not as a brand-new right, but as a modern application of the ancient right to freedom of thought. They suggest a clear set of conditions to distinguish between normal persuasion and illegal manipulation, offering a way to protect the integrity of our thinking in a digital age where the most powerful tools never touch our brains at all.

The researchers began by looking at the gap in current legal protections. They found that laws like the European Union's AI Act and data privacy regulations are not designed to catch the specific harm caused by algorithmic manipulation. The AI Act, for instance, bans systems that use hidden techniques to distort behavior, but it requires proof that a company intended to manipulate and that the result caused significant, tangible harm. This is a high bar that many everyday algorithms easily clear. These systems are often designed to maximize engagement or sales, not to explicitly trick people, and their effects are usually a slow, gradual shift in how we see the world rather than a single, dramatic mistake. Similarly, data protection laws focus on the collection and storage of information. They ask if we consented to our data being used, but they do not ask if the way that data is used is secretly steering our thoughts. The authors argue that this leaves a structural hole in the law: a system could follow all the rules for data privacy and AI safety while still effectively hijacking the process by which a person forms a judgment.

To understand how this happens, the authors describe a process that starts long before a user sees a specific post or ad. The system first builds a detailed model of the user, learning their emotional triggers, their moments of weakness, and what captures their attention. This creates a massive imbalance of knowledge: the computer knows the user's vulnerabilities better than the user knows themselves. The system then uses this knowledge to shape the environment in which choices are made. It might show certain news stories at a time when the user is tired, or present options in a specific order that makes one choice seem more natural than it really is. The result is a form of influence that feels like a personal preference. The user still feels like they are the author of their own decisions, but the path they took to get there was secretly paved by an algorithm. This is different from coercion, which forces a choice, or persuasion, which offers reasons to be weighed. It is a hidden steering of the mind that bypasses conscious reflection.

The paper argues that to fix this, we must look at the right to freedom of thought not just as a shield against brain implants, but as a shield against any technology that disrupts the formation of thought. The authors propose a specific test to decide when an algorithm crosses the line from acceptable influence to unlawful manipulation. They suggest that a practice is only illegal if it meets four conditions at the same time. First, the method of influence must be hidden from the user; if the user knows they are being targeted, it is not manipulation. Second, there must be a deep imbalance of knowledge, where the system knows the user's weaknesses in a way the user cannot see. Third, the system must exploit a specific vulnerability, such as an emotional state or a cognitive blind spot, rather than appealing to the user's ability to reason. Finally, the influence must change the very process of how the user reaches a decision, not just the options available to them.

This framework draws on a recent legal case in Chile, where the country became the first to grant constitutional rights to brain activity. In that case, a court ruled that a company violated a senator's rights by collecting his brain data without proper consent. The authors note that while this was a victory for neurorights, it was limited to situations where data was taken directly from the brain. Their work extends this logic to the digital world, arguing that the same protection should apply even when no physical data is taken from the mind. If the goal of the law is to protect the integrity of our thinking, it should not matter whether the interference comes from a wire in the skull or a cleverly designed app on a screen. The harm is the same: the erosion of the ability to form one's own beliefs.

The researchers acknowledge that applying these ideas will not be easy. Proving that a specific algorithm caused a specific change in a person's mind is difficult, as these effects are often subtle and cumulative. They also warn that the new test must be applied carefully by courts to ensure it does not accidentally ban all forms of advertising or recommendation. However, they conclude that without a clear standard for what constitutes mental self-determination, the law will remain blind to the most pervasive threats to our autonomy. By defining manipulation through these four factors, the authors offer a way to protect the inner sanctum of the human mind, ensuring that our thoughts remain our own, even in a world where the environment around us is constantly being optimized to change them.