A/76/380 for alteration, removal or transferral of one’s memories by using light to control individual neurons. 64 34. Consuming psychoactive substances could also modify one’s brain chemistry and structures, causing some scholars and advocates to argue that forcibly administrating such substances may violate freedom of thought. (c) Manipulation 35. A growing body of legal scholarship supports the claim that freedom of thought includes freedom from manipulation. While modification bypasses psychological processes to directly alter biological function, manipulation engages and controls psychological processes. Some scholars define manipulation of thought as “interference with the processes of understanding” to induce the formation of “biased mental models […], knowledge and ideologies”, or a form of “cognitive mind control”. 65 Stakeholders point to power differentials as a key factor in establishing and wielding manipulative control over a person’s thoughts. 66 From their perspective, in certain situations where an “influencer” exploits power asymmetries vis -à-vis a “victim” to alter their thoughts, this may violate the latter’s freedom of thought. 36. Legal scholars contend that mental influences, which involve “conscious and uncoerced processes” such as persuasion, are prima facie but not necessarily legitimate. 67 Case-by-case assessments of whether certain practices impermissibly manipulate one’s thoughts could consider, among other factors: (a) Consent. Did the rights holder, whether explicitly or tacitly and where they have capacity to do so, consent to the practice? Was that consent free and informed? (b) Concealment or obfuscation. Would a “reasonable person” be aware of the intended influence? For example, if the content is an advert or government campaign, is it clearly attributable, labelled or otherwise evident as such? During content curation or moderation, is the user clearly notified when and why certain content was removed or displayed? (c) Asymmetrical power. Is there an imbalance of power between the influencer and the rights holder? Does the influencer exercise t his power to promote a certain narrative to the exclusion of others? Is this done in a limited, transparent and consistent manner, which the recipient can readily change or appeal? (d) Harm. Some commentators point to “harm” in intent or effect to distinguish permissible “influence” from impermissible “manipulation”. However, others contend that it is not always necessary to prove “harm” to establish the latter. Rather, it is an aggravating factor. If the influence undermines one’s rational decision making, it may impair freedom of thought even if the desired result is a commonly held good. 37. These factors are non-exhaustive and may change in relative importance depending on the specific case, especially where members of certain groups typically receive extra protections for thought processes, such as persons with mental disabilities or children, given their evolving capacities. For example, one may prioritize the consideration of “power imbalances” for digital content filtering that __________________ 64 65 66 67 21-14191 See https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-020-00377-1, pp. 209–212. See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0957926506060250 , p. 1. See https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/5a54c92c-2b7c-3deb-8ea7-0d71b3c886b5, p. 138. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257695713_Crimes_Against_Minds_On_Mental_ Manipulations_Harms_and_a_Human_Right_to_Mental_Self-Determination, p. 368. 11/28