Abstract
One central principle often derived from the right to freedom of thought (RFoT) is that persons' inner thoughts shall not be impermissibly altered. Since a clear definition of 'impermissible alteration' of thought is lacking, the meaning and scope of this principle are largely uncertain. Scholars are now exploring how to operationalise the notion of 'impermissible alteration' of thought. For this, some have appealed to the concept of 'manipulation', proposing that mind interventions plausibly infringe the RFoT if they are manipulative. This paper argues that the appeal to manipulation is unpersuasive. It explores the potential of the distinct notion of exploitation, which is, unlike manipulation, an international legal concept that underpins absolute prohibitions in human rights law.