Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
1–10 of 241 posts
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#2>The New York Times once experimented by predicting the moods of readers based on article content to better target ads, enabling marketers to find audiences when they were sad or fearful
Can we maybe go one step back in the discussion and not only discuss what we should do about it, but simply ask does it even work?
There's Zuboff's book about surveillance capitalism that echoes much of what the blog post talks about, that recent netflix documentary that everyone was talking bout and so on, but how much evidence is there that this isn't all just mostly bullshit?
When the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke they used the buzzword 'psychographic targeting'. turns out, psychographic targeting doesn't even really work[1]. A relative recently sent me an article about China allegedly using mind-control helmets to control their thoughts of children attached with a picture of children wearing helmets with blinking lights. I have yet to see a facial emotion detection system that labels Harold[2] of the "Hide The Pain" meme fame as anything other than 'happy'.
I'm more afraid of how bogus all these systems are and the unquestioning power people attribute to tech, which itself enables these firms. It's no wonder they keep inviting Yuval Noah Harari for talks, they must feel flattered.
[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03880-4
[2]https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag...
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#3Interesting question. Interesting too that we've become so self-confident in our machines and our studies that we think to ask it. Seeking to regulate something like the use of psychology, which we understand so little of, seems like an 18th century pirate asking his captain whether they should regulate the ocean. Like no, we only know a minuscule amount of information about it, about the bare surface of it at that - ask me again in 2,000 years.
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#4I keep coming back to my default idea here - that PII needs to be seen as legally owned by me and only licensed to others for use. The default legal framework should include medical / epidemiology research as freely licensed and commercial use as ... well let's just say i think my license conditions will be expensive.
If an advertising channel then shows ads that breach license they are liable. A fairly simple licensing process will come into play and we can find new ways to fund things
Edit: Yes i do get a lot of the issues around regulation of tech - it's almost like saying regulation of every day life which is really broad. And the different bodies and approaches will also need to be broad. But i am a believer in markets and individual decision making and i also believe that personal information has in the past few years become a genuine new ... commodity? And we need to raise that commodity into visibility - to be able to put prices on it openly. Maybe it won't work, maybe privacy is like a human right and can only be dealt with at that level - but i don't think so - privacy to me seems ephemeral and usually poorly defined. Longer discussion to be had
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#5I sometimes ask myself, in 20 years will we begin to see class action lawsuits directed at technology platforms that use notification triggered dopamine releases for growing engagement?
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#6>The New York Times once experimented by predicting the moods of readers based on article content to better target ads, enabling marketers to find audiences when they were sad or fearful Can we maybe go one step back in the discussion and not only discuss what we should do about it, but simply ask does it even work? There's Zuboff's book about surveillance capitalism that echoes much of what the blog post talks about…
I think the article does a good job of showing that current technology has the power to be a lot more persuasive than it ever has been. You could nit-pick on the effectiveness of individual methods but the broader point is clearly evident: technology, and our increasing use of it, has more potential to implement, test and refine new persuasive techniques at a scale never seen before in human history. The evidence for this is obvious.
It stands to reason that we need to draw lines around what appropriate persuasion looks like not because these new techniques are definitely abusing our freedoms but because they might and in theory could. The potential in itself should be enough to treat the role of technology seriously and consider what the boundaries should be.
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#7Interesting question. Interesting too that we've become so self-confident in our machines and our studies that we think to ask it. Seeking to regulate something like the use of psychology, which we understand so little of, seems like an 18th century pirate asking his captain whether they should regulate the ocean. Like no, we only know a minuscule amount of information about it, about the bare surface of it at that -…
I don't understand what this argument is.
I think the FDA was approving medicines long before the precise molecular mechanisms were known. Even with unknowns you can still study outcomes and legislate around them. Instead you seem to propose "oh we don't know enough, so we should just let it run wild".
I do agree that sensible legislation around this is hard to impossible to do. I'd rather see some more research into the effects funded before jumping directly into legislation.
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#8>The New York Times once experimented by predicting the moods of readers based on article content to better target ads, enabling marketers to find audiences when they were sad or fearful Can we maybe go one step back in the discussion and not only discuss what we should do about it, but simply ask does it even work? There's Zuboff's book about surveillance capitalism that echoes much of what the blog post talks about…
> I'm more afraid of how bogus all these systems are and the unquestioning power people attribute to tech
They say sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, but in the day to day business world it manifests more like "Technology I haven't bothered to actually understand is indistinguishable from magic". And everybody loves magic!
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#9>The New York Times once experimented by predicting the moods of readers based on article content to better target ads, enabling marketers to find audiences when they were sad or fearful Can we maybe go one step back in the discussion and not only discuss what we should do about it, but simply ask does it even work? There's Zuboff's book about surveillance capitalism that echoes much of what the blog post talks about…
I think the article does a good job of showing that current technology has the power to be a lot more persuasive than it ever has been. You could nit-pick on the effectiveness of individual methods but the broader point is clearly evident: technology, and our increasing use of it, has more potential to implement, test and refine new persuasive techniques at a scale never seen before in human history. The evidence for…
My point is that I think this kind of thinking is disempowering and counterproductive. By framing technology companies as all powerful, even if that's possibly inaccurate and overblown, tech supremacy becomes inevitable in the eyes of people who see it as lacking any alternatives. ("If they can predict me this well, they must know better, right?")
I think this is why Silicon Valley loves to invite their critics who argue along these lines. This criticism doesn't deflect their own notion of supremacy, it just makes them look like bond villains, and they secretly love it.
Showing that in many cases the emperor has no clothes, that complex human behaviour can't be reduced to some ML and that in many ways it's embarrassing self-aggrandizing marketing is I think, the much better way to reign in these firms.
Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?
#10Highly interesting topic, I am currently planning to write my thesis about persuasive technology. If anyone has articles/ ideas/ stories/ books or papers to share I would highly appreciate it!
I thought about researching how humans react to persuasive technology and start self regulating by installing adblocker/deleting apps...
I am all ears if there are other interesting questions you might think of :)