Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 241 posts

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#51

Post by agent008t »

lordnacho wrote: post #26

I wrote this for a related article yesterday: --- If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("…

I suppose there are both philosophical and pragmatic reasons for the current situation:

1. Philosophical - you don't want to get the threat of physical force involved unless there is a very very good reason for doing so. That is, you don't want to make things illegal. So we forbid outright lying and fraud, openly misleading customers, but allow things that you describe. If you have a private online platform, why should you not be allowed to or be compelled to moderate its content? Yes, tech companies will try to maximize user engagement, but what else should they be trying to maximize? It is up to the rest of society to develop a proper culture and information hygiene to shape their demand, and tech companies will adapt. It can develop organically and passed from generation to generation, or you can try to expedite the process through schools, media and other mechanisms that exist in a society.

2. Practical - people tend to get interested by forbidden things, and they seem to like their biases. In the Soviet Union, for example, perhaps most people were fascinated by the Hollywood movies of the 70s and the 80s, and even the way the Western brands were being advertised. They seemed 'cooler' to the Soviet products that were mostly devoid of marketing. Try to eliminate most biases, and people will vote with their feet. Arguably a better approach is to allow things, but in good faith educate people on how to best deal with them and why that is the right way of dealing with them. Same way a lot of parents today would explain to their children why they should stay away from cigarettes, for example, or wash their hands before having food.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#52

Post by deegles »

lordnacho wrote: post #26

I wrote this for a related article yesterday: --- If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("…

As an absurd example, if someone were to invent a ray-gun that reprograms people's brains with arbitrary beliefs it would be 100% unethical and illegal to use.

However, ads or fake news article that takes many exposures to reprogram you (by using the cognitive bias back channels as you mention) are perfectly fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#53

Post by deegles »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #36
xwdv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because that case is too vague. Sending a notification isn’t a crime, especially when you request them by not turning off notifications.

especially when you request them by not turning off notifications This is only funny because it's so close to the truth.

"By using this service you consent to our EULA, forced arbitration agreement, and 24/7 notification policy."

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#54

Post by agent008t »

zupatol wrote: post #42
lordnacho wrote: post #26

I wrote this for a related article yesterday: --- If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("…

Some economists have tried arguing that advertising adds value to products, but I think it only hinders people from making choices based on the product's merit. It's a distortion of the market. We wouldn't lose much if advertising would just be forbidden. A traditional definition of it would probably be enough to get rid of most of it. The main problem is that huge sums of money are involved, and almost all media pro…

Is it even possible to eliminate it altogether, down to the very last 'influencer'?

As long as people care what is popular and fashionable rather than what is good there will be ways of exploiting it.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#55

Post by deegles »

HabitCaptology wrote: post #10

Highly 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 :)

You're probably aware of the "illusory truth" effect, basically that if you repeat something enough times people will perceive it as true. That's probably the original persuasive technology :)

https://fs.blog/2020/02/illusory-truth-effect/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#56

Post by raxxorrax »

lordnacho wrote: post #26

I wrote this for a related article yesterday: --- If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("…

I think there is much uncorroborated assertions about bias.

Associating emotions to a product or getting attention is an old trick that existed before modern marketing. The smoking example can be generalized for fashion and there are mechanisms like peer pressure involved that certainly incentivize consumption. But they are not overriding your will. Addictions can, but even then I would say there is still a free will involved.

> but I sense this is more of a grey zone than most people are willing to admit.

I do believe ads affect me, but the scope is limited and regulation would be more draconian than my natural inclination to give products an unjust bonus for boobs. However, it may not work, because I come to the conclusion that the product must lacking if you try to sell it with dirty tricks.

> Isn't this the same as the authoritarian nightmares that we've been pointing fingers at?

No, because people can make up their minds, otherwise they would have a lot of cars by now. They loose that, however, if you regulate too excessively because the decision is already made for you. There are sensible reasons for regulation, so it is a gray area, but I don't see it as helpful here.

Empirical counter evidence in favor of my free will for any practical purpose: There is no irresistible ad.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#57

Post by m4rtink »

gnicholas wrote: post #27

> The technology exists to take your likeness and morph it with a face that is demographically similar to you. The result is a face that looks like you, but that you don’t recognize. If that turns out to be more persuasive than coarse demographic targeting, is that okay? I have wondered if in the future, movies/TV shows will be personalized with your name. I have found that when I watch a movie where the main charact…

Visual novels often do that - you put in ypur name and it is seamlessly included into the text portion. It is a simple yet surprisingly immersive trick when the game starts talking about you or to you. :)

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#58

Post by sokoloff »

zupatol wrote: post #42
lordnacho wrote: post #26

I wrote this for a related article yesterday: --- If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("…

Some economists have tried arguing that advertising adds value to products, but I think it only hinders people from making choices based on the product's merit. It's a distortion of the market. We wouldn't lose much if advertising would just be forbidden. A traditional definition of it would probably be enough to get rid of most of it. The main problem is that huge sums of money are involved, and almost all media pro…

It would seem that review sites would be a massive beneficiary of a ban on advertising; whether or not they review in a Consumer Reviews (scientifically backed, generally) or Bob’s Internet Affiliate Shills or Celebrity Chris’ Favorites manner is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#59

Post by cblconfederate »

lordnacho wrote: post #26

I wrote this for a related article yesterday: --- If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("…

If you go that far then the entire legitimacy of legal systems, judicial systems, penal systems, world order etc falls apart. Free will does not really exist, but what is the alternative to pretending that it exists.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#60

Post by agent008t »

gnicholas wrote: post #27

> The technology exists to take your likeness and morph it with a face that is demographically similar to you. The result is a face that looks like you, but that you don’t recognize. If that turns out to be more persuasive than coarse demographic targeting, is that okay? I have wondered if in the future, movies/TV shows will be personalized with your name. I have found that when I watch a movie where the main charact…

I wonder if countries where English is not a native language have a built-in advantage - media they consume in English runs in a virtual machine of sorts.

I have noticed, for example, that anglosphere seems to adopt US Hollywood/cultural tropes much easier and faster than other countries. Down to, for example, people using the word 'like' every other word or speaking in a certain tone of voice being quite pervasive in England but to my understanding relatively rarely seen in, say, the Netherlands.

Post reply on HN