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

81–90 of 241 posts

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#81

Post by paulryanrogers »

agent008t wrote: post #54
zupatol wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Enforcement doesn't have to be perfect to benefit society. Once it was illegal to advertise drugs to the public. After it was legalized suddenly drug company budgets were overtaken by marketing, instead of R&D. In my opinion that was a net loss for society.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#82

Post by andrepd »

prionassembly wrote: post #79
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 ("…

The wider culture is supposed to counterbalance for this. Taking things to the extreme: maybe people are by default violent and will kill a few people in their lifetime to get their way. But the culture counterbalances this. Likewise everyone old enough to have a sex drive has seen enough publicity with barely-clad attractive women to know the ruse. Of course, people are still vulnerable to these things (cf. onlyfans…

>Likewise everyone old enough to have a sex drive has seen enough publicity with barely-clad attractive women to know the ruse.

Clearly not, for the simple fact that they do it anyway. It works, else you wouldn't see it in ads.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#83

Post by pjc50 »

prionassembly wrote: post #79
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 ("…

The wider culture is supposed to counterbalance for this. Taking things to the extreme: maybe people are by default violent and will kill a few people in their lifetime to get their way. But the culture counterbalances this. Likewise everyone old enough to have a sex drive has seen enough publicity with barely-clad attractive women to know the ruse. Of course, people are still vulnerable to these things (cf. onlyfans…

In the UK, the advertising regulator is supposed to handle this; see https://www.asa.org.uk/type/broadcast/code_section/10.html

Mild amusement can be had from the example cases in the sex section: https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/offence-sexism.html

(I note that vaunted free speech zone America is actually more restrictive in what sexual material can be shown on TV or even marketed; there isn't a US "Babestation" TV channel, is there?)

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#84

Post by dane-pgp »

Mirioron wrote: post #77
deegles wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)_/¯

With the raygun there's a clear cause and effect. You can fairly easily prove that what changes beliefs is the raygun. You can't do that with ads and fake news articles. The other point is that with ads and articles you have to engage with them yourself. Something can grab your attention, but you can decide to ignore it anyway.

There isn't a clear cause and effect between smoking a single cigarette and developing cancer, or even between smoking a single cigarette and addiction. For a long time, tobacco companies used such equivocation to avoid regulation of their industry.

Instead, we look at the total effect (and often the intended effect) of multiple small changes, and decide whether they are a net positive for society.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#85

Post by pjc50 »

agent008t wrote: post #51
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 shou…

> It is up to the rest of society to develop a proper culture

Just as the environmentalists say that you can't really throw things away because there is no "away", increasingly there is no "rest of society" that exists completely outside online culture. Especially in the year we've all been quarantined inside.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#86

Post by andrepd »

dane-pgp wrote: post #78
sokoloff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At least review sites would be something that a user would have to seek out, rather than having the information blasted into their field of attention at times the advertisers found strategically optimal. Also, if people found themselves regretting purchases of products and services recommended to them by a particular review site, they would be free to use a different review site in future. Hopefully these sites would…

>At least review sites would be something that a user would have to seek out, rather than having the information blasted into their field of attention at times the advertisers found strategically optimal.

This is the crux of the question. I don't consent to any of it, but just walking down the streets I'm targeted by an assault on my brain from every direction. Ditto picking up my phone or browsing the web (were it not for uBlock). It's not ethical.

As for review sites being shilled, mandate big disclaimers detailing sponsors (shill praising product X would have to have a big banner saying "this content paid for by X", as its already done in other contexts). Reputation would eventually form around trusted reviwers.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#87

Post by agent008t »

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #63
agent008t wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shou…

I don't think there's anything reasonable about either of these: 1. Are the freedoms of corporations to act without the coercion of the state more important than the freedom of citizens to act without the subtle but effective coercion of corporate persuasion? The case for individual freedom doesn't always imply the absence of action by the state. 2. Would restricting manipulative practices by businesses really lead t…

Corporations are just voluntary associations of people, are they not? It seems strange to allow something for an individual, but to forbid groups of people to associate with each other and carry out the same activity.

I also think that calling persuasion 'coercion' is misleading. Coercion implies the threat of force or violence. You and your family still have the choice of switching off your TV, not using facebook or twitter, living your life as you want. Assuming you can live in a community of like-minded people such that there are few social costs of doing so for you and your family. I would like to see more such communities, especially among people working in tech.

Restricting some practices by businesses would lead to foreign businesses and cultures becoming more attractive to consumers.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#88

Post by lifeisstillgood »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #47
names_are_hard wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. I don't know what percentage of advertising revenue is from political advertising, but that's money that Facebook makes off of you that doesn't come out of your pocket. Essentially any time you're shown an ad that aims to convince you to support some idea, or vote for something, or change your behavior in some way (like going vegan) instead of trying to get you go spend money, you provide value to Fa…

I can't remember ever seeing an ad on Facebook trying to convince me to go vegan or do anything public-spirited. Ever. I have however seen plenty of ads trying to get me to spend money on something/someone. And conflating the political process with the marketing process is absolutely pernicious in a democracy. The Brexit campaign used micro-targeting of individuals with knowingly dishonest ads that played to their bi…

That is a good point - in the UK the ASA has standards that the ads must be Honest etc.

But, really if we held politicians to honest, accurate and non-misleading statements ... well insert your own comment here

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#90

Post by Mirioron »

dane-pgp wrote: post #84
Mirioron wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the raygun there's a clear cause and effect. You can fairly easily prove that what changes beliefs is the raygun. You can't do that with ads and fake news articles. The other point is that with ads and articles you have to engage with them yourself. Something can grab your attention, but you can decide to ignore it anyway.

There isn't a clear cause and effect between smoking a single cigarette and developing cancer, or even between smoking a single cigarette and addiction. For a long time, tobacco companies used such equivocation to avoid regulation of their industry. Instead, we look at the total effect (and often the intended effect) of multiple small changes, and decide whether they are a net positive for society.

Do we have a total effect of ads and fake news on society? Something that's actually reliable and not propaganda itself? It seems extremely difficult to be able to differentiate between an ad letting people know that a product exists and it directly influencing your decision. Or you could consider letting people know about the product existing as influencing the person, but then it's hard to argue that ads are actually bad.

With tobacco it's far easier to show a correlation, because people can just not smoke. People can't just avoid the effects of advertising, because it's all around us. Even word of mouth can be an ad campaign.

Also, tobacco probably is too regulated. It should be regulated to stop other people from experiencing the negative effects of somebody smoking. Limiting what flavors cigarettes can have and enormously taxing them seems like it has gone too far. People should be allowed to make their own choices in a free society.

Post reply on HN