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

111–120 of 241 posts

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#111

Post by indigochill »

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 studied "strategic communication" in college (a mix of PR, advertising, marketing, whatever) and I distinctly remember a mentor saying, "When you're selling a drill, you're not selling a drill. You're selling the hole."

The point is, people don't buy things for their own sake. They buy them for what they think the thing can do for them. Any car will get you to point B, but some people will go for a cheap, utilitarian car because they want to save money (or maybe the utilitarian aesthetic is their thing), while others will go for the flashy car for that feeling of sex appeal (even if women don't suddenly fall all over a new car owner, the feeling of confidence is a social benefit to the buyer, even if that's not worth the asking price).

More generally, though, all communication has this sort of color to it. We see anti-privacy legislation being touted as protecting children and fighting crime. Small talk is not really about sports. So I don't think it's realistic to legislate persuasion. I would probably be behind making formal logic a part of public school curriculum, though, so people are better equipped to discern for themselves when persuasion they're exposed to is nonsense (among other benefits).

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#112

Post by qwerty456127 »

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 ("…

> It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find many many women attracted to them") and just putting it there suggestively

I doubt pretty girls in ads are actually supposed to mean the goods they advertise make a man more attractive. Who (except teens) would believe that, consciously or subconsciously? You just get attracted yourself and that's enough, simply seeing a pretty girl fires the hormones and neurotransmitters making you feel good about what she advertises, no semantic load necessary.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#113

Post by coding123 »

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 see the rest of society buying and liking the typical brands such as: Tide, Kraft, Nabisco, Pepsi-co, what have you and I shutter. It's really weird but I started to have an adverse reaction to all the companies that actually advertise and I'm always on the look out for companies that use few ingredients and in general have no commercials.

And this has changed me so much. Even seeing that stereo typical hot-rod style cars that you are clearly described as attracting women - I actively dislike people that show off even. I have never had an FB account.

I don't know where I'm going with this but yeah, cognitive biases and such and controlling people. I guess just trying to say, it doesn't work on everyone - not identically and as expected at least.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#114

Post by Siira »

indigochill wrote: post #111
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 studied "strategic communication" in college (a mix of PR, advertising, marketing, whatever) and I distinctly remember a mentor saying, "When you're selling a drill, you're not selling a drill. You're selling the hole." The point is, people don't buy things for their own sake. They buy them for what they think the thing can do for them. Any car will get you to point B, but some people will go for a cheap, utilitari…

Formal logic does not help with critical thinking that much. You need to teach Bayesian thinking, which seems a daunting task.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#115

Post by Siira »

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…

Non-targeted ads are valid signals of the strength of a brand.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#116

Post by elliekelly »

Mirioron wrote: post #90
dane-pgp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actual…

It isn’t exactly on point but at some level the investment industry is aware of the difference and does a fairly good job at walking the line. There’s a reason every prospectus looks the same: it’s meant to convey facts and let investors arrive at their own decision rather than “sell” them on making an investment.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#117

Post by agent008t »

LocalH wrote: post #101
agent008t wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When corporations grow above a certain size (the exact size of which is for another discussion), they tend to gain power against the individual. I'm not sure which is worse - powerful government, or powerful corporation. Both serve their own interests ahead of individual liberty, and collectively it means that people are less free and more beholden to corporate interests. I don't want to put so many restrictions on s…

I guess you approached the problem I have with libertarian arguments (which I tend to find intellectually appealing): if a corporation is powerful enough, it becomes barely distinguishable from government in practice, except without any democratic governance. At the extreme end you have a corporation that owns all the land in your nation and you have to abide by their arbitrary rules to be on their private property. Yes, they cannot physically assault you the way a government can, but you may be left with few options but to sign a contract you may otherwise not have wanted to sign (and then the government can physically assault you for breaking that contract).

We are sort of approaching a standard argument between classical and modern liberals, so it would be pointless to just repeat the same tired arguments. Having said that, I would love to see more of thoughtful debate between classical and modern liberals. Usually you tend to see both sides just preaching to their choirs or a very shallow debate at best.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#118

Post by d1tch »

Mirioron wrote: post #80
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…

> We wouldn't lose much if advertising would just be forbidden. We would lose the current ad industry and just replace it with some other form of it. You can't get rid odd advertising, because the existence of the product itself is already advertising. Let's imagine that advertising were banned. How could a car manufacturer still advertise their cars? Put bigger logos on them and sell lots of cheaper models for a whi…

We have to ditch the cognitive bias that “products” are what we should contribute.

Information exchange can take place when people use their imagination to create with raw materials. Stock stores with raw materials. Focus public governance on health, not public-private collusion.

Think like open-source; take computer, make it useful to you.

We’re circling last generations emotional model for packaging given their logistics capabilities.

IoT can act as a model here; smaller uni-task gadgets or general compute gadgets, needing less code.

The sunk cost fallacy at scale is how our system works now. That simply props up the ingenuity of those who got there first.

Why the ever loving hell do we need teachers with high education bills and masters degrees? Were we not able to reach reading for the thousand years before?

This social monolith building needs to billionaires is merely following a social monolith to kings and priests.

We move around atomically but pay a tax on our effort upwards. The result? Decades of inequality growth, deflation of buying power.

It’s not technical change we need but emotional; we don’t owe these people deference.

Pre-packaged experience is no different than “here’s your Bible, Timmy.”

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#120

Post by tgb »

atypicaluser wrote: post #65

What's amusing is how Schneier himself falls prey to his own 'emotional thinking'-- > Emotional appeals have likewise long been a facet of political campaigns. In the 1860 US presidential election, Southern politicians and newspaper editors spread fears of what a "Black Republican" win would mean, painting horrific pictures of what the emancipation of slaves would do to the country. In the 2020 US presidential electi…

The first example is clearly using Republicans as the victim. If anything that's the opposite of what you're claiming he's pushing. He could have chosen other framing (like "conservatives" as perpetrators) if he wanted to prey on emotions by connecting these two examples. His framing of those two examples, if anything, seems chosen to counter-balance each other.
Post reply on HN