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

131–140 of 241 posts

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#131

Post by stickfigure »

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 ("…

There is absolutely no limit to this. Putting on a suit for a financial job interview exploits the cognitive biases of interviewers. Tattoos exploit the cognitive biases of hipsters. Putting hockey-stick growth projections in pitch decks exploits the cognitive biases of VCs. Equity grants (pretty much always) exploit the cognitive biases of startup employees. Driving a fancy car exploits the cognitive biases of (a very large portion of) the dating market.

Human beings are not computers. No aspect of human behavior is perfectly logical or rational. You simply cannot ban emotional appeals in principle, because all appeals have an emotional component. This way lies a dystopia far more terrible than "grandpa shared some nonsense on facebook".

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#132

Post by jimmaswell »

a3camero wrote: post #104
Mirioron wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wouldn't that be a great outcome? Cheap cars or cheap cola? That's better than more expensive products (because of the cost of advertising that's turned into billboards and banner ads.)

Cheap cars that break down fast aren't good for anyone.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#133

Post by nitrogen »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #112
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 seei…

It's strictly not semantic, it's happening at an instinctive level. These backdoor hacks into the legacy code of our brains are the problem.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#134

Post by topkai22 »

One of the comments has an amazing line “ Persuasion is at the heart of information security. Not “information technology security”, but the security a person has about their ability to make information-based decisions about which actions they can take in their best interest.”

That being said, its seems the event that has brought the concern over persuasive technologies to the fore is the election of Donald Trump. New sorts of persuasive technologies may have Trump over the finish line, but I'm pretty convinced that he ran a competitive campaign without them. He identified policies and cultural grievances (immigration, anti-elite sentiment, trade, and white identity politics for example ) that no one else was talking about, ran with them. I dislike that these subjects resonated with enough of my fellow Americans to win an election, but they did. To retreat into a mindset of "those rubes must have been tricked" is to deny them agency and is problematic in and of itself.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#135

Post by olalonde »

gibolt wrote: post #127
olalonde wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Of course humans aren't perfectly rational but I'd argue it's still a good assumption to make, as a society, because the alternative leads to a very disturbing path. Ultimately, assuming individuals don't really know what's best for themselves can be used to…

Jumping from ads to enslavement is one of the biggest stretches I've seen on HN...

It might seem like a stretch to us, but it was actually used to justify slavery in the past. As early as Aristotle who thought that slaves didn't have the ability to think properly and therefore needed masters to tell them what to do.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#136

Post by mistermann »

stickfigure wrote: post #131
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 ("…

There is absolutely no limit to this. Putting on a suit for a financial job interview exploits the cognitive biases of interviewers. Tattoos exploit the cognitive biases of hipsters. Putting hockey-stick growth projections in pitch decks exploits the cognitive biases of VCs. Equity grants (pretty much always) exploit the cognitive biases of startup employees. Driving a fancy car exploits the cognitive biases of (a ve…

> You simply cannot ban emotional appeals in principle, because all appeals have an emotional component. This way lies a dystopia far more terrible than "grandpa shared some nonsense on facebook".

True enough. But are you implying (not saying you are, just asking) that ~"nothing can be done"?

"Banning emotional appeals....This way lies a dystopia..." is just one option - might there be other approaches that could improve the situation?

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#137

Post by forrestconnors »

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…

That sounds like a good thing...

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#138

Post by triangleman »

stickfigure wrote: post #131
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 ("…

There is absolutely no limit to this. Putting on a suit for a financial job interview exploits the cognitive biases of interviewers. Tattoos exploit the cognitive biases of hipsters. Putting hockey-stick growth projections in pitch decks exploits the cognitive biases of VCs. Equity grants (pretty much always) exploit the cognitive biases of startup employees. Driving a fancy car exploits the cognitive biases of (a ve…

Indeed there is nothing new under the sun:

2 Samuel 15:1-6

  Now it came about after this that Absalom provided for himself a chariot and horses and fifty men as runners before him. Absalom used to rise early and stand beside the way to the gate; and when any man had a suit to come to the king for judgment, Absalom would call to him and say, “From what city are you?” And he would say, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.” Then Absalom would say to him, “See, your claims are good and right, but no man listens to you on the part of the king.” Moreover, Absalom would say, “Oh that one would appoint me judge in the land, then every man who has any suit or cause could come to me and I would give him justice.” And when a man came near to prostrate himself before him, he would put out his hand and take hold of him and kiss him. In this manner Absalom dealt with all Israel who came to the king for judgment; so Absalom stole away the hearts of the men of Israel.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#139

Post by criddell »

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…

A lot would also switch to native ads.

For example, if a concert promoter can't buy a 30 second spot on local radio to promote and upcoming show, they will instead pay for the band to be interviewed by a DJ where the interview is little more than the band talking about the upcoming show. I don't think that's an improvement.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#140

Post by vannevar »

stickfigure wrote: post #131
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 ("…

There is absolutely no limit to this. Putting on a suit for a financial job interview exploits the cognitive biases of interviewers. Tattoos exploit the cognitive biases of hipsters. Putting hockey-stick growth projections in pitch decks exploits the cognitive biases of VCs. Equity grants (pretty much always) exploit the cognitive biases of startup employees. Driving a fancy car exploits the cognitive biases of (a ve…

Yes, the problem lies not with the technology, but with the gross asymmetries created by wealth and power imbalances. There is an enormous difference in the danger posed by an individual salesperson using cognitive bias on a personal level, and a multibillion-dollar conglomerate using it in an automated, industrial way to exploit millions of people. Those two situations should be regulated very differently.
Post reply on HN