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

171–180 of 241 posts

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#171

Post by jancsika »

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…

There's a big difference between an accountant putting on a suit for a job interview, and a company having realtime insight into the behavior of every single accountant in the U.S. as they search for a job.

The latter exists and has been used by Google to offer jobs to users for whom they may have an opening. (Or perhaps a competitor has openings and Google wants to ensure the best candidates not work there, which is what I would do if I were Google.)

That several gargantuan companies have and use this kind of insight into widescale human behavior is more terrible than "grandpa shared some nonsense on facebook."

Edit: clarification

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#172

Post by throwitaway1235 »

xwdv wrote: post #14
throwitaway1235 wrote: post #5

I 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?

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

I thought about it further and lean towards agreement.

You know what makes it such a subjective question? The cigarette supplier sells a substance with an addictive chemical inside of it. Notifications are not a substance, the drug response is your own chemical (dopamine). Still an interesting question though.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#173

Post by xwdv »

throwitaway1235 wrote: post #172
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.

I thought about it further and lean towards agreement. You know what makes it such a subjective question? The cigarette supplier sells a substance with an addictive chemical inside of it. Notifications are not a substance, the drug response is your own chemical (dopamine). Still an interesting question though.

Indeed, a case like this succeeding would blow the door wide open for suing anyone or anything that stimulates you to the point of ejaculatory dopamine responses.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#174

Post by slx26 »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #73

I said it before I will say it again: The new thing, and the key point here is scale . You can discuss persuasion or cognitive bias away until everyone gets an aneurysm, sure. Some example: You can't not communicate. So even not persuading is persuading. What if the presidential candidate would just not give a scheduled speech? How do you communicate information objectively? Casual language creates bias, so does scie…

I agree scale is very important and it still has too little visibility. Everyone knows the quote "with great power there must also come great responsibility". Well, scale is indeed power. An action applied to one person might not be a big deal. But when the action is applied to or affects thousands, it should require much more consideration and carry much more responsibility. This argument has a lot of applicability in many other areas too.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#175

Post by s1artibartfast »

kongolongo wrote: post #144
mistermann wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 imp…

Maybe but as of yet there doesn't appear to be any clearly net positive solutions (IMO) that can both curb emotional appeal and cognitive biases without introducing harms themselves.

These is always enducation. Teaching people to identify the biases and analyze their emotional reactions. I cant think of any downside here.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#176

Post by cycomanic »

missedthecue wrote: post #166
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's this problem in the sciences and higher academe where we give things names that sound like something but mean another. For instance, Einstein's Special Theory of Relatively is a common example. Ask the average person on the street what it means and they'd say, "Well of course I know what it means, after all, it means that everything is relative." Well obviously that's not what it means. What it means is that…

Just a minor nitpick, but it's really special relativity that says that the speed of light is constant (and the maximum anything can travel at). General relativity is much more general theory about gravity and space time.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#177

Post by webmaven »

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…

> 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?

How about chewing gum and mint ads? Many try for messages that are essentially "don't get cock-blocked by your bad breath" or something similar. And they work.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#178

Post by s1artibartfast »

bonoboTP wrote: post #152
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…

In another discussion on philosophy someone mentioned a principle they didn't have a name for, but applies here as well. Their example was that you can ethically look at a license plate and memorize it, but if you get a network of people at strategic positions of a town to meticulously write down all license plates 24/7 and collect this in a central place, that becomes an unethical/illegal privacy violation. Enough q…

Im not sure I follow your opening premise. Why is strategic tracking of license plates unethical? I am pretty sure it is not illegal. You can pay a private detective to follow someone around town taking pictures.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#179

Post by missedthecue »

pdonis wrote: post #169
missedthecue wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this problem in the sciences and higher academe where we give things names that sound like something but mean another. For instance, Einstein's Special Theory of Relatively is a common example. Ask the average person on the street what it means and they'd say, "Well of course I know what it means, after all, it means that everything is relative." Well obviously that's not what it means. What it means is that…

> Whether or not people are 'easily affected by suggestion' as you put it, has got no impact on the concept of free markets. Yes, it does. A free market is not just about individuals owning and trading property. A free market requires that all trades are voluntary . If people are forced, for example by law, to make trades they would not freely choose to make, you do not have a free market: forced trades are not volun…

You are correct that if you are compelled by the government to do something it's not a free market. But if coca-cola convinces you to try a new flavor through a marketing campaign, it does not eliminate the free market. It was your choice the whole time.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#180

Post by missedthecue »

cycomanic wrote: post #176
missedthecue wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this problem in the sciences and higher academe where we give things names that sound like something but mean another. For instance, Einstein's Special Theory of Relatively is a common example. Ask the average person on the street what it means and they'd say, "Well of course I know what it means, after all, it means that everything is relative." Well obviously that's not what it means. What it means is that…

Just a minor nitpick, but it's really special relativity that says that the speed of light is constant (and the maximum anything can travel at). General relativity is much more general theory about gravity and space time.

Thanks, fixed
Post reply on HN