Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies? • Hacker News Board

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#221

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 6:16 AM UTC

patcon wrote: post #143

Re: can persuasive technology methods create tools/processes of radical neutrality. I'm actively contributing to a tool called Pol.is[3]. It's designed to be consensus-building tech. It's part of some pretty rad democratic processes in Taiwan[1]. It basically just puts a more approachable visualization over some overwise intimidating (but basic) statistical methods of "dimensional reduction", like PCA or UMAP. This v…

I had an idea in a similar vein after reading the article and I would be interested in getting your thoughts.

As I see it, the problem statement is as follows:

1) individuals are subjected to vast amounts of political persuasion in their daily lives. This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder to subtly influence public opinion in a way that is counter to it's own interest. Ultimately, this can weaken the marketplace of ideas, rational discourse, and consensus.

My idea is an app, forum, or social group which pairs individuals to discuss issues in a manner that builds consensus. Users would identify their position on issues as well as how strongly they hold that position. They would then be offered the opportunity to discuss and issue which they care deeply about with someone who is indifferent.

This could yield a high persuasion return for time invested, and help build consensus. This could have an effect similar to door to door campaigning, but with the ability to target politically active individuals who a with high impact topics. One thing that I find particularly attractive, is that it would focus the discussion on individual issues, opposed to platforms or parties.

What do you think?

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#222

Post by names_are_hard » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 6:19 AM UTC

scatters wrote: post #46

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…

Money spent on political advertising absolutely comes out of your pocket. The process is: politicians levy taxes and excise, divert the revenue to linked entities, pay Facebook out of the proceeds. Or they extract money from companies under threat of expropriation via adverse regulation and litigation. In developing countries this is blatant; in developed countries it is disguised (as lobbying, consulting fees etc.).…

Let me rephrase. Someone advertises to you because they expect something in return. Coca-Cola advertises to you because they expect you to buy coke. If you're too poor to buy coke, you're not useful to them.

Joe's political campaign advertises to you because they want you to hate Bob, or be scared of those other guys, or whatever. This will help put Joe in charge, which is good for Joe and potentially bad for you, but it doesn't necessarily come out of your pocket. It comes out of the pockets of Joe and his friends. That might be taxpayer money, but you might not be the taxpayer paying for it. It might be private money from religious people who want gay marriage to be illegal. You pay for it with freedom, but not with money.

My point wasn't that there's a free lunch here. My point was that there are other mechanisms at play, costs of advertising that don't translate directly into cost of goods and services you buy.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#223

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 6:27 AM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #212

s1artibartfast wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> teaching people to be able to practice it during realtime conversations of unrelated object level discussions (say, politics) is something else entirely. In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. Not everyone will become a stoic, but they can make meaningful progress on their own. > I can imagine many people who may see a downside of a popu…

> In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. No doubt it is an improvement over baseline - but do you have any opinions on this specific notion that skills in abstract thinking mode may not successfully transfer to object level thinking, particularly when under pressure (ie: conversations)? I truly believe that this is a real phenomenon. > On…

>Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than the results, not unlike TV commercials for a Big Mac Meal versus what you actually get at the restaurant.

I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress. Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs. Living in political or philosophical silos then going to the voting booth only perpetuates the status quo. To drive forward, you have to change someone's mind. Just about anyone can double their political impact on an issue by going out and having a 1 hour conversation with someone who is indifferent on the topic. The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged. If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#224

Post by atq2119 » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 6:32 AM UTC

My7thAccount wrote: post #216

GreenWatermelon wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draw it anywhere and keep tweaking until you find the right balance. Some things are obviously bad, while others are obviously good. Put the line somewhere in the grey area on between and tweak as needed until you find the right balance. Definitely not easy, but probably doable to a certain extent.

It’s was already drawn in 1789. It’s far worse to accidentally suppress the truth than to share a lie. Falsehoods will reveal themselves in time because of the very fact that they are not true. The opposite is not the case. There are infinite lies but only one truth

You're making this too easy for yourself. Modern communication technology didn't exist in 1789, and the truth can be difficult to determine for people -- even scientific truth. Outrage cycles are very powerful.

Clearly suppressing a truth is bad. But modern technology causes massive amplification of falsehoods in a way that just didn't exist in the past, and that's bad, too.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#225

Post by mistermann » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 7:46 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #223

mistermann wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my experience, once you give people the basic toolkit for introspection, it can kick off a positive feedback loop. No doubt it is an improvement over baseline - but do you have any opinions on this specific notion that skills in abstract thinking mode may not successfully transfer to object level thinking, particularly when under pressure (ie: conversations)? I truly believe that this is a real phenomenon. > On…

>Oh, I think this is a very small group of people. I believe the general public has wanted a lot of things for a very long time (general welfare for all people, within reason, especially domestically), but improvements along these lines seem rather marginal, despite essentially unending productivity and GDP growth. Something seems rather imperfect here - the advertised benefits of democracy seem more impressive than…

> I think the lack of progress is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy functions and drives progress.

I assume you mean people's perception of the lack of progress. Actual physical progress is independent of the public's perception of it, I would think.

> Meaningful progress is only made when persuasion occurs.

Makes sense. I pay fairly close attention to the variety and nature of political persuasion, and I find it rather....interesting. I think a fair argument can be made that it is often exerted in directions that seem inconsistent with the general well being of the population.

> The biggest trick ever played on the public is telling them they are disenfranchised and that the system is rigged.

I agree that that is "a" trick, but I don't agree that it is the biggest one, by a long shot. Actually, I think there's more than a little evidence that suggests there's a fair amount of truth to it.

> If people spent 5% of the time and effort they spent lamenting corruption or political advertising on persuasion, change would advance at a rapid pace.

I can't imagine how this could be true. Who would be the parties being persuaded in this scenario, and how would that exert influence on the amount of change?

And then looking at it from another perspective: compare the change in well being of the average person in China versus the USA over the last 10 to 20 years - does the above explain the entirety of the differential? Or, might there be some other variables in play here?

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#226

Post by monort » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 10:04 AM UTC

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…

Research shows, that car can influence attraction.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c86a/142c0ae2d70d95f6292af6...

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#227

Post by benjaminjosephw » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 10:53 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #208

Barrin92 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that I think this kind of thinking is disempowering and counterproductive. By framing technology companies as all powerful, even if that's possibly inaccurate and overblown, tech supremacy becomes inevitable in the eyes of people who see it as lacking any alternatives. ("If they can predict me this well, they must know better, right?") I think this is why Silicon Valley loves to invite their critics who a…

This is also very common in politics. There is a presumption that the government is corrupt and working counter to public benefit. In reality, the voting public ultimately has 100% control. Most of the people who spend time lamenting about the power of political advertising, lobbying, ect have never once knocked on a door and tried to change someone's mind about an issue. Unfortunately, believing in a world view wher…

You're absolutely right. The voting public is in control and can collectively act to get government to work for shared public benefit. We do have individual and collective responsibility here and empowerment to change things too.

It makes sense that empowered citizens in a society would naturally want to protect their rights to not have their natural human biases gamed or manipulated. Thinking ourselves above human nature and beyond the tactics of persuasion would be naïve but we needn't see ourselves as helpless victims. Instead, we should act to defend our rights and remain empowered and in control. We're not disenfranchised and we can introduce regulation to ensure that our freedom is preserved.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#228

Post by My7thAccount » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 11:07 AM UTC

atq2119 wrote: post #224

My7thAccount wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s was already drawn in 1789. It’s far worse to accidentally suppress the truth than to share a lie. Falsehoods will reveal themselves in time because of the very fact that they are not true. The opposite is not the case. There are infinite lies but only one truth

You're making this too easy for yourself. Modern communication technology didn't exist in 1789, and the truth can be difficult to determine for people -- even scientific truth. Outrage cycles are very powerful. Clearly suppressing a truth is bad. But modern technology causes massive amplification of falsehoods in a way that just didn't exist in the past, and that's bad, too.

The format of communication is irrelevant. At the end of the day, I make my own decisions and so does everyone else. You cannot suppress the bad out of life because its humans that cause the bad by accident or on purpose. Why are people so worried about proving a false hood is it that hard for you? You need to run and hide from a difficult conversation? How do you ever expect to change your mind oh yeah you want the government to make them. You’re motivated by hate against a fictitious enemy of the past because it makes it easier to justify your extremely pitiful fortitude

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#229

Post by selfhoster11 » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 12:02 PM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #60

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 i…

That's been my experience too. Insults directed towards me in English just wash over me like water off a duck's back. Insults directed towards me in my own native language are like a gut punch, in that they feel more real and cutting.

I've been long hypothesizing that my English "self" is running in a sort of a "virtual machine" where I can step back, examine and pick apart the input for the parts that are relevant or beneficial, then continue processing.

Re: Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

#230

Post by Veen » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 1:00 PM UTC

My7thAccount wrote: post #228

atq2119 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making this too easy for yourself. Modern communication technology didn't exist in 1789, and the truth can be difficult to determine for people -- even scientific truth. Outrage cycles are very powerful. Clearly suppressing a truth is bad. But modern technology causes massive amplification of falsehoods in a way that just didn't exist in the past, and that's bad, too.

The format of communication is irrelevant. At the end of the day, I make my own decisions and so does everyone else. You cannot suppress the bad out of life because its humans that cause the bad by accident or on purpose. Why are people so worried about proving a false hood is it that hard for you? You need to run and hide from a difficult conversation? How do you ever expect to change your mind oh yeah you want the…

From a libertarian, individualistic perspective, there is much in what you say. But telling people off for being easily persuadable isn't a viable solution. You have to deal with people as they really are, not as you wish them to be.

From a utilitarian perspective, fake news and persuasive technologies do real harm, and not just to the people who are persuaded. Unless something is done at the group level (i.e. by the state) the harm will continue. You might consider that an appropriate trade-off for liberty, but others can reasonably disagree without being weak.