Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#2Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#3Do the same issues exist in these platforms?
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#4Big tech is a race to the bottom in general.
What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system?
Small actors could not do that.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#5Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#6TL;DR:
Hijack 1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices. Ask yourself: What’s not on the menu?, Why am I being given these options and not others? Do I know the menu provider’s goals? Is this menu empowering for my original need, or are the choices actually a distraction?
Hijack 2: Make apps behave like Slot Machines - give a variable reward. If you want to maximize addictiveness, link a user’s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward. You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate of reward is most variable.
Hijack 3: Fear of Missing Something Important (FOMSI). If I convince you that I’m a channel for important information, messages, friendships, or potential sexual opportunities — it will be hard for you to turn me off, unsubscribe, or remove your account — because there is a 1% chance you could be missing something important.
Hijack 4: Social Approval. When you get tagged by my friend, you think s/he made a conscious choice to tag you, when actually s/he just responds to Facebook’s suggestion, not making an independent choice. Thus Facebook controls the multiplier for how often millions of people experience their social approval on the line.
Hijack 5: Social Reciprocity (Tit-for-tat). You follow me — it’s rude not to follow you back. When you receive an invitation from someone to connect, you imagine that person making a conscious choice to invite you, when in reality, they likely unconsciously responded to LinkedIn’s list of suggested c ontacts.
Hijack 6: Bottomless bowls, Infinite Feeds, and Autoplay
Hijack 7: Instant Interruption vs. “Respectful” Delivery. Messages that interrupt people immediately are more persuasive at getting people to respond than messages delivered asynchronously.
Hijack 8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons. When you you want to look up a Facebook event happening tonight (your reason) the Facebook app doesn’t allow you to access it without first landing on the news feed (their reasons), so Facebook converts every reason you have for using it, into their reason which is to maximize the time you spend consuming things. In an ideal world, apps would always give you a direct way to get what you want separately from what they want.
Hijack 9: Inconvenient Choices. Businesses naturally want to make the choices they want you to make easier, and the choices they don’t want you to make harder. NYTimes.com claims to give you “a free choice” to cancel your digital subscription. But instead of just doing it when you hit “Cancel Subscription,” they force you to call a phone number that’s only open at certain times.
Hijack 10: Forecasting Errors, “Foot in the Door” strategies. People don’t intuitively forecast the true time cost of a click when it’s presented to them. Sales people use “foot in the door” techniques by asking for a small innocuous request to begin with (“just one click”), and escalating from there (“why don’t you stay awhile?”). Virtually all engagement websites use this trick.
===
[1] http://www.tristanharris.com/2016/05/how-technology-hijacks-...
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#7Here that same Google design ethicist explains in detail how technology hijacks your mind [1]. TL;DR: Hijack 1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices. Ask yourself: What’s not on the menu?, Why am I being given these options and not others? Do I know the menu provider’s goals? Is this menu empowering for my original need, or are the choices actually a distraction? Hijack 2: Make apps behave like Slot Machi…
This is huge in mobile apps. Loot creates, "packs", etc. which means every end result doesn't have a fixed cost, but an "Expected" cost. I.e. if you want a certain item, you don't know how many times you have to buy a $3 pack to get it. You know you would pay $15 for it, though. So you start pulling that lever, hoping you'll get it. It's gambling, essentially. Literally a slot machines where you put $3 in, pull a lever, and maybe you get nothing good, something okay, or something great.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#8Big tech is a race to the bottom in general.
I think such statement is hazardous. What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system? Small actors could not do that.
We are rolling the dice toward a level of social control unparalleled in human history, and we are doing this for marginal gains to a standard-of-living which is already quite high.
And it only takes one catastrophe to get that bad turn of government--even in a "democracy." It only took a few bombs for us to throw the Japanese into camps when that was clearly unconstitutional.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#9I can see how forcing kids onto FB is a major issue, but the article seemed to imply the same was true for other Big Tech EDU platforms (AFAIK the main ones being Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams for Education) Do the same issues exist in these platforms?
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#10Big tech is a race to the bottom in general.
I think such statement is hazardous. What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system? Small actors could not do that.
Edit: I realize it’s an unpopular question here, but other than it being cool - why do we need a Mars colony?