The widespread use of these social experiments is deeply concerning to me, and is one of the things that encourages me to avoid much of the web.
UX A/B testing is one thing. It's not wonderful, but at least it's relatively harmless. But the entire idea of experimenting on an unwitting public is rife for abuse, some of which we've already seen. Since corporations (and particularly those in the tech world) are pretty terrible at behaving with restraint and due consideration of the larger effects of their actions, meaningful regulation seems very important here.
In the meantime, I'll continue to try to sidestep these landmines.
Particularly in the tech world? I suspect you may have been manipulated successful (everyone is under /attempts/
especially if you are convinced you aren't). I think someone at PR firms are owed bonuses given how common that sentiment is despite lack of facts. Given Deepwater Horizon, Tobbaco Cover Ups, Bhopal and others calling it is silly. I won't dent sins and flaws but it is akin to calling the Seattle WTO riots the worst urban unrest in Western history and getting people to believe it! I can understand how that could happen but reflecting upon it clearly isn't true. It is just most don't go to that second level.
It really is ridiculous. If you think you can find many industries whose abuses don't match or exceed those of tech, you're dreaming. Tech's rapid rise, along with its warm and fuzzy image, just make it easy fodder for the especially-ignorant to pay attention to.
That doesn't mean that corporate behavior in the tech world is no cause for concern, but any model (like the GP comment) that considers them to be an especially abusive or dismissive of norms is detached enough from reality that their view of the policy landscape is likely to be horribly warped.
"If you think you can find many industries whose abuses don't match or exceed those of tech"
I think this is predicated on the idea that "tech" is one industry among many. But it's not, it's something that is eating the world, that every industry uses. And it's sucking up such an insane amount of capital and resources because of the unreasonable effectiveness of modern manipulation of people. Some writer getting upset is not proof of anything, but the market cap of Google and Facebook is very strong evidence.
Most concerning is the widespread “be the first in the market at any costs now, deal with the fines later” mentality - see; Uber, and all those pesky rent-a-scooter startups
Upon opening this link I got a nice little popup from firefox letting me know that it had blocked some social media trackers for me. The snake is just eating its own tail at this point.
>A shakeup was under way. Astronomy had split off from astrology. Chemistry had become disentangled from alchemy.
This was the only line that caught my attention, but I admittedly stopped reading the article before the story changed from "how to catch a health scammer" 2+ centuries ago.
What if the current big tech is alchemy and astrology time-wise (since we're so early on this whole information curve)?
Though, this seems more like a restaurant that starts serving subpar products. The traffic will go elsewhere after awhile of getting served crap (especially if there's alternatives to measure against), to never return again.
Loyalty in the digital age is about as common as respect (ie. respecting your privacy) online. Its not very solid.
I suspect it halfway there and will at best be like statistics in that regard - a source of insight but easy to fool yourself and others accidentally or otherwise.
How can you do that as a Harvard Professor? Easily if with Tenure as it isn't given to people for them to keep their heads down.
He is right, the outrage over "manipulation in tech" is both hysterical and deeply hypocritical. Politicians and advertisers have been doing it for centuries. It is just that when "nerds" and "science" do it. Radio has been used to promote genocide multiple times over centuries and nobody states a need to put the Genie back in the bottle because it is largely in the control of power. Nobody makes the tool a moral outrage that needa categorically banned - they recognize that being a sicko who promotes genocide is the wrong.
The quality of the argument is just extremely weak and I would expect more frome someone thinking more than 2 minutes about it. Especially on a topic that didn't have any room in public discussions and policy making yet.
"People get killed every week, so please don't be too hysterical if I kill 1-2 more"
If they wanted to make an argument that we shouldn't accept emotional manipulation from advertising, I have said nothing.
That's the point though. The New Yorker (and the memeplex it's a part of) wasn't publishing hysterical articles about advertising's abuse of emotional appeal during the heyday of Madison Avenue, and randomly throwing an extra dimension of targeting by limiting one's concern to when tech does it doesn't make any sense.
It's not enough to say "just because A did it doesn't mean B can" without 1) addressing why the calls for cessation are narrowly targeted at B and 2) understanding why A was never successfully made to stop. 2 can help you understand the pitfalls of what you're trying to do ("manipulating emotions" is a ridiculously ill-defined phrase), and 1 can help you understand whether you're chasing after a red herring instead of what you're actually concerned about.
To use your own framing: perhaps if you'd spent 5 minutes thinking about it instead of 2, you'd realize these dimensions exist and are valid bases for complaint.
"wasn't publishing hysterical articles about advertising's abuse of emotional appeal during the heyday of Madison Avenue"
Well, you could ask by analogy why people got so upset about atomic bombs when regular bombs are just as painful to be blown up by. Or maybe modern precision targeted weapons are a better analogy.
I am about 1/3 through reading “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” by Shoshana Zuboff and while it is a very long read, I recommend it as good survival reading.
I have never been as concerned about privacy as I am about manipulation and forced social engineering. For the last 30 years , I have spent a lot of time writing books. My joke to friends and family has been that I spend evenings writing because I thought network TV is mostly a waste of time but more importantly subjecting yourself to advertisements is a crazy thing to do. Now I consider careless and thoughtless Internet use to be so much worse.
16 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadUX A/B testing is one thing. It's not wonderful, but at least it's relatively harmless. But the entire idea of experimenting on an unwitting public is rife for abuse, some of which we've already seen. Since corporations (and particularly those in the tech world) are pretty terrible at behaving with restraint and due consideration of the larger effects of their actions, meaningful regulation seems very important here.
In the meantime, I'll continue to try to sidestep these landmines.
That doesn't mean that corporate behavior in the tech world is no cause for concern, but any model (like the GP comment) that considers them to be an especially abusive or dismissive of norms is detached enough from reality that their view of the policy landscape is likely to be horribly warped.
I think this is predicated on the idea that "tech" is one industry among many. But it's not, it's something that is eating the world, that every industry uses. And it's sucking up such an insane amount of capital and resources because of the unreasonable effectiveness of modern manipulation of people. Some writer getting upset is not proof of anything, but the market cap of Google and Facebook is very strong evidence.
This was the only line that caught my attention, but I admittedly stopped reading the article before the story changed from "how to catch a health scammer" 2+ centuries ago.
What if the current big tech is alchemy and astrology time-wise (since we're so early on this whole information curve)?
Though, this seems more like a restaurant that starts serving subpar products. The traffic will go elsewhere after awhile of getting served crap (especially if there's alternatives to measure against), to never return again.
Loyalty in the digital age is about as common as respect (ie. respecting your privacy) online. Its not very solid.
Some Kodak moments last longer than others, but its going to be funny if Netflix is the 1st to drop from FAANG.
> Besides, they say, “advertisers and other groups manipulate consumers’ emotions all the time
How can you be a prof at Harvard and make such a statement to the press?
Well, maybe they did A/B testing and discovered that people don't give a damn. I will certainly mimimize usage of services that do such testing.
He is right, the outrage over "manipulation in tech" is both hysterical and deeply hypocritical. Politicians and advertisers have been doing it for centuries. It is just that when "nerds" and "science" do it. Radio has been used to promote genocide multiple times over centuries and nobody states a need to put the Genie back in the bottle because it is largely in the control of power. Nobody makes the tool a moral outrage that needa categorically banned - they recognize that being a sicko who promotes genocide is the wrong.
"People get killed every week, so please don't be too hysterical if I kill 1-2 more"
If they wanted to make an argument that we shouldn't accept emotional manipulation from advertising, I have said nothing.
It's not enough to say "just because A did it doesn't mean B can" without 1) addressing why the calls for cessation are narrowly targeted at B and 2) understanding why A was never successfully made to stop. 2 can help you understand the pitfalls of what you're trying to do ("manipulating emotions" is a ridiculously ill-defined phrase), and 1 can help you understand whether you're chasing after a red herring instead of what you're actually concerned about.
To use your own framing: perhaps if you'd spent 5 minutes thinking about it instead of 2, you'd realize these dimensions exist and are valid bases for complaint.
Well, you could ask by analogy why people got so upset about atomic bombs when regular bombs are just as painful to be blown up by. Or maybe modern precision targeted weapons are a better analogy.
I have never been as concerned about privacy as I am about manipulation and forced social engineering. For the last 30 years , I have spent a lot of time writing books. My joke to friends and family has been that I spend evenings writing because I thought network TV is mostly a waste of time but more importantly subjecting yourself to advertisements is a crazy thing to do. Now I consider careless and thoughtless Internet use to be so much worse.