4 ms·

Using AI to weed out people most susceptible to manipulation via ads doesn't really seem to be something that falls under "good & moral" category.

by mbel 9y ago

ThomPete 9y ago
But this is what most advertising attempt to do so why is it evil just because they are better at it than others? No one is forced to use FB as far as I know.
- chrischen 9y ago
  Diet pills and male enhancement pills are generally scams. There is increasing pressure to use Facebook in order to fit in and be included in things. For example many people are contacting only through facebook and ignoring other channels. If I put a gun to your head and ask you nicely to take the pill or die, I'm essentially forcing you to take the pill as it's unreasonable for most to choose the die option.
  - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
    >There is increasing pressure to use Facebook in order to fit in and be included in things. >If I put a gun to your head and ask you nicely to take the pill or die, I'm essentially forcing you to take the pill One of these things is not at all like the other.
    - chrischen 9y ago
      I'll elaborate a bit more on it. Let's look at the 70s, 80s, and possibly even the 90s. During these periods it was acceptable for most people to not know how to type, as usage of typewriters and keyboards were limited. But as society more and more adopted—and then relied on—computers and keyboard, it became increasing a necessity to be able to type. Back then you could get a job without typing skills, these days, it would be increasingly difficult to do so and you'd definitely be hampered by your inability to operate a computer. If you can't find a job, you'd be an outcast, and thus society has now developed a reliance on being able to type and use a keyboard (and thus a computer). As with Facebook, if society continues to rely on it for social engagements and developing connections with people, it will soon become a necessity to use facebook in order to participate socially or keep in touch with people. That's the trend at least. The difference with Facebook however is that it relegates a big part of society to a single company, and cedes control of social interaction to a black box of software and algorithms. So the slow progress of Facebook towards necessity is thus like the slow physical progression of my gun to your head: they're both making something become a necessity by limiting your options, whether it's taking a mysterious pill in my hand or becoming a social outcast.
- mbel 9y ago
  > is it evil just because they are better at it than others? It really depends on scale and proportions. In this case the exact boundary when something becomes recognized as evil doesn't really exist. The more efficient you will become on finding out weaknesses of other humans and using them, the more people will consider your actions to be evil. Displaying a picture of happy family drinking coke won't shock anybody, but suggesting discount on alcohol to alcoholic might come as wrong to many people. > No one is forced to use FB as far as I know. With facebook actively scraping phones for contacts, calls and messages, embedding widgets on third party sites and what-not. in a way we all really are forced to be facebook users.
  - wufufufu 9y ago
    So it depends on what society considers to be "weaknesses". I was just arguing with someone who thought that Google was evil for supporting LGBT while having massive cultural influence as a company.
    - mbel 9y ago
      I would say: yep, pretty much. Generally abusing "weaknesses" is considered evil, and the likeliness that something becomes considered a "weakness" seem to depend on how much damage can be done by abusing this trait.
  - wmeredith 9y ago
    > With facebook actively scraping phones for contacts, calls and messages, embedding widgets on third party sites and what-not. in a way we all really are forced to be facebook users. This is one of my biggest concerns. Facebook has shadow profiles on people that aren't users, including my kids. It's gross.
- kolbe 9y ago
  I don't know why you're getting downvoted this much. You raise a very good point about the nature of morality in advertising. Most ads are designed to convince people to make a decision that is against their best economic interest. And just because facebook is really good at directly targeting people who are most likely to make such decisions doesn't make them particularly immoral. Just more talented at it. But fundamentally speaking, it's just like the scams we see advertised on TV shows with the dumbest audience. It just feels worse when the statement becomes "we've found that John Foobar it an idiot--go take advantage of him," rather than "people who watch the Kardashians tend to be idiots."
dfxm12 9y ago
There are a lot of choices on this spectrum between "good & moral" and "evil".
- Fnoord 9y ago
  True, but consider the following: 1) The people themselves don't know how easily they are manipulated. 2) Facebook analyses this about them, and helps other businesses to use this against them. 3) They do not know Facebook helps other businesses to use this against them. That's problematic. At the very least, #3 should be solved ie. they should be informed beforehand because then at the very least they're informed about the malpractices. You can then make a case about it being allowed, or not. But you cannot make any informed case if you don't even know it is occurring.
- jerf 9y ago
  Are you going to defend this as being good & moral? Because the claim was simply that this doesn't seem to fit under good & moral.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  You have positive, neutral, and negative. This doesn't fall under positive or neutral.
Chathamization 9y ago
Honestly, advertising in general is probably a net detriment to society. This is especially depressing when you consider how much money goes into it.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  It absolutely is. Proper capitalism requires an open and free market with informed consumers capable of making sound decisions. Advertising, especially targeted and manipulative advertising, breaks down that relationship.
  - drak0n1c 9y ago
    Advertising isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are restaurants and niche products I value that I only discovered due to a postcard ad or a sidebar ad on a forum I frequent. In moderation it's an informer and can be good for society by helping break up local monopolies.
    - FussyZeus 9y ago
      In hindsight I worded that poorly, would've been better to say: Targeted advertising that employs manipulative or otherwise dishonest methods is damaging to Capitalism and free markets.

Using AI to weed out people most susceptible to manipulation via ads doesn't really seem to be something that falls under "good & moral" category.

by mbel 9y ago

Using AI to weed out people most susceptible to manipulation via ads doesn't really seem to be something that falls under "good & moral" category.

ThomPete 9y ago

But this is what most advertising attempt to do so why is it evil just because they are better at it than others? No one is forced to use FB as far as I know.

chrischen 9y ago
Diet pills and male enhancement pills are generally scams. There is increasing pressure to use Facebook in order to fit in and be included in things. For example many people are contacting only through facebook and ignoring other channels. If I put a gun to your head and ask you nicely to take the pill or die, I'm essentially forcing you to take the pill as it's unreasonable for most to choose the die option.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  >There is increasing pressure to use Facebook in order to fit in and be included in things. >If I put a gun to your head and ask you nicely to take the pill or die, I'm essentially forcing you to take the pill One of these things is not at all like the other.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    I'll elaborate a bit more on it. Let's look at the 70s, 80s, and possibly even the 90s. During these periods it was acceptable for most people to not know how to type, as usage of typewriters and keyboards were limited. But as society more and more adopted—and then relied on—computers and keyboard, it became increasing a necessity to be able to type. Back then you could get a job without typing skills, these days, it would be increasingly difficult to do so and you'd definitely be hampered by your inability to operate a computer. If you can't find a job, you'd be an outcast, and thus society has now developed a reliance on being able to type and use a keyboard (and thus a computer). As with Facebook, if society continues to rely on it for social engagements and developing connections with people, it will soon become a necessity to use facebook in order to participate socially or keep in touch with people. That's the trend at least. The difference with Facebook however is that it relegates a big part of society to a single company, and cedes control of social interaction to a black box of software and algorithms. So the slow progress of Facebook towards necessity is thus like the slow physical progression of my gun to your head: they're both making something become a necessity by limiting your options, whether it's taking a mysterious pill in my hand or becoming a social outcast.
mbel 9y ago
> is it evil just because they are better at it than others? It really depends on scale and proportions. In this case the exact boundary when something becomes recognized as evil doesn't really exist. The more efficient you will become on finding out weaknesses of other humans and using them, the more people will consider your actions to be evil. Displaying a picture of happy family drinking coke won't shock anybody, but suggesting discount on alcohol to alcoholic might come as wrong to many people. > No one is forced to use FB as far as I know. With facebook actively scraping phones for contacts, calls and messages, embedding widgets on third party sites and what-not. in a way we all really are forced to be facebook users.
- wufufufu 9y ago
  So it depends on what society considers to be "weaknesses". I was just arguing with someone who thought that Google was evil for supporting LGBT while having massive cultural influence as a company.
  - mbel 9y ago
    I would say: yep, pretty much. Generally abusing "weaknesses" is considered evil, and the likeliness that something becomes considered a "weakness" seem to depend on how much damage can be done by abusing this trait.
- wmeredith 9y ago
  > With facebook actively scraping phones for contacts, calls and messages, embedding widgets on third party sites and what-not. in a way we all really are forced to be facebook users. This is one of my biggest concerns. Facebook has shadow profiles on people that aren't users, including my kids. It's gross.
kolbe 9y ago
I don't know why you're getting downvoted this much. You raise a very good point about the nature of morality in advertising. Most ads are designed to convince people to make a decision that is against their best economic interest. And just because facebook is really good at directly targeting people who are most likely to make such decisions doesn't make them particularly immoral. Just more talented at it. But fundamentally speaking, it's just like the scams we see advertised on TV shows with the dumbest audience. It just feels worse when the statement becomes "we've found that John Foobar it an idiot--go take advantage of him," rather than "people who watch the Kardashians tend to be idiots."

dfxm12 9y ago

There are a lot of choices on this spectrum between "good & moral" and "evil".

Fnoord 9y ago
True, but consider the following: 1) The people themselves don't know how easily they are manipulated. 2) Facebook analyses this about them, and helps other businesses to use this against them. 3) They do not know Facebook helps other businesses to use this against them. That's problematic. At the very least, #3 should be solved ie. they should be informed beforehand because then at the very least they're informed about the malpractices. You can then make a case about it being allowed, or not. But you cannot make any informed case if you don't even know it is occurring.
jerf 9y ago
Are you going to defend this as being good & moral? Because the claim was simply that this doesn't seem to fit under good & moral.
grasshopperpurp 9y ago
You have positive, neutral, and negative. This doesn't fall under positive or neutral.

Chathamization 9y ago

Honestly, advertising in general is probably a net detriment to society. This is especially depressing when you consider how much money goes into it.

FussyZeus 9y ago
It absolutely is. Proper capitalism requires an open and free market with informed consumers capable of making sound decisions. Advertising, especially targeted and manipulative advertising, breaks down that relationship.
- drak0n1c 9y ago
  Advertising isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are restaurants and niche products I value that I only discovered due to a postcard ad or a sidebar ad on a forum I frequent. In moderation it's an informer and can be good for society by helping break up local monopolies.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    In hindsight I worded that poorly, would've been better to say: Targeted advertising that employs manipulative or otherwise dishonest methods is damaging to Capitalism and free markets.