6 ms·

I feel like there is a bit of ethical hysteresis here. If you have buttons that are designed to be placebo from the start, I find that unethical. If you have

I feel like there is a bit of ethical hysteresis here. If you have buttons that are designed to be placebo from the start, I find that unethical. If you have buttons that work, but have to be disabled due to a change in plans, that strikes me as less problematic (but they should still eventually be removed). So, how you get there matters.

fredley 8y ago
Eh. I think although it's a 'dark pattern', it's one with measured effects on behaviour that result in less people crossing against the light, which (I would assume) correlates with less accidents. I think calling it unethical is a bit much.
- carbocation 8y ago
  I am curious about the effect on the people long-term. I am not sure that reducing the number of people crossing against the light at the crossings in the article in particular tells the full story. An analysis that considers the reduction in crossing against the light without weighing the consequences of dishonesty is incomplete.
- snarf21 8y ago
  I'm sure I'm in the minority but I don't even think it is that. If the button at each intersection prevents one accident (hospital or even death) then it is worth it. So people got tricked to be safer? Oh, the humanity. People who are going to cross anyway still will.
  - samdoidge 8y ago
    I think if people realise buttons may be placebo - this will reduce how much people use / wait for buttons in general.
  - drcube 8y ago
    What if it prevents one accident today, but causes two accidents tomorrow?
    - q3k 8y ago
      What if eating cereal for breakfast is healthy today but causes two accidents tomorrow?
      - justtopost 8y ago
        Hello diabetes!
  - zimablue 8y ago
    It's immoral because you don't have the right to deceive and make decisions for other people. Let's take the example further and see if you can find a point where it starts to be obviously unethical, then work your way backwards on the principle discovered. How about we lie to you about the contents of your food, in some way that manipulates you to be healthier? Still OK with that, why don't we tell you that something is vegetarian if you can never tell the difference, by your utilitarian metric you've increased my happiness, I got to enjoy some delicious meal. If I find out you have one day left to live and that day will be happier not knowing that fact, do I have the right to lie to you about it? The utilitarian benefit calculation goes up so case closed right? If someone if a devout Jehovah's witness, give them a blood transplant and deny that it ever happened, do you have the right to do that? Not everyone is on the same utilitarian value curve as you and you don't have the right to mess with and deceive them because you think you're smarter than they are. Some (most) people value truth, dignity or reality in their utility function, and you might not even be smarter than all of them.
    - snarf21 8y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't buy the slippery slope argument here. No one is saying that the ends justify the means. Is adding a stop sign to a random intersection any different? Who decided that people should stop there? In small towns, a lot of times it is because an elderly person went to the township meeting every week for years complaining so they gave up and added one, not because there is any inherent safety issue. Governments and corporations literally lie to us every day. Not causing a light to change three seconds earlier (because it will still change) doesn't violate anyone's civil liberties or religion or cause their death. Governments do manipulate things already to make people healthier and safer. Soda taxes, seat belts, food pyramids (bought by the FDA) are all examples. In this case, most municipalities have laws against jay walking. One could argue this is just an enforcement of that law.
    - grkvlt 8y ago
      If action X is unethical/immoral in some situation S, this in no way implies that for all situations, X is unethical/immoral. See killing people for an example, perhaps, or maybe telling people they are (not) ugly?
- dtech 8y ago
  There are better ways though. A countdown that shows remaining time until green has both a positive effect on perceived wait time, the same effect on crossings without green and does not have this ethical problem.
- sevensor 8y ago
  Call it impractical then? At least in Lebanon, as people become aware of this deception, they came to reject crosswalk rules in general. Ethics notwithstanding, breaking the honesty clause of the social contract is going to backfire on you.
amelius 8y ago
It's still better than the "nocebo buttons", which make the waiting longer the more often you press them :)
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  A nocebo is still inactive, just with negative rather than positive expectations. So the nocebo button would still be a button that doesn't do anything, but people believe that pressing it increases their wait time.
rolandog 8y ago
Wouldn't a countdown timer solve the need for those buttons?
GuB-42 8y ago
How you get there matters for the budget. But ethically it is the same. In any case, you are consciously lying to people for their own good. Is lying to people for their own good ethical? You decide, I don't think there is a correct answer. In fact the second case (not removing the buttons) can be seen as the least ethical of the two. In the first case, it is an assumed choice, you did it because you think it is for the best. In the second case, you let money guide your ethical choices. That's essentially Black Hat's answer to the trolley problem (https://xkcd.com/1455/ https://xkcd.com/1455/)
- Retra 8y ago
  It's not really about lying, IMO. (In any case, lying isn't even unethical. -- deceit is.) It's pretty much ok to deceive people if they indirectly agree to it and you stay within bounds of what they agreed to. It is not unreasonable to expect people will be ok with deception conducted to engage in data collection and scientific study, so long as the consequences are negligible, as they are here. The only ethical problem here is caused if you do not use the collected data, or do not stop the study after a sufficient amount of data is collected.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
I'm saddened to find a comment about ethics only after pages of uninteresting comments. Placebos are psychological manipulation and that's why they are illegal in medicine in various countries. Deception, especially in a safety-critical scenario, leads to mistrust, cynicism and even paranoid thinking. Guess what? The antivax movement and most silly conspiracy theories are fueled by mistrust.
vhold 8y ago
Agreed, and having the button there allows for more flexibility in the future. I know some buttons that went from doing something, then nothing, then something again. Like they now will make sound when its your turn to cross for people with impaired sight, but only if the button is pressed so people living nearby don't have loud crossing sounds going off all the time. Also some now activate flashing lights surrounding the crosswalk to alert drivers.

fredley 8y ago

Eh. I think although it's a 'dark pattern', it's one with measured effects on behaviour that result in less people crossing against the light, which (I would assume) correlates with less accidents. I think calling it unethical is a bit much.

carbocation 8y ago
I am curious about the effect on the people long-term. I am not sure that reducing the number of people crossing against the light at the crossings in the article in particular tells the full story. An analysis that considers the reduction in crossing against the light without weighing the consequences of dishonesty is incomplete.
snarf21 8y ago
I'm sure I'm in the minority but I don't even think it is that. If the button at each intersection prevents one accident (hospital or even death) then it is worth it. So people got tricked to be safer? Oh, the humanity. People who are going to cross anyway still will.
- samdoidge 8y ago
  I think if people realise buttons may be placebo - this will reduce how much people use / wait for buttons in general.
- drcube 8y ago
  What if it prevents one accident today, but causes two accidents tomorrow?
  - q3k 8y ago
    What if eating cereal for breakfast is healthy today but causes two accidents tomorrow?
    - justtopost 8y ago
      Hello diabetes!
- zimablue 8y ago
  It's immoral because you don't have the right to deceive and make decisions for other people. Let's take the example further and see if you can find a point where it starts to be obviously unethical, then work your way backwards on the principle discovered. How about we lie to you about the contents of your food, in some way that manipulates you to be healthier? Still OK with that, why don't we tell you that something is vegetarian if you can never tell the difference, by your utilitarian metric you've increased my happiness, I got to enjoy some delicious meal. If I find out you have one day left to live and that day will be happier not knowing that fact, do I have the right to lie to you about it? The utilitarian benefit calculation goes up so case closed right? If someone if a devout Jehovah's witness, give them a blood transplant and deny that it ever happened, do you have the right to do that? Not everyone is on the same utilitarian value curve as you and you don't have the right to mess with and deceive them because you think you're smarter than they are. Some (most) people value truth, dignity or reality in their utility function, and you might not even be smarter than all of them.
  - snarf21 8y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't buy the slippery slope argument here. No one is saying that the ends justify the means. Is adding a stop sign to a random intersection any different? Who decided that people should stop there? In small towns, a lot of times it is because an elderly person went to the township meeting every week for years complaining so they gave up and added one, not because there is any inherent safety issue. Governments and corporations literally lie to us every day. Not causing a light to change three seconds earlier (because it will still change) doesn't violate anyone's civil liberties or religion or cause their death. Governments do manipulate things already to make people healthier and safer. Soda taxes, seat belts, food pyramids (bought by the FDA) are all examples. In this case, most municipalities have laws against jay walking. One could argue this is just an enforcement of that law.
  - grkvlt 8y ago
    If action X is unethical/immoral in some situation S, this in no way implies that for all situations, X is unethical/immoral. See killing people for an example, perhaps, or maybe telling people they are (not) ugly?
dtech 8y ago
There are better ways though. A countdown that shows remaining time until green has both a positive effect on perceived wait time, the same effect on crossings without green and does not have this ethical problem.
sevensor 8y ago
Call it impractical then? At least in Lebanon, as people become aware of this deception, they came to reject crosswalk rules in general. Ethics notwithstanding, breaking the honesty clause of the social contract is going to backfire on you.

amelius 8y ago

It's still better than the "nocebo buttons", which make the waiting longer the more often you press them :)

daveFNbuck 8y ago
A nocebo is still inactive, just with negative rather than positive expectations. So the nocebo button would still be a button that doesn't do anything, but people believe that pressing it increases their wait time.

rolandog 8y ago

Wouldn't a countdown timer solve the need for those buttons?

GuB-42 8y ago

How you get there matters for the budget. But ethically it is the same. In any case, you are consciously lying to people for their own good. Is lying to people for their own good ethical? You decide, I don't think there is a correct answer. In fact the second case (not removing the buttons) can be seen as the least ethical of the two. In the first case, it is an assumed choice, you did it because you think it is for the best. In the second case, you let money guide your ethical choices. That's essentially Black Hat's answer to the trolley problem (https://xkcd.com/1455/ https://xkcd.com/1455/)

Retra 8y ago
It's not really about lying, IMO. (In any case, lying isn't even unethical. -- deceit is.) It's pretty much ok to deceive people if they indirectly agree to it and you stay within bounds of what they agreed to. It is not unreasonable to expect people will be ok with deception conducted to engage in data collection and scientific study, so long as the consequences are negligible, as they are here. The only ethical problem here is caused if you do not use the collected data, or do not stop the study after a sufficient amount of data is collected.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

I'm saddened to find a comment about ethics only after pages of uninteresting comments. Placebos are psychological manipulation and that's why they are illegal in medicine in various countries. Deception, especially in a safety-critical scenario, leads to mistrust, cynicism and even paranoid thinking. Guess what? The antivax movement and most silly conspiracy theories are fueled by mistrust.

vhold 8y ago

Agreed, and having the button there allows for more flexibility in the future. I know some buttons that went from doing something, then nothing, then something again. Like they now will make sound when its your turn to cross for people with impaired sight, but only if the button is pressed so people living nearby don't have loud crossing sounds going off all the time. Also some now activate flashing lights surrounding the crosswalk to alert drivers.