4 ms·

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

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.

raxxorrax 7y ago
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.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  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.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "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.

raxxorrax 7y ago

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.

wutbrodo 7y ago
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.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "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.