3 ms·

As an absurd example, if someone were to invent a ray-gun that reprograms people's brains with arbitrary beliefs it would be 100% unethical and illegal to use.

• Mirioron 6y ago
  With the raygun there's a clear cause and effect. You can fairly easily prove that what changes beliefs is the raygun. You can't do that with ads and fake news articles. The other point is that with ads and articles you have to engage with them yourself. Something can grab your attention, but you can decide to ignore it anyway.
  • dane-pgp 6y ago
    There isn't a clear cause and effect between smoking a single cigarette and developing cancer, or even between smoking a single cigarette and addiction. For a long time, tobacco companies used such equivocation to avoid regulation of their industry. Instead, we look at the total effect (and often the intended effect) of multiple small changes, and decide whether they are a net positive for society.
    • Mirioron 6y ago
      Do we have a total effect of ads and fake news on society? Something that's actually reliable and not propaganda itself? It seems extremely difficult to be able to differentiate between an ad letting people know that a product exists and it directly influencing your decision. Or you could consider letting people know about the product existing as influencing the person, but then it's hard to argue that ads are actually bad. With tobacco it's far easier to show a correlation, because people can just not smoke. People can't just avoid the effects of advertising, because it's all around us. Even word of mouth can be an ad campaign. Also, tobacco probably is too regulated. It should be regulated to stop other people from experiencing the negative effects of somebody smoking. Limiting what flavors cigarettes can have and enormously taxing them seems like it has gone too far. People should be allowed to make their own choices in a free society.
      • elliekelly 6y ago
        It isn’t exactly on point but at some level the investment industry is aware of the difference and does a fairly good job at walking the line. There’s a reason every prospectus looks the same: it’s meant to convey facts and let investors arrive at their own decision rather than “sell” them on making an investment.
      • csharptwdec19 6y ago
        > Do we have a total effect of ads and fake news on society? Something that's actually reliable and not propaganda itself? It seems extremely difficult to be able to differentiate between an ad letting people know that a product exists and it directly influencing your decision. Or you could consider letting people know about the product existing as influencing the person, but then it's hard to argue that ads are actually bad. Thinking out loud, I would be curious to see a study on people who play 'Loot Box/Gacha' style games. Include both people who have been playing for a while, as well as people who 'start' playing during the study. Include non-players. Measure their other 'vice' behaviors (i.e. Drinking alcohol, nicotine, real gambling, gentlemen's clubs, etc.) over the same time. My hypothesis is that in those who are introduced to Gacha games, you will see an increase in other 'addictive' behavior, because the content they see will whittle away at their resistance to other addictive behaviors.
        • Mirioron 6y ago
          >My hypothesis is that in those who are introduced to Gacha games, you will see an increase in other 'addictive' behavior, because the content they see will whittle away at their resistance to other addictive behaviors. I understand what pattern you're going for, but I don't think the study would show that. The number of people that play gacha games is small conjugated to the number of people that smoke, drink, gamble etc. Chances are that you'd likely see the reverse - doing those things could increase your likelihood of playing gacha games (or well, spending money on them - it's entirely possible to play most of these games as virtually free).
      • PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        > People should be allowed to make their own choices in a free society. When the rest of the "free society" has to bear the costs of certain choices, it doesn't seem so illegitimate to argue that it has some interest in constraining those choices. And there of course is the endless contradiction of being a social creature: on the one hand, being part of a society creates possibilities that were not there before, but also leads to constraints that were also not there before. Endless political philosophers across centuries have grappled with how best to resolve this paradox, with no definitive answer at this point.
  • csharptwdec19 6y ago
    > The other point is that with ads and articles you have to engage with them yourself. Something can grab your attention, but you can decide to ignore it anyway. That's a slippery slope, when we remember that researchers are constantly looking for the right hooks that edge the 'persuasion' closer to entrapment. Doubly so when we consider neuroatypicals; While many people think of a 'seizure' as something that results in shaking movements/etc, There is a nonzero size of the population that can have seizures that are more 'internal'; the stimulus results in either a locking of focus on an item, or a sort of disoriented haze (at which point, for some, their subconscious is wide open.) Those who take the time to study hypnotism/NLP and are more wise than intelligent understand that we are playing with fire here folks.
  • deegles 6y ago
    > Something can grab your attention, but you can decide to ignore it anyway. I disagree. It's been shown[0] that repeatedly exposing people to information makes them more likely to believe it's true. As a further example, try to not think about your breathing after reading this sentence :) [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246