3 ms·

I wonder how the ACM's composition affects their stance on this. If most of ACM's influential participants come from academe, it costs little to label advertisi

I wonder how the ACM's composition affects their stance on this. If most of ACM's influential participants come from academe, it costs little to label advertising as unethical. Now if we were to discuss the exploitation of naive graduate students, then there might be a little more back and forth. The whole notion of calling a given thing unethical in modern discourse is interesting to me, because there is not just one ethics. A person could reasonably reflect on personalized advertising and ask: "what concrete harms have been done?" I think it would be hard to point out much that is unambiguous. People like to bring up Cambridge Analytica or social media misinformation, but neither case is necessarily advertising related. You could equally well argue those cases arise from Facebook's and Twitter's reluctance to embrace information paternalism. I think it's fair for someone to comment on social issues without "removing the log from their own eye," because what each of us see as ethical issues with other actors in the social space differs. Typically we have no problem with our own actions and abhor anything that otherwise inconveniences us. But that also makes me question whether ethics is even a real thing, or whether it's just a rhetorical cudgel with which we try to beat other people into our preferred behavior.

deepsquirrelnet 5y ago
Ethics is philosophically a real thing -- but it's not a real thing as a system of governance. I think "business ethics" has become so prominent, only because it enables unethical people a means to subjugate a populous of mostly ethical people. If you think that's too harsh, consider that traditional ethics is usually in polar opposition to the Reaganite imperative that the primary responsibility of businesses is to make money for their shareholders. Clearly, if you believe that surveillance capitalism is unethical -- then you find yourself in between two opposing ethical definitions. Now your only choice is which one to pick, make money or not. What kind of business leaders emerge from this?
saagarjha 5y ago
> The whole notion of calling a given thing unethical in modern discourse is interesting to me, because there is not just one ethics. A person could reasonably reflect on personalized advertising and ask: "what concrete harms have been done?" Most ethical systems consider performing actions with a lack of transparency and consent to be unethical. Often even if there is a benefit to the subject.
bee_rider 5y ago
I don't think I have a broader point here, but I do want to note that ACM is (of course) more significantly than a corporation, a professional association. The idea that professions should have codes of ethics goes back to a couple hundred BC, right? Of course, just about as old is the idea of professionals violating those codes for $$$. > A person could reasonably reflect on personalized advertising and ask: "what concrete harms have been done?" I think it would be hard to point out much that is unambiguous. People like to bring up Cambridge Analytica or social media misinformation, but neither case is necessarily advertising related. IMO one aspect of being an ethical person is considering ambiguity to be resolved in the 'bad' direction. This shouldn't terminate thought on the topic, just lead to further investigation by those who want to do something ad related. Are there ambiguous harms? (I haven't thought much about the underlying morality of ads themselves -- I find them annoying as a consumer but they aren't my field).

deepsquirrelnet 5y ago

Ethics is philosophically a real thing -- but it's not a real thing as a system of governance. I think "business ethics" has become so prominent, only because it enables unethical people a means to subjugate a populous of mostly ethical people. If you think that's too harsh, consider that traditional ethics is usually in polar opposition to the Reaganite imperative that the primary responsibility of businesses is to make money for their shareholders. Clearly, if you believe that surveillance capitalism is unethical -- then you find yourself in between two opposing ethical definitions. Now your only choice is which one to pick, make money or not. What kind of business leaders emerge from this?

saagarjha 5y ago

> The whole notion of calling a given thing unethical in modern discourse is interesting to me, because there is not just one ethics. A person could reasonably reflect on personalized advertising and ask: "what concrete harms have been done?" Most ethical systems consider performing actions with a lack of transparency and consent to be unethical. Often even if there is a benefit to the subject.

bee_rider 5y ago

I don't think I have a broader point here, but I do want to note that ACM is (of course) more significantly than a corporation, a professional association. The idea that professions should have codes of ethics goes back to a couple hundred BC, right? Of course, just about as old is the idea of professionals violating those codes for $$$. > A person could reasonably reflect on personalized advertising and ask: "what concrete harms have been done?" I think it would be hard to point out much that is unambiguous. People like to bring up Cambridge Analytica or social media misinformation, but neither case is necessarily advertising related. IMO one aspect of being an ethical person is considering ambiguity to be resolved in the 'bad' direction. This shouldn't terminate thought on the topic, just lead to further investigation by those who want to do something ad related. Are there ambiguous harms? (I haven't thought much about the underlying morality of ads themselves -- I find them annoying as a consumer but they aren't my field).