3 ms·
Great question. Let me first answer the meta question that i see all the time, from someone who studies systems science. There’s a supposed “crisis” with the sc
by zenapollo 3y ago
Great question. Let me first answer the meta question that i see all the time, from someone who studies systems science. There’s a supposed “crisis” with the scaling of X that involves millions or billions of people, and our largest societal institutions. Here’s a simple folksy example of x that’s not really much of a problem, how is that different from X? The answer is always the same, because scale matters, always.
In this case, here’s why scale matters. We know these ads work. On an individual basis let’s say you have a 0.31% chance of buying a thing you wouldn’t have otherwise. On this individual scale it seems like no big deal, certainly no amoral or unethical undue influence. On a massive scale however a 0.31% increase makes the advertiser a lot. AND there’s a network effect because desire is contagious, so the more people that buy, the more others will want - double winner. Now let’s say there’s a organization that wants to push some new technology into people’s lives, let’s say voice assistant smart speakers. At scale this doesn’t just sell smart speakers, now 5% of homes have one, and this now has the power to fundamentally change a small slice of culture more broadly as it becomes more common, ubiquitous, and relied upon. And the drift in a small slice of culture drifts the ultimate the trajectory of our civilization - simply by using small but statistically proven edge to influence people. Not to mention in this case, it further entrenches this power of corporate data collection and influence! And now, imagine instead of selling smart speakers, an organization wants to push a political idea, let’s say for example, that democracy is an conspiracy built by elite bankers. I think you can see where this goes.
- zenapollo 3y agoFurther (replying to my own comment), watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix. I almost didn’t watch it because I thought I’ve heard it all before. But it really shocks the conscious when you see it all laid out clearly with strong real world examples - building from the mental health crisis, to the culture wars, to the erosion of worldwide democracy writ large - all driven by the power of adtech.
- dcow 3y agoTo be honest, personally I’d argue for a stronger stance: the right to not be solicited. I think all advertising is poisonous and insidious and leads to the things you describe, not just targeted behavioral profiling. So I’d say the missing right that we need to codify lies somewhere in that realm. Still I think we’re a little stuck on the consent bit. If 98% of society consents to be solicited, all the problems of scale come back. So we need a framework to declare that the power granted to solicitation networks, if centralized, is too great and either reserve it for the gov’t or ideally outlaw it.
- ssivark 3y agoIt’s illegal, in many places, to sell your vote. Extending that example to a general principle — if you have any decision making power/responsibility over others, then allowing it to be subverted (for pecuniary or other benefit) is a dereliction of fiduciary responsibility. If you are only selling consequences on yourself (we can debate the legality of that, and protections necessary against exploitation) that’s a different scale of potential harm compared to selling away the power concomitant with your duties. By that logic, it might be possible (if the potency of behavioral advertising can be established) to forbid people from holding decision making responsibilities (including voting) if they wish to sell away their decision making power for benefits. At the extreme, imagine board members or government heads deciding a question of enormous importance, and their decision making getting hacked by personal behavioral targeting. If that sounds too fantastical, imagine a popular streaming service promoting an emotionally charged war drama (for Washington DC subscribers) when Congress is in session discussing geopolitics questions. Or more precise targeting analogues — aiming at key decision makers, or their friends/family. I doubt shareholders / stakeholders would be okay with that.
- dcow 3y agoI actually really like this construction/framing. I’ve been wondering for awhile how we claw out of this state where voting is a right not a privilege. You can’t discriminate on anything close to a protected class for obvious reasons, which roundabout includes education. But discriminating on whether you allow yourself to be solicited or not seems kinda brilliant. I don’t want peers who sell their souls to the sexiest corporation casting votes that have been tainted by corporate marketing dollars. I don’t want politicians in office who are exposed to that either. Amd of course I would love to flip a switch and have it be illegal to solicit me and never see another internet ad or receive another flyer or fake important envelope in the mail. Seems like it could be fruitful to draw a hard line between being open to being influenced by advertising and having any sort of political power.
- umate 3y agoi would also recommend the podcast called “Undivided Attention” from the same authors