Owners, Not Technology, Drive Ethics
In his book Persuasive Technology, B.J. Fogg identifies six key issues for assessment of the ethics of persuasive technology. They are:
1 - The novelty of the technology can mask its persuasive intent.
2 - Persuasive technology can exploit the positive reputation of computers.
3 – Computers can be proactively persistent.
4 – Computers control the interactive possibilities.
5 – Computers can affect emotions but can’t be affected by them.
6 – Computers cannot shoulder responsibility.
I realize that these are all important when considering the ethics of persuasive technology, but I think they really miss the heart of the issue.
Rather than the medium, I think that focus should be on the owner of the content and what that content is trying to do. Is the organization attempting a bait and switch technique? Do they use email signups as ways to collect large mailing lists and sell them to agencies that distribute SPAM? Do they actually tell the truth?!
I think that unethical activities should drive the discussion, not an understanding of the powers of technology. For example, websites for the United States Armed Forces discuss a tremendous amount of personal rewards that are available through military service. The sites are equipped with impressive visual design. It would be wrong to say that the websites are misleading in any way about the sacrifices inherent with military service simply because they are trying to persuade.
Just like in most other venues, when discussing ethics, content is king!
5 Comments:
I agree that it's the owners, programmers, or inventors that are responsible for the ethical design and use of their technology. But I think a big problem is that people don't consider ethical misuses critically beforehand. Like the guy that did the prison study, assigning "prisoner" and "guard" roles to ordinary people? He had no idea it was going to make them act as crazy as they did. A new technology I'm concerned about now is the caller-id fake out that can put up a number of someone you know. It seems like that kind of stuff always gets into the hands of the wrong people, who later act like they have a right to use it simply because they can.
Another example is the piece of technology that allows its user to switch traffic signals from Red to Green and vice versa. It allows polica officers, fire fighters and ambuleace drivers to proceed more quickly and safely. It also allows jerks to put everybody in a potentially dangerous situation when they want to get to work faster. Ethical technology, or not?
JD, your example of the technology for law enforcement to change traffic signals is absolutely ethical. The people who use it for their own convenience or amusement are not, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It’s the same argument over guns. Keep your eye on the criminal....
Yes, the contect is key - in fact, Fogg encourages you to imagine the same message being given offline. But his point is that there are unique aspects to computer-human interaction, like the fact that we tend to relate to computers as if they're people, but they don't have emotions, and don't unconsciously give off cues.
I agree that the focus of ethics should certainly be on progammers rather than the technology. Machines are the medium carrying out tactics devised by the programmer.
Post a Comment
<< Home