(Estimated reading time: 10 minutes)

Mark Zuckerburg is sorry. Last week, the father of social media shook the industry by announcing a major overhaul to Facebook’s News Feed algorithm. “I’m changing the goal I give our product teams from focusing on helping you find relevant content (read videos, photos, and posts from businesses and media outlets) to helping you have more meaningful social interactions,” he wrote on his Facebook page.
Right around the same time, Apple released a statement saying that it “cared deeply about how our products are used and the impact they have on users and the people around them,” adding that it was working on a few features to address tech addiction.
So what’s with the sudden case of “tethics” (technology-related ethics)? A disenchanted and increasingly vocal user population, that’s what. And not just user-plebes like you and me, but major investors. Such is the case at Apple, whose statement above came on the heels of an open letter sent to their board of directors by two of its largest shareholders. The shareholders called for more psychologically-healthy products, citing studies by prominent researchers about the negative effects of tech consumption on younger users. These ranged from sleep deprivation and a decreased ability to focus on educational tasks all the way up to an increased risk of suicide.
Like Apple, Facebook’s new conscience arrived less spontaneously than it might seem. For one thing, the platform needs to shake off a number of rep-tarnishing controversies, from the censorship of a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo to its failure to prevent the spread of misinformation in the months leading to the U.S. 2016 presidential election. But perhaps even more importantly, Facebook’s own influential friends (or former friends as the case may be) are the ones calling for change.
Take Sean Parker, Facebook’s former president. In a recent interview, he admitted that from the platform’s beginning, the goal was to consume as much of the user’s time as possible. To ensure that, rewards were built in.
“[We realized that] we needed to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever…” says Parker. “It’s a social validation feedback loop … You’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology … [The inventors] understood this, consciously, and we did it anyway.”
A Call for Accountability
That exploitation of human psychology has other industry notables crying foul. Aaron Weyenberg, Director of Research and Development at TED, says he’s incredulous at how easily tech creators have evaded scrutiny. “Studies that show how many times we check our devices each day (75 to 150 depending on the study) are often followed by narratives using the language and tone of self-blame (addiction, narcissism, boredom, etc). Those narratives are rarely accompanied by what’s happening on the other side of the product development cycle: The designer’s invisible hand meddling with the controls.”
Weyenberg goes on to describe this meddling in terms of three major factors: behavioral research that enables the incorporation of addictive properties into products; incentives that exclude user well being; and the lightening speed at which designers can analyze our online behavior to optimize their efforts. And given our reliance on devices combined with our ignorance regarding the myriad subtle ways we’re being manipulated, he believes that the average technology user is no match for the creator’s built-in hooks.
That’s where design ethics come in. Design ethics are principles that encourage creators to actively consider their moral responsibilities in shaping consumer experience, thinking and behavior. Perhaps the best-known standard for ethical design was developed in the 1970s, by German designer Dieter Rams. Fed up with what he saw as a proliferation of confusing, extravagant and wasteful design, he created his Ten Principles for Good Design to help fellow creators ensure that their work was useful, innovative, honest and environmentally sound. It remains a guiding beacon to this day, save for one little problem: Rams was unable to foresee the looming import and effect of design on today’s technology-dependent society.
Uh-oh. Perhaps I’m starting to sound a little alarmist, right? After all, we’re the ones holding our devices, making choices about when and how we interact with them. Tristan Harris thinks maybe not. He’s a former Google design ethicist with big concerns about technology’s effect on society. In a disquieting TED talk, he observes that, “Never before in history have such a small number of designers – a handful of young, mostly male engineers, living in the Bay Area of California, working at a handful of tech companies – had such a large influence on two billion people’s thoughts and choices.”
Often times, he argues, this influence is used to keep you hooked. Harris likens smartphones to slot machines, both which maximize “addictiveness” with intermittent variable rewards. With a slot machine, you pull a handle and instantly receive either a reward, or nothing. That random chance for a match keeps you coming back in search of pleasurable outcome. Our phones offer the same constant possibility of reward in the form of likes, tags, replies, follows, texts or any other affirmation gambits. That keeps us coming back, sometimes hundreds of times a day. And each of those visits is another mini-window to engage and sell us.
What Harris, Weyenberg, and Apple’s stakeholders are calling for is a more deliberative approach to technology–designs, policies and systems that foreground the well being of the user–and ultimately, society. Essentially, it’s what Mark Zuckerberg says he proposes to do with his shift to Facebook’s algorithm. His is a good example and a first step, but Facebook is just one player in a universe of apps and media platforms. So the really big question is this: how can ethical design be incorporated (enforced?) on a universal scale?
Tech That Cares
“It’s Time for Apple to Build a Less Addictive iPhone” declares tech writer Farhad Manjoo in this week’s New York Times. His article examines the question of who might have the best chance to enforce ethical tech design. Turns out, industry experts are looking inside the field–straight at Apple. That’s partially due to the fact that the company has always been a game-changer (hell, its motto is Think Differently); and just as much because Apple isn’t actually responsible for the excesses of the digital ad business. To put it another way, Apple’s business model does not depend on tech addiction; the company makes most of its money by selling premium devices at high profit margins. Plus, notes Manjoo, Apple may not be in the ad business, but it exerts control over it. Every tech company needs a presence on the iPhone or iPad.
But even if Apple were to take a stand, what might that look like? For this, Manjoo spoke with Tristan Harris.
“Imagine if, once a week, your phone gave you a report on how you spent your time, similar to how your activity tracker tells you how sedentary you were last week,” suggests Harris. “It could also needle you [by name], e.g.: ‘XXXXX, you spent half your week scrolling through Twitter. Do you really feel proud of that?’ [Or] It could offer to help: ‘If I notice you spending too much time on Snapchat next week, would you like me to remind you?’”
There are other, less personalized (or invasive, depending on your preferences) tactics too, posits Harris in the piece. For instance, Apple could require application designers to assign priority levels to their notifications. Instead of the all-or-nothing notification system we know today (constant interruption, drained battery), there could be levels for heavy, regular and light users. “And then Apple could say, by default, that everyone is in the middle level. [It could] instantly save users a ton of energy in dealing with this.”
In a sense, these ideas all point to the need to update Ram’s Ten Principles of Good Design; to add something that addresses loopholes and provides a steady hand in the connected age. And while this might sound sacrilegious to reverent devotees, Aaron Weyenberg champions this view. He argues that we think of the Principles less as commandments set in stone, and more like a charter or constitution.
“Thomas Jefferson kept a version of the New Testament that he edited himself,” notes Weyenberg. Historians say he ‘did not produce his small book to shock or offend a somnolent world; he composed it for himself, for his devotion, for his assurance, for a more restful sleep at nights and a more confident greeting of the mornings.’ That’s how I think of modifying Dieter Rams’ principles. The original is sacrosanct, so I forked my own version.”
Here’s Weyenberg’s amendment (what he calls the 11th Principle):
11. Good design is ethical. The product places the user’s interest at the center of its purpose. Any effort to influence the user’s agency or behavior is in the spirit of their own positive well being, and the well being of those around them.
It sounds almost utopian–like something on the wall of a futuristic creative agency in the Star Trek universe. But I’m skeptical. Silicon Valley isn’t just a poster child for innovation and entrepreneurship, but for capitalism, too. With the billions of dollars being made on ads, apps, and disposable devices, what’s the incentive for big business to put the customer first?
If you think like Farhad Manjoo (the NYT tech writer we met above), that incentive is customer loyalty and a halo effect. “Done right, a full-fledged campaign pushing the benefits of a more deliberative approach to tech wouldn’t come off as self-interest, but in keeping with Apple’s best vision of itself–as a company that looks out for the interests of humanity in an otherwise cold and sometimes inhumane industry.”
As the owner of an iPhone, iPad, and several MacBooks, that’s a portrait of Apple that I don’t quite recognize. Absolutely I love the products’ sleek designs and intuitive interfaces. But I’ve also felt the sting of shoddy power cords that cost $100 to replace, or buying a new device only to have all accessories rendered obsolete by a redesigned socket. Then again, if Apple decided that the 11th principle did make good business sense, I’d be happily hooked forever.
RELATED READING:
“The Techlash Against Amazon, Facebook and Google–and what they can do about it”, The Economist, Eve Smith, 1.20.2018
“Never Get High on Your Own Supply–Why Social Media Bosses Don’t Use Social Media,” The Guardian, Alex Hern, 1.23.2018
Like this:
Like Loading...