Ethical Concerns regarding Persuasive Technology

6

October

2020

No ratings yet.

The popular documentary ‘The Social Dilemma’ on Netflix about the dangerous impacts of social media on our society inspired me to dive deeper in the ethical concerns of ‘persuasive technology’, a term devised by Fogg (2002).

The development of persuasive technology resulted from the rise of mobile phones and other connected devices. As it is too expensive to use human capital to track consumer’s needs and persuasion to certain products or ads, this is an AI task nowadays (Morris, 2020). These can be so powerful in persuading people, that they finally have the ability to influence people’s attitude and behaviour by programming new habits in their daily routine (Fogg, 2002). This process of being persuaded on social media is nothing new for us, as we all have experienced changing behaviour due to our mobile phone. For example, health applications often encourage people to walk an extra mile or eat healthier food. This example helps people to improve their lives and do good.

However, as discussed in the earlier mentioned documentary, the development also comes with ethical concerns because of damaging effects on human beings. As these AI-driven machines are highly automated, very good listeners and excellent learners (Brynjolfsson & Mcafee, 2017), they can be highly persuasive in triggering consuming behaviour. The ethical concerns are mainly caused by the fact that computers, for example, do not care whether you are a child, or you financially cannot afford purchases a computer is convincing you of (Morris, 2020).

An example that caused a major backlash against Facebook, is a leaked confidential document from Facebook that revealed the company gave advertisers the opportunity to target 6.4 million young users, during emotionally weak moments (Tiku, 2017). This document highlights Facebook’s persuasive power by advertising young people who needed a confidence boost.

Such advertising behaviour and its dangerous effects on people should be an eye-opener for hub firms like Facebook. They should be aware of their long-term societal impact of their business strategy and prioritize ethical responsibilities. By doing so, they can use IT as an opportunity to truly lead our economy (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2018).

Brynjolfsson, E., and Mcafee, A. 2017. The business of artificial intelligence: what it can and cannot do for your organization. Harvard Business Review

Fogg, B.J. (2011). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.

Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. 2018. Managing our hub economy. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 17-17.

Morris, D.Z. (2020). How marketers are increasingly using A.I. to persuade you to buy. [online] Available at: https://fortune.com/2020/01/31/ai-marketing-persuade/.

Please rate this

Everyday Photography Impacts on our Society

15

September

2020

No ratings yet.

 

In recent years, technology has obviously shaken the photography world. In 1888, Kodak raised the industry with inventing the analogue camera, using a film roll (Robinson, 2017). However, many technology innovations disrupted the industry, like the use of disks or digital backs instead of a film roll, the digitalization of photos and cameras and the implementation of screens on cameras. Finally, the smartphone camera started to beat the digital cameras, which shifted our society to take on an “everyday photography lifestyle” (Harrison, 2004).

At first, an analysis of the digital disruption in photography on a business level will be described. Kodak, a firm which had great influence on the analogue- and digital photography trends, used to make profit by every “click” on the camera. They were forced to deal with the impact of the digital camera, Internet and ICT, which all led to a transformation in consumer processes. Unfortunately, the firm was not able to keep up with the technological discontinuity. According to the theory of Christensen (2013), the lessons that can be learned from the failure of Kodak are that management (1) should recognize threats and opportunities of digital disruptions timely, (2) must be capable to change, which involves a change in organizational culture and core strengths, (3) should guide all their employees in the same direction, in order to prevent change failure (Lucas & Goh, 2009).

Second, the impacts on a consumer level will be analyzed. Both on a professional and amateurish level, digital disruptions changed a lot in consuming behavior in the photography industry.
Firstly, professional photographers have to deal with a major increase in competition, due to a reduction of entry barriers. Furthermore, they are having a hard time in taking the quality of a photo camera seriously.
Secondly, photographic practices as amateurs has increased drastically, and even led to an “everyday photography lifestyle”. To indicate, Cakebread (2017) estimated that people would take 1.2 trillion digital photos in 2017. Besides the increased convenience of taking digital photos, social media platforms are likely to contribute to the increased number of digital photos taken as well.

Cakebread, C., (2017). People will take 1.2 trillion digital photos this year — thanks to smartphones. Business Insider. Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.nl/12-trillion-photos-to-be-taken-in-2017-thanks-to-smartphones-chart-2017-8?international=true&r=US

Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.

Harrison, B. (2004). Snap happy: Toward a sociology of “everyday” photography. Seeing is believing, 23-39.

Lucas Jr, H. C., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(1), 46-55.

Robinson, L. (2017). History of Photography: Introduction of Kodak. Photo Focus. Retrieved from: https://photofocus.com/inspiration/history/history-of-photography-introduction-of-kodak/

Please rate this