Categories
economics of security essays Intelwars Marketing national security policy propaganda

Should There Be Limits on Persuasive Technologies?

Persuasion is as old as our species. Both democracy and the market economy depend on it. Politicians persuade citizens to vote for them, or to support different policy positions. Businesses persuade consumers to buy their products or services. We all persuade our friends to accept our choice of restaurant, movie, and so on. It’s essential to society; we couldn’t get large groups of people to work together without it. But as with many things, technology is fundamentally changing the nature of persuasion. And society needs to adapt its rules of persuasion or suffer the consequences.

Democratic societies, in particular, are in dire need of a frank conversation about the role persuasion plays in them and how technologies are enabling powerful interests to target audiences. In a society where public opinion is a ruling force, there is always a risk of it being mobilized for ill purposes — ­such as provoking fear to encourage one group to hate another in a bid to win office, or targeting personal vulnerabilities to push products that might not benefit the consumer.

In this regard, the United States, already extremely polarized, sits on a precipice.

There have long been rules around persuasion. The US Federal Trade Commission enforces laws that claims about products “must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.” Political advertisers must identify themselves in television ads. If someone abuses a position of power to force another person into a contract, undue influence can be argued to nullify that agreement. Yet there is more to persuasion than the truth, transparency, or simply applying pressure.

Persuasion also involves psychology, and that has been far harder to regulate. Using psychology to persuade people is not new. Edward Bernays, a pioneer of public relations and nephew to Sigmund Freud, made a marketing practice of appealing to the ego. His approach was to tie consumption to a person’s sense of self. In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays advocated engineering events to persuade target audiences as desired. In one famous stunt, he hired women to smoke cigarettes while taking part in the 1929 New York City Easter Sunday parade, causing a scandal while linking smoking with the emancipation of women. The tobacco industry would continue to market lifestyle in selling cigarettes into the 1960s.

Emotional appeals have likewise long been a facet of political campaigns. In the 1860 US presidential election, Southern politicians and newspaper editors spread fears of what a “Black Republican” win would mean, painting horrific pictures of what the emancipation of slaves would do to the country. In the 2020 US presidential election, modern-day Republicans used Cuban Americans’ fears of socialism in ads on Spanish-language radio and messaging on social media. Because of the emotions involved, many voters believed the campaigns enough to let them influence their decisions.

The Internet has enabled new technologies of persuasion to go even further. Those seeking to influence others can collect and use data about targeted audiences to create personalized messaging. Tracking the websites a person visits, the searches they make online, and what they engage with on social media, persuasion technologies enable those who have access to such tools to better understand audiences and deliver more tailored messaging where audiences are likely to see it most. This information can be combined with data about other activities, such as offline shopping habits, the places a person visits, and the insurance they buy, to create a profile of them that can be used to develop persuasive messaging that is aimed at provoking a specific response.

Our senses of self, meanwhile, are increasingly shaped by our interaction with technology. The same digital environment where we read, search, and converse with our intimates enables marketers to take that data and turn it back on us. A modern day Bernays no longer needs to ferret out the social causes that might inspire you or entice you­ — you’ve likely already shared that by your online behavior.

Some marketers posit that women feel less attractive on Mondays, particularly first thing in the morning — ­and therefore that’s the best time to advertise cosmetics to them. The New York Times once experimented by predicting the moods of readers based on article content to better target ads, enabling marketers to find audiences when they were sad or fearful. Some music streaming platforms encourage users to disclose their current moods, which helps advertisers target subscribers based on their emotional states.

The phones in our pockets provide marketers with our location in real time, helping deliver geographically relevant ads, such as propaganda to those attending a political rally. This always-on digital experience enables marketers to know what we are doing­ — and when, where, and how we might be feeling at that moment.

All of this is not intended to be alarmist. It is important not to overstate the effectiveness of persuasive technologies. But while many of them are more smoke and mirrors than reality, it is likely that they will only improve over time. The technology already exists to help predict moods of some target audiences, pinpoint their location at any given time, and deliver fairly tailored and timely messaging. How far does that ability need to go before it erodes the autonomy of those targeted to make decisions of their own free will?

Right now, there are few legal or even moral limits on persuasion­ — and few answers regarding the effectiveness of such technologies. Before it is too late, the world needs to consider what is acceptable and what is over the line.

For example, it’s been long known that people are more receptive to advertisements made with people who look like them: in race, ethnicity, age, gender. Ads have long been modified to suit the general demographic of the television show or magazine they appear in. But we can take this further. The technology exists to take your likeness and morph it with a face that is demographically similar to you. The result is a face that looks like you, but that you don’t recognize. If that turns out to be more persuasive than coarse demographic targeting, is that okay?

Another example: Instead of just advertising to you when they detect that you are vulnerable, what if advertisers craft advertisements that deliberately manipulate your mood? In some ways, being able to place ads alongside content that is likely to provoke a certain emotional response enables advertisers to do this already. The only difference is that the media outlet claims it isn’t crafting the content to deliberately achieve this. But is it acceptable to actively prime a target audience and then to deliver persuasive messaging that fits the mood?

Further, emotion-based decision-making is not the rational type of slow thinking that ought to inform important civic choices such as voting. In fact, emotional thinking threatens to undermine the very legitimacy of the system, as voters are essentially provoked to move in whatever direction someone with power and money wants. Given the pervasiveness of digital technologies, and the often instant, reactive responses people have to them, how much emotion ought to be allowed in persuasive technologies? Is there a line that shouldn’t be crossed?

Finally, for most people today, exposure to information and technology is pervasive. The average US adult spends more than eleven hours a day interacting with media. Such levels of engagement lead to huge amounts of personal data generated and aggregated about you­ — your preferences, interests, and state of mind. The more those who control persuasive technologies know about us, what we are doing, how we are feeling, when we feel it, and where we are, the better they can tailor messaging that provokes us into action. The unsuspecting target is grossly disadvantaged. Is it acceptable for the same services to both mediate our digital experience and to target us? Is there ever such thing as too much targeting?

The power dynamics of persuasive technologies are changing. Access to tools and technologies of persuasion is not egalitarian. Many require large amounts of both personal data and computation power, turning modern persuasion into an arms race where the better resourced will be better placed to influence audiences.

At the same time, the average person has very little information about how these persuasion technologies work, and is thus unlikely to understand how their beliefs and opinions might be manipulated by them. What’s more, there are few rules in place to protect people from abuse of persuasion technologies, much less even a clear articulation of what constitutes a level of manipulation so great it effectively takes agency away from those targeted. This creates a positive feedback loop that is dangerous for society.

In the 1970s, there was widespread fear about so-called subliminal messaging, which claimed that images of sex and death were hidden in the details of print advertisements, as in the curls of smoke in cigarette ads and the ice cubes of liquor ads. It was pretty much all a hoax, but that didn’t stop the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission from declaring it an illegal persuasive technology. That’s how worried people were about being manipulated without their knowledge and consent.

It is time to have a serious conversation about limiting the technologies of persuasion. This must begin by articulating what is permitted and what is not. If we don’t, the powerful persuaders will become even more powerful.

This essay was written with Alicia Wanless, and previously appeared in Foreign Policy.

Share
Categories
Burger King Burger king kissing ronald mcdonald Helsinki pride Intelwars Love conquers all Marketing McDonalds pride Ronald McDonald Viral ads

Burger King mascot, Ronald McDonald share passionate kiss in LGBTQ pride ad: ‘We wanted to show that in the end, love always wins’

The Burger King and his McDonald’s fast food compatriot, Ronald McDonald, share a kiss in a Pride-themed ad to honor Finland’s Helsinki Pride Week.

What are the details?

The Finnish campaign shows the two rivals kissing in an ad titled “Love Conquers All.”

The ad, launched by Burger King Finland — partner for Helsinki Pride — is a reflection of the company’s values, a spokesperson says.

Burger King Finland’s brand manager, Kaisa Kasila, told Adweek, “Burger King has always stood for equality, love, and everyone’s right to be just the way they are. The only instance where it might not seem so is when we’re bantering with our competition.”

Kasila added, “We thought, what a better way to convey our values than by portraying an all-encompassing kiss between Burger King and McDonald. We wanted to show that in the end, love always wins. And we know McDonald’s stands for the values we stand for, too.”

Fernando Machadao, global chief marketing officer for Restaurant Brands International — a holding company for a variety of fast food corporations including Burger King — lauded the ad in a now-viral tweet.

He wrote, “Proud to see Burger King Finland as the official partner of The Helsinki Pride. Even more proud of our 100% Corporate Equality Index. Congrats to Kaisa from the BK Finland team for such a beautiful execution.”

Anything else?

Machado told Adweek that the “impossible kiss” was an illustration that love does, indeed, conquer all.

“Our brand is always bold, edgy, and fun,” he said. “So showcasing this ‘impossible kiss’ is a way to demonstrate that love conquers all. And we hope that ‘the other guys’ understand that it is actually a celebration of love rather than a competitive statement.”

It is unclear at the time of this reporting whether McDonald’s is aware of the viral new ad campaign.

TheBlaze has reached out to McDonald’s Corporate for comment, and will update the story as necessary.

Share
Categories
Blogs Intelwars Marketing Parler Social Media updates

I am on Parler – Come Parley with Me

I have never been one to just run out and join the latest social media platform.  I do most of my stuff on facebook, not because I like facebook, at all, but because that is where most of my people Continue reading →

Share
Categories
Aunt jemima Cream of wheat Dreyers Eskimo pie Intelwars Marketing Uncle ben's

Eskimo Pie to change ‘derogatory’ name

Eskimo Pie is the latest brand to undergo sweeping changes as companies scramble to rid any marketing or products that could be seen as even slightly offensive. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, who makes the Eskimo Pie, said they would rename the ice cream bar because it is “derogatory.”

First, Quaker Oats announced that Aunt Jemima products would receive a new name and logo. The company said the changes were being made because “Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype.”

Then Mars Inc. declared they would remove “Uncle Ben” from the popular rice brand because “racism has no place in society.”

B&G Foods, Inc. said Cream of Wheat is also considering removing the Black chef from the packaging. Conagra Brands, the parent company of Mrs. Butterworth’s, said they were contemplating rebranding the breakfast syrup to not offend anyone.

Now, the chocolate-covered vanilla ice cream bar is getting a complete makeover. Dreyer’s released a statement that said, “We are committed to being a part of the solution on racial equality, and recognize the term is derogatory.”

Elizabell Marquez, head of marketing for parent company Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, said, “We have been reviewing our Eskimo Pie business for some time and will be changing the brand name and marketing.”

The Eskimo Pie will get a new name and will no longer feature the Alaska Native child on its packaging.

Eskimo is a “member of a group of indigenous peoples of southwestern and northern Alaska, arctic Canada, Greenland, and eastern Siberia,” according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

However, the term “Eskimo” is considered derogatory by some because “it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean ‘eater of raw meat,'” according to the Alaska Native Language Center at the University of Alaska.

“Linguists now believe that ‘Eskimo’ is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning ‘to net snowshoes,'” according to the Alaska Native Language Center. “However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. ‘Inuit,’ meaning ‘people,’ is used in most of Canada, and the language is called ‘Inuktitut’ in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also.”


Eskimo Pie getting name change

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Apple datamining Email Espionage Intelwars Marketing Surveillance

Companies that Scrape Your Email

Motherboard has a long article on apps — Edison, Slice, and Cleanfox — that spy on your email by scraping your screen, and then sell that information to others:

Some of the companies listed in the J.P. Morgan document sell data sourced from “personal inboxes,” the document adds. A spokesperson for J.P. Morgan Research, the part of the company that created the document, told Motherboard that the research “is intended for institutional clients.”

That document describes Edison as providing “consumer purchase metrics including brand loyalty, wallet share, purchase preferences, etc.” The document adds that the “source” of the data is the “Edison Email App.”

[…]

A dataset obtained by Motherboard shows what some of the information pulled from free email app users’ inboxes looks like. A spreadsheet containing data from Rakuten’s Slice, an app that scrapes a user’s inbox so they can better track packages or get their money back once a product goes down in price, contains the item that an app user bought from a specific brand, what they paid, and an unique identification code for each buyer.

Share