← Return to search results
Back to Prindle Institute

Month: August 2014

Posted on

Ferguson and Net Neutrality

The shooting of Michael Brown and the unrest in Ferguson raises a host of obvious ethical issues. One that isn’t so obvious is that it highlights the potential importance of knowing about net neutrality and algorithmic filtering. As Zeynup Terfecki has recently argued, what happened in Ferguson is a way to illustrate how net neutrality may be a human rights issue.

Let’s get clear about both terms first. “Net Neutrality” is the thesis that internet service providers should be neutral and enable access to all content and websites available on the internet. Furthermore, they should not favor, speed-up, block, or slow-down content and services from any website. Proponents of net neutrality hold that internet service providers should not be permitted to privilege content from websites and permit them to access a fast lane. Service providers also should not be allowed to intentionally slow down access to content from websites.

If you agree with those sentiments, then you are a fan of net neutrality. If, however, you think a company like Verizon should be able to reach an agreement with ESPN and let ESPN deliver streaming content more quickly to Verizon users, then you favor what I will call a “Tiered Internet.” I won’t go into the pros and cons of net neutrality here, but if you’re interested this Wikipedia entry has a nice summary of the arguments for and against net neutrality.

Now let’s talk about algorithmic filtering. Algorithmic filtering is simply a process by which computer programs instruct computers (via an algorithm) to scan a large amount of information and pull out the bits they are interested in. It has a ton of very useful applications, but we’re interested in how it can be used in the internet service industry. Algorithmic filtering is one of the things that differentiates Facebook from Twitter. Facebook carefully curates what shows up in your feed based on a secret algorithm that (in theory) will prioritize content that Facebook wants you to see. Twitter doesn’t do this. With Twitter you see an unfiltered stream of the tweets of everyone you follow in chronological order.

Terfecki noticed something odd about this difference. Her Twitter feed was loaded with tweets about Ferguson, but when she switched over to Facebook she saw nothing. Facebook’s filtering had managed to bury anything about Ferguson. No one is accusing Facebook of intentionally suppressing Ferguson posts, it’s just that for some reason Facebook’s algorithm prioritized things in such a way that Ferguson posts (for Terfecki) didn’t make the cut. Ferguson posts likely made the cut for many people. So the lesson is, algorithmic filtering has the potential to unintentionally hide important stuff from you that you care deeply about, as it did in Terfecki’s case.

However, there is another important lesson to be learned here, and this is Terfecki’s primary point. What Terfecki wants us to do is take a step back and think carefully about net neutrality. Why? Because tiered internet uses algorithmic filtering. If Verizon wants to prioritize ESPN content, it needs to write a program that automatically filters through everything streaming across its networks, flag content coming from ESPN, and route it to the fast lane.

Why should this have us concerned? Because the way in which service providers could filter and prioritize content are only limited by a programmer’s imagination. Internet Service Providers could, for example, get into the PR business. Are you planning on running for Governor? Do you want that embarrassing story about you from your time at college to go away? Service providers could charge a premium to speed up content from some sites that sing your praises and slow down content from sites that talk about your college days (assuming those sites haven’t outbid you), and voilà – the public is blissfully unaware of your past misdeeds.

The possibility of a truly informed citizenry would be further threatened if news media conglomerates got in the service provider game. News companies (with an agenda) could suppress stories from competing news organizations or media watch-dog websites and drastically shape the political message the country is getting. This is why we need to have a serious conversation about net neutrality. It’s not just about people who want to download large files without being throttled. It’s not just about delivering people free ESPN content quickly, if ESPN is willing to foot the bill. It is, as Terfecki notes, a human rights issue about ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to be a meaningful and well-informed participant in the political process.

Events like the Michael Brown shooting occurred all of the time in the pre-internet era, and the public was simply unaware of it. The internet changed that. Events that we should all be talking about are coming to light for everyone in the country at the same time almost the instant they happen, but we now have the technology to change that. We are rapidly approaching a future where the next Ferguson could happen, and a vast majority of us will be clueless.

Posted on

More Thoughts on Designing Addictive Video Games

A few weeks ago, Brian Crecente asked me to comment on whether or not I thought video game designers had a moral obligation to think about how they design games in light of recent evidence that some video games seem to be addictive. You can read the full article here, but here’s what I said:

I do think game developers have a moral obligation to think about their game design in light of recent evidence we have concerning the addictiveness, he said. It’s easy to dismiss abuse of a product as a personal choice of the consumer, but as evidence of addiction for any product grows — it becomes less clear how much choice is involved.

What’s more troubling about this phenomenon, is that the business model for games has changed in two important ways that make it very tempting for developers to try and create a game that is addictive. In-app purchase and subscription-based models are more lucrative if the consumer can’t stop playing, as are free games that rely on cost-per-click advertisements. You only make money off your users if they keep coming back to play, and the more addicted they are to the game, the more likely you are to make money off their clicks…Making an addictive game is the obvious choice for maximizing revenue in these new ways….so, I’m worried that we’ll not see developers shy away from actively trying to create addictive games.

That article generated some interesting discussion, and there were three objections that seemed to come up more than once. I thought I’d say something about those three objections. Here they are, followed by my replies.

Objection one: If you think there is something wrong with designing addictive video games, then you must think there is something wrong with developing any kind of product that people become compulsive about. People play golf more than they should. People drink soda more than they should. Are golf ball manufacturers and soft drink companies doing something wrong?

Reply: My short answer to the last question is, “No, I don’t think merely manufacturing something that you know has the potential to be addictive is wrong.”However, there is an important moral difference between designing a product you know might be addictive and designing it so that it is addictive, with the intent to exploit some feature of a person’s compulsive psychology. Imagine a baker intentionally included an ingredient that made his cakes addictive. And he included the addictive elements solely for the purpose of increasing sales. That’s importantly morally different from someone who makes a cake, because they are delicious and people like to eat delicious things.Video games, of any kind, provide a leisurely activity that people might have a hard time walking away from. But the kind of activity, I’m talking about isn’t merely making video games. It’s intentionally designing the games so that they include the addictive elements, specifically for the purpose of hooking people.

Objection two: Calling video games addictive is medically naive and displays a lack of awareness about the true nature of addiction. Real addiction is characterized by adverse physiological effects and withdrawal symptoms that exert pressure on a person’s will

Reply: I am well aware of this distinction, and I readily admit that there there is a big (physical) difference between someone addicted to caffeine and someone addicted (in the broader sense) to gambling (or in this case video games). However, there still likely is a big difference in the psychological makeup of someone addicted to gambling (or video gaming) and someone who is not. There is something that exerts pressure on the gambling addicts’ will that a vast majority of other people don’t experience. That difference is the morally relevant feature. So even if we shouldn’t call this “addiction”, there is something present here that deserves serious moral attention.

Objection Three: Calling video games “addictive” just serves to shield bad behavior. People can hide under the label of addiction and ask society to take it easy when judging them. These persons should still be held accountable for the negative consequences of their behavior.

Reply: I agree. But I can agree with that, and still consistently maintain that we ought to think twice about our design plans, especially if we feel ourselves tempted to include an element simply because it’s addictive.

Ultimately, it still seems clear to me that designers should examine their own intentions when developing game elements. The temptation to include elements because they are addictive is very real, and something we should all be concerned about.