On Nudging Systems, During the COVID19 Pandemic
When we’re changing people’s behavior for ‘the good,’ who gets to decide what ‘the good’ is? The developers of systems that are capable of providing nudges are companies and governments. The design decisions around nudges will always optimize for the continued profit of those companies and power of those governments. It’s the people in control of the technology system that make ultimate decisions about what choices and possibilities are made available to users of that system. And the people in control do not usually prioritize an individual’s interests over its bottom line or continued power. Yet an antagonistic cybernetic relationship between the organization in control, the technology system, and the user, will lead to distrust and ultimately, conflict.
Nudges can be used as a tool for persuading collective action, where collective action is beneficial for the wellbeing of a society at large. American culture is highly individualistic, yet individualism has its faults and individual freedoms should not be prioritized over collectivism in all situations. Therefore, nudges that encourage an individual user to make decisions that optimize for the wellbeing of society over their own short-term desires, can be ethically delivered with the proper transparency and democracy-reinforcing controls. From my perspective, Americans’ experience of the coronavirus pandemic has shown us the devastating consequences of extreme individualism and distrust of government. The government’s A/IS nudging systems of the future must take concrete action to cultivate trust.
We are able to comment on what kinds of influence are ethical versus not ethical, based on internationally agreed-upon frameworks such as the International Declaration of Human Rights. However, nudges may create harms that were not anticipated by such international frameworks; therefore, developers of A/IS Nudges must create processes and systems for listening to users’ criticisms, their negative experiences, and feedback, and cultivating an ongoing process of continuously engaged learning about how best to serve people.
We should delineate ethical methods of influence, based on transparency and UX design decisions that reinforce users’ control and agency, to promote users’ trust in systems that nudge. If our aim is not to protect the human rights of users, then what is our differentiating contribution to this topic? Creators of A/IS systems are always going to consider their organization’s stakeholders, and they will always validate and rationalize their decisions for making nudges. What is the unique value that we will provide to our readers?
Freedom of Expression is a human right that is directly related to A/IS nudging. It would be convenient for developers to assume that users are fully expressive of their opinions, thoughts and beliefs while interacting with A/IS systems. Nudges are delivered based on available user behavioral data and the current affordances of existing technology systems. However, the assumption of openness and sharing is not founded in reality. As trust in technology companies and the government continues to decline, users will share less and less of their opinions online, and in systems that they suspect to have back doors, or that share their data with third parties that negatively affect their lives in material ways. With diminished trust in systems will come increasingly defensive, combative and subversive user behavior.
It’s irresponsible to deliver highly consequential nudges based on incomplete data. What makes a nudge highly consequential? If it impacts a user’s health or safety, or the health and safety of their dependents. Creators of these types of nudges must earn users’ trust in order to encourage safe Freedom of Expression, and more accurate data on which to base nudges.
It’s irresponsible to deliver nudges based on emotion recognition inferences, which has been shown to be scientifically questionable. We’ve seen recent relevant reports from Kate Crawford, Article 19 and several Congresspeople have introduced regulatory legislation in Congress within the last year.