Tag Archive for ethics

Sometimes You Have to Walk the Walk

This blog does not in anyway represent the views of Amalgam Insights. They are mine alone and I take responsibility for that. Just so there’s no confusion.

As an IT industry analyst, I am given a bully pulpit to speak on the issues of my industry. Typically, these are technology matters such as the cost and usefulness of technology or trends that will affect the industry in the future. However, as Winston Churchill said, Where there is great power there is great responsibility.” This places on obligation on us, who have an audience that listens, to speak out on the ethics and behaviors of members of our community. Big technology companies also have great power and, hence, great responsibility. They too have an obligation. Their responsibility is to use their power for the greater good. Or at least, as the famous Google slogan says, “Don’t be evil.”

This slogan, embraced at the beginning of Google’s existence, is now dripping with irony and hypocrisy. Recently, there was a walkout of 20,000 Google workers for its handling of the sexual harassment complaints against one of its executives, Andy Rubin. There were further allegations of retaliation against some of the workers who organized the walkout even though Google publicly praised their actions. If that doesn’t indicate something about Google’s attitude toward women, then the latest news says it louder. On June 13, 2019, Sundar Pinchai said in his blog that he was “pleased to announce” a $600M investment in a data center in Oklahoma. This investment lays bare the true heart of the company.

For those who don’t typically pay attention to what goes on in Oklahoma, they are well known for their hostility towards women’s reproductive rights. The state has tried to revoke the licenses of doctors who provide safe abortions, enacted a fetal heartbeat bill (for the record, fetal heartbeats are not a matter of science), and tried for a complete abortion ban in 2016. These are some of the more egregious attempts on the part of the state to limit a woman’s access to safe abortions. They are by no means the only ones.

Let’s be clear about one thing, none of this legislation is about women’s health. Many of the attempts to get around Roe v. Wade run counter to science, such as the fetal heartbeat bill, and contradict the standard of practice in the medical community. We should also be clear that this is not about religion either. If it were, then the state would have no interest in it or they would legislate male reproduction choices, such as vasectomies, just as strongly. It’s about extending the power of the state over the bodies of women. Specifically women.

So, given the dismal record of the state of Oklahoma toward woman, why would a company whose motto is “Don’t be evil” invest over a half a billion additional dollars there, for a total investment of $3B? There are a number of technical reasons for this investment, such as locating cloud data centers near customers. Money also matters too. In 2015, for example, Google received $13.5M in property tax exemptions for the data center in Pryor, OK for using wind power. Imagine the other incentives a state such as Oklahoma might offer for the expansion of a data center and the addition of 100 high paying jobs. Money clearly matters more than the ethics of supporting a state that is dead set on subjugating woman through their biology.

The IT industry has always marketed itself as an inclusive meritocracy that wants more women in its ranks. Companies sponsor programs to recruit more women, hold “girls can code” days, and show heartwarming videos of female empowerment at their conferences. However, when Google not only invests in a state hostile to women but brags about it in a blog from the CEO, it becomes clear that none of this is genuine. How can tech companies talk about equality (which is a lie anyway) and then invest in a state that strives to remove a woman’s autonomy over her own body? At best it’s hypocrisy but more likely it’s about the bottom line above all else.

So, it’s time for honesty. Google, like most giant companies, do not care about women, underserved populations, social justice, LGBTQ+ people, or anything other than the how much money they can make. There is no greater mission. Remember that, when an IT company plays the Hallmark quality video showing their employees teaching girls and young women to write code so as to uplift them into IT society. It’s all a gimmick. All of the diversity programs, women’s councils, and talk of meritocracy is nothing more than clever marketing to improve their image. When the real choices need to be made, money will be the deciding factor. Don’t get sucked into believing that Google is better just because they say they are. Everything is about maximizing shareholder value and executive bonuses. That’s just bizspeak for “make as much money as possible, for the wealthiest people imaginable, no matter how you do it.”

IT companies have become the new robber barons. There’s a lot of good but the costs are high. One of the costs is enabling those who want to subjugate women, who want to create the Gilead from The Handmaiden’s Tale in real life. Don’t be evil indeed.

Should There Be an Ecosystem of the One?

In a recent article of CMSWire, I outlined what I called the Ecosystem of the One. The basic premise was that digital transformation will allow personalization to progress to the point where a completely individualized digital environment will be possible. My analysis revolved around the technical possibility not the ramifications of such a digital culture. Unfortunately, the article was written only within the context of what could be done, not what should be done. What was clearly missing was an analysis of the benefits to society. That analysis reveals two things that are quite disturbing and may well outweigh all the benefits.

An analysis of the societal effects of the ecosystem of the one can be encapsulated into these questions:

  1. Are there benefits to individuals and society from an ecosystem of the one?
  2. Can the ecosystem of the one be used to harm individuals especially through manipulation?
  3. Does this fuel in individuals increased narcissism?

Is the Ecosystem of the One Beneficial to Individuals and Society?

The benefits of the ecosystem of the one that I envisioned were mostly in the form of delivering an individualized user experience from digital interactions. By leveraging mobile and analytics technology, the individual could enjoy an experience that was tailored for them. But is this enough? Sadly, no. The problem with machine generated experiences is that they are based entirely on the behaviors of the past. Just like Amazon and Spotify recommendations, computers analyze past experiences and delivers a predictable and related experience. That’s very safe and likely profitable but leaves little room for new experiences. Individuals are spoon fed products and experiences that they are psychologically programmed to enjoy because they are familiar. Even when something is “new” it is only a variation on what has gone before. A recommendation engine can recommend a song that a listener has never heard before because it is similar to other songs they’ve listened to in the past. What the engine is unlikely is to deliver is a recommendation that is substantially different than any that a person has encountered before. In other word, they are unlikely to suggest something entirely new.

I’m reminded of a personal experience. When I was in high school, I listened to a brand of rock music called Progressive Rock. ELP, Yes, Jethro Tull, and Genesis were the mainstays of my listening habits. One day, someone gave me a copy of The Ramones “Rockaway Beach” as a single. Punk Rock was about as far from Progressive Rock as one could imagine. Progressive Rock favored long suites, often spanning entire album sides, with poetic lyrics that drew on myth and literature. Only incredibly talented and classically trained musicians could play this type of music. Punk Rock musicians, on the other hand, could often barely play their instruments. They produced songs that were three minutes or less and made up of three chords or less. One was intellectual, intricate, and required extreme musicianship; The other furious, raw and, at times, intelligent but always simple. Both appealed to me for different reasons, reasons that no analytical or AI engine could ever have teased out from my past interactions. Only a human could see deep enough into my psyche to know that this might be for me. Until I discovered Punk Rock it was impossible to predict that I would have liked it.

This story personifies the overall problem with the ecosystem of one – it’s safe, easy, and familiar and never asks someone to stretch. Society as a whole suffers dramatically when it’s citizens become too comfortable and aren’t exposed to new things. It’s how we end up living in a bubble that becomes intolerant of outside influences. It’s also how innovation slows to a standstill.

Will We Be Manipulated?

The second question follows from the first. If we can make the world sanitized and safe, if we can deliver an experience that will be easy to accept, can this experience be used to manipulate people? Absolutely. In fact, marketers are betting on it. By providing a potential customer something that is naturally appealing but safe, and reinforcing those traits all along the customer decision journey, they hope to encourage people to buy their products. Marketers are not interested in getting a customer to radically change their mind and dive into the complete unknown. They are interested in getting consumers to buy something by any means possible. To the merchant, manipulation of an individual’s personal ecosystem to drive a purchase is a benefit, not something to be avoided. The same is true of employers who want happy employees that won’t leave until told to do so.

Widespread Narcissism

Finally, there is the question of the elevation of individualism over the needs of communities and societies as a whole. To put it another way, it leads to encroaching narcissism. By pandering to the ecosystem of the one, we help cement in the minds of many people their place at the center of the universe. Software makes it possible for us to feed these tendencies and that is not good at all. If a person is always led to expect that experiences will be exactly the way they want them to be, won’t they come to demand it in other aspects of their lives? Is individualized religious experience a real expectation? Is it reasonable to believe that politicians will always tell us what we want to hear? That’s called pandering and we are living through its effects right now. Widespread narcissism tears at the fabric of society because it makes individuals lose site of the community at large. Instead of encouraging people to do what is best for society as a whole, it creates an expectation that society exists simply to fulfill their own immediate desires. It’s a neoliberal, Ayn Rand type of hell where everyone is left to their own devices without the benefits of community.

The ecosystem of the one sound great on the surface. It promises the delivery of exactly the digital experience that people want when they want it. However, it also opens us up to manipulation, closes us off to new experiences, and encourages one of our most base personality traits, narcissism. We are quickly approaching the ability to deliver the ecosystem of the one but I have deep reservations as to whether we should. It might be time to take a step back and think about this a bit more.