One famous example of reducing friction was the invention of infinite scroll.
Ethically it is important to consider the implications of reducing friction in web design. While it does make the user experience more convenient and comfortable, it also promotes overuse of social media and creates a “doomscrolling trap” leading to modern issues like excessive use of technology.
Open two social media sites and choose equivalent views on each (e.g., a list of posts, an individual post, an author page etc.). List what actions are immediately available. Then explore and see what actions are available after one additional action (e.g., opening a menu), then what actions are two steps away. What do you notice about the similarities and differences in these sites?
When comparing posts on Twitter/X and Instagram, you can see that Instagram must contain an image and the user who posted it, and can include additional info such as a text caption, music, location, etc. Twitter shows the text and the user who posted it but has limitations on what else can be added, although links and images are supported. There are similar action options such as likes, comments, shares and now as of recent, reposts.
So all data that you might find is a simplification. There are many seemingly simple questions that in some situations or for some people, have no simple answers, questions like: What country are you from? What if you were born in one country, but moved to another shortly after? What if you are from a country that no longer exists like Czechoslovakia? Or from an occupied territory? How many people live in this house? Does a college student returning home for the summer count as living in that house? How many words are in this chapter? Different programs use different rules for what counts as a “word” E.g., this page has “2 + 2 = 4”, which Microsoft Word counts as 5 words, and Google Docs counts as 3 words.
Simplifying data may frequently be convenient when creating a widely-applicable program, but it involves leaving at least one group or perspective out. Because of this, simplification of data often contains inherent bias and developers should be aware of this.
The data in question here is over what percentage of Twitter users are spam bots, which Twitter claimed was less than 5%, and Elon Musk claimed is higher than 5%
In the modern age, it is important to understand what truly counts as a “bot” considering the intricacies of automation and the philosophical question of autonomous AI. Can we consider bots as a valid representation of general public consensus as they become more prevalent?
How are people’s expectations different for a bot and a “normal” user?
People typically don’t expect to glean much useful information from bots. In my case, at least, I would typically block or ignore them. Additionally, it’s often easy to identify a bit, but in the age of AI these lines are becoming more blurred.
Antagonistic bots can also be used as a form of political pushback that may be ethically justifiable. For example, the “Gender Pay Gap Bot” bot on Twitter is connected to a database on gender pay gaps for companies in the UK. Then on International Women’s Day, the bot automatically finds when any of those companies make an official tweet celebrating International Women’s Day and it quote tweets it with the pay gap at that company:
I think it’s interesting how bots are frequently used to push a certain message, often political. While this may be able to boost positive movements and spread information, it is a dangerous capability and misconstrues the true standings of most people’s beliefs.
We can’t give every example, but here is a range of different things social media platforms do (though this is all an oversimplification).
A major issue with “social media” and trying to apply ethical safeguards to it, is that social media is a vast collection of digital platforms. This vastness makes social media hard to define, and thus it becomes difficult to address issues on a wide scale, for example through law. Additionally, social media varies across different regions, peoples, and languages, and similarly, so do ethics.
Natural Rights# Locke: Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Discussions of “human rights” fit in the Natural Rights ethics framework
Natural rights are certainly the basis for the majority of most modern ethics. Everyone is created equal, and therefore in designing laws and regulations, we must ensure that everyone is treated equally. Of course, this isn’t always effective because “equal” or “equitable” treatment isn’t easy to define, and those who create the regulations/laws have their own biases.