{"id":625,"date":"2020-11-10T11:04:22","date_gmt":"2020-11-10T17:04:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wowfall2020.londietmartin.com\/?p=625"},"modified":"2020-11-18T13:35:10","modified_gmt":"2020-11-18T19:35:10","slug":"with-great-power-comes-great-responsibility-moral-dilemmas-in-web-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wowfall2020.londietmartin.com\/?p=625","title":{"rendered":"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Moral Dilemmas in Web Design"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The World Wide Web is an ocean not unlike our own Earthly waters\u2014 beautiful, dangerous, full of an unbelievable variety… Amazing vistas interspersed with miles of trash just like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Overwhelming depths that one can easily drown in. There are kajillions of websites, images, opinions, pontifications, manifestos, and other content that has the potential to affect the reader in a myriad of ways. The bad is mixed in with the good, and a few futile filters do little to protect our children from the darkness that exists online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Web designers and content creators have a moral responsibility to produce thoughtful, accurate, and educational content. There are too many sharks in the deep online waters, too many people putting out disinformation, manipulated images, \u201cfake news,\u201d \u201calternative facts,\u201d whatever you wanna call it\u2014if it\u2019s baseless, biased, unverified, and created to hurt others, it\u2019s trash. We may not be able to stop others from spreading worthless information and things better left unseen, but we CAN do our best to create intelligent, compassionate, TRUE content that does not inflame the masses or mislead the reader. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, most writing is inherently biased, to some degree. And some would argue that bias is even preferable in certain instances and can add humanity, passion, and authenticity to the written work. The American Press Institute put out a great article on Understanding Bias<\/a>, which presents several valid reasons to find and\/or use bias in a journalistic piece. The article contends that writers invariably cannot avoid bias, examines why bias exists in journalism, how some of these reasons are valid, sensible, and in some cases, preferable, and states that writers must learn how to “manage” their bias, rather than eliminate it completely. The problems occur when a writer does not acknowledge their bias or deliberately skews facts to lend credence to their view or belief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Power of Prose<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Words have a lot of power. The most articulate of us can turn a friendly phrase into a subtle shift in thought, all with the right spin. Words can be weaponized, and misinformation online can have deadly results. According to a recent study done by the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene<\/a>, approximately 800 people died, and over 6,000 were hospitalized, in the first three months of 2020 after using so-called \u201cmiracle cures\u201d they found online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers at Stanford University studied the spread of fake news and its effect on the reader. They found that, as you might suspect, that the continual exposure to false information, especially from an influential source they deem credible, can lead to increased susceptibility in the reader to believing disinformation. Increased activity online due to the Covid quarantine<\/a> increases the chance of running into fake or misleading information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Online readers are fully aware of the increasing prevalence of falsehoods on their news\u2014and social media feeds. A statista report<\/a> published in 2019 shows that Americans are waking up to the problem, even as they continue to wade in the muck. Americans now consider misinformation and disinformation major problems in this country. Statista also indicates that 52% of American respondents think that online news websites consistently report fake information, and only 26% are confident in their ability to discern the validity of online information. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

(Based on survey of 2,200 Americans. Sources: Institute For Public Relations, Morning Consult, <\/em>https:\/\/www.statista.com\/chart\/18538\/issues-considered-major-problems-by-americans\/)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most disturbing trends in false content online is the increasing prevalence and belief of conspiracy theories, defined as “an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence” (Wikipedia<\/a>). Conspiracy theories took root in the U.S. after the JFK assassination (Full disclosure\u2014I am not 100% sure I don’t believe the one about JFK and the CIA…). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They have now blossomed in the modern era, becoming dangerous fodder\u2014the popularity of theories like QAnon <\/a>and “Pizzagate” has led some to feel like they have to be the hero; case in point, the man who armed himself <\/a>with an AR-15 and walked into Comet Ping Pong, a popular pizza joint in Washington D.C. that had been labeled a hub for an elite child sex trafficking operation supposedly involving Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. No one was injured, but the steady incline of popular belief in these kinds of stories promote misguided vigilantism. I mean, who wouldn’t <\/strong><\/em>want to save a bunch of kids from a powerful group of reptilian, shape-shifting, pedophilic, Satan-worshipping baby-eaters? Rumors like these will inevitably lead to innocent people getting hurt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
QAnon “Evidence”? Appealing to patriotism, decency, and uniting against a common enemy, this conspiracy has officially taken over the Internet, to the detriment of truth. https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/ellievhall\/qanon-trump-rally-conspiracy-theory<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A fascinating article by The New York Times<\/em> explores the psyche of people who are prone to believe these wild theories, sharing results of a two-part study titled “Looking Under the Tinfoil Hat” that was presented in the Journal of Personality<\/em> online, in which almost 2,000 subjects were first asked questions to gauge their level of belief or willingness to entertain some common conspiracy theories, then a second test to determine standard personality types and tendencies. As stated in the article, the surveys indicated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The personality features that were solidly linked to conspiracy beliefs included some usual suspects: entitlement, self-centered impulsivity, cold-heartedness (the confident injustice collector), elevated levels of depressive moods and anxiousness (the moody figure, confined by age or circumstance). Another one emerged from the questionnaire that aimed to assess personality disorders\u2014a pattern of thinking called ‘psychoticism.’ Psychoticism is a core feature of so-called schizo-typal personality disorder, characterized in part by ‘odd beliefs and magical thinking’ and ‘paranoid ideation.’ In the language of psychiatry, it is a milder form of full-blown psychosis, the recurrent delusional state that characterizes schizophrenia. It\u2019s a pattern of magical thinking that goes well beyond garden variety superstition and usually comes across socially as disjointed, uncanny or ‘off.'”<\/p>(nytimes.com<\/a>)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The bottom line I’m drawing is, crazy people believe crazy things. And the more people who believe it, the more weight it gathers, the more credibility it’s given, until the lie becomes the truth and the truth becomes the lie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Votes <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concern over mis- and disinformation is justified and critical. In 2017, the House Intelligence Committee released information pertaining to dozens of Facebook \u201cfake news\u201d ads bought by various Russian individuals and agencies, and hearings in the House and Senate took place concerning Russia\u2019s possible interference in the 2016 presidential election:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“evidence presented to the Senate committee revealed that material generated by the Kremlin had reached a hundred and twenty-six million American Facebook users.”<\/p>(The New Yorker<\/a><\/em>)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Political scientists and scholars like Kathleen Hall Jamieson, professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania and author of \u201cCyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President\u2014What We Don\u2019t, Can\u2019t, and Do Know,\u201d<\/a> contend that Russians targeted segments of the U.S. population to dissuade or sway their votes by posing as Americans on social media and promoting fake news ads. Jamieson, who co-founded FactCheck.org<\/a> in 2003 and is an expert analyst in the field of political debates and speeches, says that this tactic and other factors, such as the large number of undecided voters  (approximately 37 million voters who were still undecided just a few weeks before the November 2016 election), enhanced the effectiveness of the camouflaged Russian ads. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The direct effect these ads had on the outcome of the election is a topic for contention, but Jamieson and others argue that Russian misinformation created by agencies like the Internet Research Agency in Saint Petersburg <\/a>bolstered the Trump campaign\u2019s rhetoric and effectively swayed their target audience. Russia geared ads toward Christians and military families to make Trump more palatable. They used specific imagery, such as Hillary with Devil horns and references to wanting Jesus to win. Trump won with both evangelicals and mi<\/a>litary veterans at the polls on election day, despite his previous derogatory comments about veterans and his \u201cless than Evangelical\u201d behavior. The Russian ads arguably were instrumental in bringing about such a high voter turnout in Trump\u2019s favor, along with these groups\u2019 general disdain for Clinton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One may argue that Clinton\u2019s flaws and policies are the reason she lost, but one cannot argue that she won the popular vote <\/a>and lost in the electoral college. That\u2019s beside the point. Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe, and Hillary had been doing better in the polls in the months leading up to November, so Trump\u2019s win was a surprise to many\u2014but not to Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Americans are certain to think twice now<\/a> before believing every Facebook post in their news feed\u2014but \u201cproof\u201d of something people already want to believe is powerful, factual or not. Our addiction to Facebook is our Achilles\u2019 heel, and Russia used that addiction to manipulate public opinion. The worst news is that people are fully aware of the problem but not willing to cut the cancer out, and the wheels keep on turning, driving us further into an era of mistrust. People are starving for reliable sources, even as they eagerly ingest the rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stick to the Facts, Jack<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simple steps can be taken to ensure your content is unbiased, researched, informative, and factual.  Brand Driven Digital<\/a>, a digital marketing firm, and the Public Relations Society of America<\/a> offered several suggestions that could be useful:<\/p>\n\n\n\n