Should there be etiquette for machines?

Question

Increasingly we are reliant on our machines, our smart phones, cars, information systems, and soon we may be fitted with implants we cannot turn off, so that we have instant access to the things we currently must take out of our pocket and switch on to make work.

I am uneasy about this, for when these things misbehave, I just want to turn the things off and use what's left of my brain to sort things out properly. I don't want anyone, least of all a machine, telling me I am useless and should no longer have confidence in my abilities. It is bad enough getting that from Human Resources departments when I apply for work.

For example:

How many of you get the answering machine to answer the phone when it rings, and only pick it up when there is a genuine call, rather than a cold call or a bot?

How many of you prefer Windows xp to 8, or Yahoo! Mail Classic to Neo, simply because they are better behaved and set up to do the things you want them to, rather than tell you what you want and then give you no alternative but to comply?

Do you have confidence that Google or Facebook or Government departments will use your personal data any more honourably than a Romanian hacker?

How many of you turn off flashing in-your-face advertising, pop-ups that require you to turn them off so see what you are doing, or video using up your bandwidth, because these ads are ill-mannered? Conversely, if the ads were in the form of unobtrusive one-line texts, available if you want them, but not dynamic or stylish, would you be more inclined to let them be, and even click on the interesting ones?

What examples can you think of where machines could act more respectfully?

Answer 1

Sorry it took me so long to start writing my answer. I was so stunned that someone actually wrote a great question, that I had to rest for a while to recover. You didn't even ask, for the ten thousandth time, how to change your password or how to get someone else's password while pretending it is for your computer.



As I was reading this, I also thought of the garbage that the television networks overlay on the screen to advertise other shows. Often it blocks out information that the show had or some important action. At the very least, it distracts from viewing the show you wanted to see. They take great effort to animate the delivery of the ad so that it is impossible to ignore.



I am required to close many web sites when I am not actively using them because their animated advertising uses bandwidth for no good reason. My monthly bandwidth is limited, so that is a problem for me.



As for web sites using my personal information, I give them the least that I can and still get the job done. I almost always give phony information on web sites unless I am actually doing a business transaction with them. People like Google and Facebook NEVER get ANY accurate information from me because I am confident that anything I tell them will be used against me.



If nothing else, they use it for targeted advertising. When I finally cut ties with them, the incorrect information somewhat decreases the chances that they will haunt me for the rest of my life by continuing the advertising.



I am also reminded of an elderly AOL subscriber who requires me to come to his place to see if the fantastic, free offer that AOL has e-mailed him about is something that he should get. I remind him that the same thing is sent to him every week or so and that it actually would make his computer worse to use rather than better.



I'm sure you know that since computers can't actually think in the sense that humans think, that none of this is the device's fault. It is, however, the result of choices made by the people who designed the software that the device uses. In this context, software is defined as the instructions that tell the device what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Even a wristwatch has that kind of "programming" if you define software that way.



Patters' answer brought up this issue. He/she, however, sometimes ascribed it to the "user" of the device when actually it is the designer of the device who has made these decisions. That distinction is critical to understanding the source of the problem.



For the highly technical, that is actually firmware in some cases, but the important thing is that it is there, not how it is implemented. These instructions to tell the device what to do are designed and written by humans. It is those humans who have chosen to do these dastardly things. They are the ones, for example, who make it nearly impossible to get an answer from an automated phone system unless the question is one that the writer anticipated.



They are the people who prevent you from talking to a real human to get the answer to the question that you want to ask, rather than the question that THEY want you to ask. In a sense, they are also the people who tell their phone reps to deflect any complaints about their products. Tell the customer how sorry you are about the problem, that way we won't have to actually fix the problem.



They are also the ones who put people on the phone support when those people don't speak the language of the callers well enough to be understood. Do they not care how frustrating is it to try to explain the details of a problem to someone who can just barely converse in your language.



Okay, that's kind of off your original subject. It is, however, related by the fact that these are all decisions made by people in companies that end up impacting us all. We can choose to not use the device, but it would certainly be better to be able to have better operating devices.



As far as us all learning how to program so we can do what we want, should we also learn medicine so we can treat our medical problems the best possible way for us? Should we learn to fix our automobiles and appliances for the same reason? It is not possible for that to happen in any advanced society. The solution is for the ones who do any particular job to do it right and not put the primary emphasis on what makes them the most money.



Think that will ever happen? Nope.



To get back to your question, yes there should be and is. The problem is that the designers don't follow that etiquette well enough. Their job is to maximize profits for their company. Too often the product or service falls by the wayside in the quest for more profit. Such is capitalism. Unfortunately, no one has ever come up with a better economic system that works in real life.

Answer 2

It is not about the machines. It is about the people who operate them.



I think people sometimes get confused between products and services and technologies. For instance, social networking websites are often described as technology, but they are not. They are services, operated by businesses, which are ultimately made up of people. They make use of existing technologies, but that is not really any different from, say, an insurance broker making use of telephones or a mail-order catalogue making use of the invention of paper. Nobody can reasonably claim that using telephones or paper turned your business model into a "technology", and the same applies to using databases and web servers.



The characteristics you describe; belittlement, misbehaviour, dishonourable actions and so on, all relate to the people behind the products and services. Machines only do what humans make them do. The problem, in many cases, is that more than one person believes that they should be the one to tell the machines what to do. Often the end user believes that they should be able to tell the machines they use what to do, without realising that various other people have already staked that claim and decided that the machines should display irritating advertisements or mine personal data.



So, I think your question would be better phrased as something like "Should there be etiquette for when people use machines?".



In fact, I think there already is etiquette for when people use machines. Hackers, in the traditional meaning of the word that does not have implications of meddling with other people's computers or data, have quite strong values and ethics regarding what should and should not be done with machines. It's just that etiquette is not mandatory or enforceable, and a minority of people have ignored the etiquette and built empires of machines which play by biased rules to serve their masters, rather than the rules of etiquette.



It is still possible to have machines which behave with respect. The problem is that you often have to "do it yourself" when it comes to building such machines and setting them up. If you get other people to do it for you, and those other people's intentions are not entirely aligned with your best interests in the ways that matter, then you are likely to end up with machines which disrespect you in some way or another.



Just like we accept that everyone needs to know how to read and write, in the computer age, I think everyone needs to know how to read and write software, in order to stand up for themselves.



Addendum:



Just to clarify, in response to comments made by Bret, which highlight a poor choice of wording on my part: Where I have referred to "using" or "operating" machines, I have not been referring specifically to _end_ users. Instead, I have intended to refer to all users, which includes designers, and anyone else who set the machines up and made them behave the way they do. I should probably have clarified this.



Also in response to Bret, with regards to whether everyone should be able to read and write software, I would like to add that I do not believe that everyone should learn every skill they ever depend on, such as medicine, motor mechanics, chemical engineering, textile production, and so on. I think of software as something of an exception. We teach children a broad range of subjects at school, including sciences, history, workshop skills for making things, mathematics, languages, music and so on. I think that teaching a range of subjects forms a foundation for contemporary society.



However, we do not expect every child to grow up to be an expert in all the fields we teach them. We don't expect everyone to become a scientist, or a historian, or a musician. We expect them to specialise, and for some of them to reach greater heights of understanding than others.



Meanwhile, given that computers are so ubiquitous these days, I think it has become necessary for everyone to know at least a little about how to make them do things. We need not all be running our own home-made operating systems on transistors we fabricate in our garages, or inspecting the code of every piece of software we run. I am all for people doing those sorts of things if they want to, but for everyone else I think just a little more understanding of software would help people to understand what other people's software does and can do. Knowing what software can do and how it works is surely useful in being able to decide whether other people are acting reasonably with software.

Answer 3

I think up until recently machines that acted as an interface between people have at best been made to sound/seem more professional.

Machine etiquette is new and only certain services appear to be starting to incorporate some,usually in systems where we are an end consumer who pays the company with that system.



Since Voip started being used by call centres who aren't in the country that their caller id shows I have purchased a call screening machine that blocks known bots and allows me to blacklist new ones including companies who won't stop calling even when asked.

This saves me time and i'm getting 50% less calls actually making my phone ring since january.



I'd prefer a stable 64-bit operating system that wasn't designed to dissipate my identity and plaster it all over the internet every time i interact with it and i think cookies,tracking,the scanning of personal emails including photos by isp's to be an intrusion of privacy which should be illegal.



Terms of service should be a list of simple questions such as do you mind us profiling you for sale to other parties where it would be easy to tick yes.They should not read as a legal contract nobody could understand without a Lawyer.

I've gone for imap email and I'm considering using encryption soon,as all the online email clients are scanning and storing what is in the mailbox.No time limits are given for when they delete this info.



The reason so many cloud based services offer 1TB of free storage for pictures alone is to build a marketable profile on what sort of consumer Iam and to sell me my friends and family to advertisers - this is incredibly rude as they do not say that is what they are doing.

Even as I type here,comscore beacon is tracking what i write.



I have little confidence that facebook is worried about my privacy and I think it goes without saying that the facebook user is the product for sale,the advertiser or even the highest bidder has got all the information they want about it's users and that is how facebook make money.



Google have subtle ways of keeping people feeling as though they are not so monitored by creating products or things we want to use, in that process they gather the information they want anyway.

Government departments have never been more proactive than at present at snooping on millions of people doing nothing illegal or morally wrong.



Bearing in mind the internet wasn't owned by any corporation,and it's always been possible to do what we do on it now,I feel we are getting closer to this corporation owned internet happening one day.

We have become too lazy to type full urls and some would laugh at machine to machine connections without using a service as a go between.



I'm not sure about the implants,if for medical advances it may be a better thing but fingerprint readers and eye tracking in mobile phones,gaming consoles,java exploits should be watched with caution.

What starts off as a way to access a device we own could soon become the next form of internet cookie.



The more we are unconcerned about giving away information about our lives online and the more internet companies and corporations record these things with continually lowering privacy standards.

The less concerned or more desensitised we are about our data the more likely we shall be up to offer info the next time a new service offers (as an example)to hold all our medical records for free including our DNA in case "the worst should happen"



I block all ads and popups - yes the less intrusive an ad, the more likely i may consider looking at it if it's something i'm interested in.



Simply put, I think it's the machines being exploited by corporations - the level of respect is shown by the policies of the organisations behind the operating systems and services.

If people rejected more end user agreements that they didn't understand, companies might be forced to reconsider how they take our money and then still expect a little something extra for themselves.