UAJB_A_1409836_O Swiping left on the quantified relationship Citation for published version (APA): Frank, L., & Klincewicz, M. (2018). Swiping left on the quantified relationship: exploring the potential soft impacts. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(2), 27-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 Document license: CC BY-NC-ND DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 Document status and date: Published: 01/02/2018 Document Version: Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers) Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: www.tue.nl/taverne Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: openaccess@tue.nl providing details and we will investigate your claim. Download date: 06. Apr. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/swiping-left-on-the-quantified-relationship(cbd6ffa9-8801-4cab-bd43-58a751f884ab).html Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uajb20 The American Journal of Bioethics ISSN: 1526-5161 (Print) 1536-0075 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uajb20 Swiping Left on the Quantified Relationship: Exploring the Potential Soft Impacts Lily Frank & Michał Klincewicz To cite this article: Lily Frank & Michał Klincewicz (2018) Swiping Left on the Quantified Relationship: Exploring the Potential Soft Impacts, The American Journal of Bioethics, 18:2, 27-28 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 © 2018 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis© Lily Frank and Michał Klincewicz Published online: 02 Feb 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 124 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uajb20 http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uajb20 https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=uajb20&show=instructions http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=uajb20&show=instructions http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-02-02 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-02-02 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833#tabModule http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409833#tabModule Swiping Left on the Quantified Relationship: Exploring the Potential Soft Impacts Lily Frank, Eindhoven University of Technology Michał Klincewicz, Jagiellonian University John Danaher, Sven Nyholm, and Brian D. Earp’s (2018) fascinating articleon potential ethical objections to the use of quantified relationship technologies contends that “there is no blanket objection to or knockdown argument against” their use (17). Although we agree with this con- clusion and with their plea for further empirical study of these technologies, we argue that their discussion of the quantified relationship does not adequately consider potential soft impacts of quantified relationship technolo- gies (QRT). Relationship, dating, and “hookup” technologies, such as online dating applications and social media, are already in widespread use and they serve as a source of insight about these impacts. Dating applications are a particularly suitable example for comparison because of their role in mediating intimate relationships and because objections to QRT that the authors’ consider significantly overlap with the kinds of objections that have been raised against widespread use of dating apps. We focus on a heterosexual use of Tinder, but similar comparisons can be made for other apps that target other sexual orientations. Conclusions based on our comparisons challenge the authors’ cautious opti- mism about QRT. Instead, these conclusions suggest that QRT are likely to have negative social and moral consequences that reverberate far beyond any individ- ual relationship that they involve or facilitate. These impacts merit consideration even if one remains neu- tral, as Danaher and colleagues do, on the goals, value, and limits of romantic relationships in general. Three types of concerns are discussed next: (1) opaque algo- rithms; (2) unintended and unanticipated uses; and (3) reification of harmful gender norms. Tinder is an example of the way in which relationship technologies are far from being neutral about the quality of relationships that they promote. Tinder’s algorithms favor novelty (the so-called “newbie boost”), facilitating short- term relationships over long-term ones, thus securing its continued use by its customers. Other apps do things slightly differently, depending on their business model. When the structure of the app is apparent this is not neces- sarily problematic, but the business models that typically inform the apps’ algorithms are almost always obscure to users. Tinder even creates a secret “Elo score” for each user, a measure of their desirability. The same is true of QRT, which would inevitably come with their own algo- rithms, business models, and structures. These structures will be designed to secure continued customer engage- ment or purchase of upgrades, among other things. Danaher and colleagues acknowledge that the marketing and methods of behavior change that QRT employ may take advantage of users’ “relationship” insecurities, but, the authors claim, this is not unique to QRT. We agree that this is not a unique problem, but it is a problem neverthe- less. In this case, some of the features of QRT that may mat- ter most to their users would remain obscure to them. Consequently, even if users consent to the use of QRT, their hidden structure may change users’ behaviors in ways that they do not intend or approve. As with Tinder, one may sign up to use a QRT with one thing in mind and end up doing another, without being aware of it. This is, at best, disrespectful paternalism. At worst, it is an unwel- comed manipulation, for largely commercial purposes, into what is central to our conception of ourselves, namely, our social relationships and our moral characteristics (Strohminger and Nichols 2013). Online relationship, dating, and “hookup” apps are often repurposed for other uses. This can take place as a result of the affordances that are put in the app inten- tionally, such as those that result in gamification in Tinder (Hakala 2013). Happn, a global positioning system (GPS)- based dating app that intentionally uses of gamification to increase user engagement, asks users to guess which one of four users that they were spatially near during the day is their special crush. Some apps allow users to “collect” their matches as if they were virtual playing cards. It Published with license by Taylor & Francis. � 2018 Lily Frank and Michał Klincewicz. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. Address correspondence to Lily Frank, PhD, Eindhoven University of Technology, Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven, 5612AZ, The Netherlands. E-mail: L.e.frank@tue.nl The Quantified Relationship February, Volume 18, Number 2, 2018 ajob 27 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ remains to be seen whether gamification of dating facili- tates dehumanization and light-hearted cruelty or merely facilitates flirtatious play that is already a part of dating. There are also cases of unintended repurposing. Tinder can be used as a dating app and as a means for professional networking and self-promotion—for example, using brief conversations with Tinder matches to promote a party or to find investors for their small businesses (Froelich 2014). We can imagine an analogous repurposing given the affordances in QRT. A positively perceived profile of one’s quanti- fied relationship may be used to communicate an abil- ity to maintain a desirable sort of relationship, put bedroom achievements on display, or advertise one’s personal style, among many other possibilities. What is troubling about these afforded possibilities is that a potential employer, colleague, insurance specialist, partner, friend, bureaucrat, marketer, or extortionist could gain access to what can be sensitive information and do with it as they choose. With widespread use of QRT, these affordances would eventually lead to users being pressured to disclose their performance on the various dimensions that Danaher and colleagues dis- cuss. Similar pressure is now applied to owners of social media accounts to verify their identities, show- case their ability to network, or advertise their “safe” off-work activities. QRT will similarly contain infor- mation that a variety of stakeholders would find use- ful and may at some point ask for—you have nothing to hide, right? Another likely troubling soft impact of QRT is the reification of harmful gender roles. There are two ways in which QRT is likely to result in this. On the one hand, the previous two likely soft impacts of QRT— obscure algorithms and repurposing—will provide new avenues for bringing harmful gender norms to bear on private behavior. On the other hand, there are distinct ways in which QRT would further entrench some of the most harmful gender norms, which systematically cause women in particular be harmed. In the world of dating apps women regularly receive unwelcome pho- tos of male genitalia and face intimidation through messages after they reject a potential match. When it comes to QRT, Danaher and colleagues acknowledge the “gendered relationship” objection, but argue that whether or not bad consequences are created for women “depend[s] more on the general social context in which the apps are developed, as well as on the par- ticulars of the relationships in which they are used” (16). The problem with this answer is that we already have extensive information on the context in which these and other technologies will be used, as well as on the different ways in which men and women use rela- tionship apps like Tinder (Tyson et al. 2016), and the picture is not good. Evidence shows that apps are often a vehicle for systematic and institutionalized gender-based discrimination, disadvantage, and violence that is insu- lated from the larger community where such behaviors can be sanctioned. We do not have the luxury of being able to claim ignorance as to these matters, especially in light of the #metoo campaign and revelations of endemic (largely) gender-based harassment. Additionally, there is significant evidence that technologies, especially algorithms, can embody gender, racial, and even metaethical biases of their designers (Hajian et al. 2016; Frank and Klincewicz 2016). QRT are likely to be informed by stereotypical and gen- dered “scripts” of romantic and sexual behavior that are demonstrably detrimental to both partners’ sexual and personal fulfillment (Verbeek 2006). Two of the examples given in Danaher and colleagues’ article illustrate these scripts: One sex app measures number and g-force of thrusts, while another, Kouply, codes taking out the gar- bage as a romantic gesture. Of course, QRT could be inten- tionally designed to combat these gendered scripts, but this seems unlikely, given the extent to which they are cur- rently ingrained in cultural attitudes, institutions, and other technologies. While Danaher and colleagues are cautiously opti- mistic about the value and implementation of QRT, given what we already know about the consequences of dating and hookup apps, we remain cautiously pessimistic. & REFERENCES Danaher, J., S. Nyholm, and B. D. Earp. 2018. The quantified rela- tionship. American Journal of Bioethics 18 (2):3–19. Frank, L., and M. Klincewicz. 2016. Metaethics in context of engi- neering ethical and moral systems. AAAI Spring Workshops Techni- cal Reports 2016:208–13. Froelich, P. 2014. Business with benefits: How Tinder and other dating apps double as career boosters. Fortune, February 13. Avail- able at: http://fortune.com/2014/02/13/business-with-benefits- how-tinder-and-other-dating-apps-double-as-career-boosters Hajian, S., B. Francesco, and C. Carlos. 2016. Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to fairness-aware data mining. Pro- ceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2125–26. ACM. Hakala, K. 2013. How the gamification of dating apps is changing our sex lives. Nerve. Available at: http://www.nerve.com/love- sex/do-we-still-need-mutual-friends Strohminger, N., and S. Nichols. 2014. The essential moral self. Cognition 131 (1):159–71. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.005. Tyson, G., V. C. Perta, H. Haddadi, and M. C. Seto. 2016. A first look at user activity on tinder. In Advances in Social Networks Analy- sis and Mining (ASONAM) 2016: 461–66. IEEE. Verbeek, P.-P. 2006. Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 31 (3):361–80. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847. The American Journal of Bioethics 28 ajob February, Volume 18, Number 2, 2018 http://fortune.com/2014/02/13/business-with-benefits-how-tinder-and-other-dating-apps-double-as-career-boosters http://fortune.com/2014/02/13/business-with-benefits-how-tinder-and-other-dating-apps-double-as-career-boosters http://www.nerve.com/love-sex/do-we-still-need-mutual-friends http://www.nerve.com/love-sex/do-we-still-need-mutual-friends