> But here’s an uncomfortable analogy: I’ve talked before about how when I first wrote about ultrasonic humidifiers, everyone dismissed the argument for “nonsense” reasons, like not having any citations. Eventually, I realized I could change my argument to avoid that reaction: I was “calmer” and put the citations earlier. Most importantly, I knew that if I clearly stated my thesis early on, would dismiss my article without reading it. So instead I let my claims appear gradually. (I’m not stating that thesis here, either, for the same reason.) Isn’t that… pretty much exactly what my friends from the cafe did? How do you draw the line between “sensibly taking into account how real people react” and “manipulative dark patterns to literally get people to join your cult”? Perhaps there is no clear boundary.
The ethical thing to do is whatever you think helps other people. If you think people reading your article are trying to learn true, useful things about humidifiers, it's good to write the article in whatever way is conducive to that. If instead you wrote it in a way designed to make you look the best, or to sell humidifiers, that would be a problem.
The ethical thing to do is whatever you think helps other people. If you think people reading your article are trying to learn true, useful things about humidifiers, it's good to write the article in whatever way is conducive to that. If instead you wrote it in a way designed to make you look the best, or to sell humidifiers, that would be a problem.