Intent may not matter, but it’s where we’ve gotta start
“The descent to hell is easy.”
That’s from Virgil, an early variant of the proverb about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. And it’s true — once you’re in hell, it doesn’t matter that you accidentally took the wrong turn. You’re there. Impact always trumps intent.
That’s a lesson tech leaders are learning the hard way. Tony Fadell, co-creator of the iPod, told Fast Company, “I wake up in cold sweats every so often thinking, What did we bring to the world?” Sheryl Sandberg admitted that, at Facebook, “we really believed in social experiences. We really believed in protecting privacy. But we were way too idealistic.”

In this era of unregulated tech and egregious data indiscretions stemming from exploitative business models, it’s clear that the descent to hell has, in fact, been easy. And lucrative. And they took all of us with them.
Now that we’re all down here, addicted to little black boxes with our personal data gone rogue, tech is pointing fingers and evading responsibility. Here are two common lines:
(1) “We’ll make our policies more accessible.”
This is the rhetorical equivalent of saying “I’m sorry you feel that way” as a form of apology. The implication is that users’ awareness (or lack thereof) is the core problem rather than the corporate practices themselves. It’s a way to defuse indignation and redirect blame.
(2) “Don’t worry, we’ll fix this one issue.”
Great? But when change happens just because of a scandal, it’s rarely a structural change that solves for the root of the issue. It’s just a bandaid on a bullet wound.
So what about, (3) “Let’s reimagine it all.”
When I really look at how we got here, I have to ask, Were the intentions actually good? Maybe the moralizing Silicon Valley of last decade swore they were, but in hindsight, the verdict has to be no.
Tech has an obligation to grapple with some hard questions. As users and designers, we do too:
- In a business model where user data and behavior is the commodity, can we prioritize the humanity and best interests of those users? If not, then what?
- What is our collective comfort level with data privacy in the information age, and how do we ensure that users retain the power to decide for themselves?
- What are the responsibilities of the user vs. corporation in protecting user data?
- How can we encourage (or require?) companies to be more transparent, honest, and responsible with user data?
Maybe intentions don’t matter more than outcomes, but when it comes to escaping the hell we’ve landed in, reexamining those intentions is the best place to start.
This post was in response to and informed by:
- Nest Founder: “I Wake Up In Cold Sweats Thinking, What Did We Bring To The World?” (Fast Company)
- The iPhone’s original UI designer on Apple’s greatest flaws (Fast Company)
- Tech’s most egregious violations of user privacy (Axios)
- The police technology revolution no one is hearing about (Axios)
- Here’s how GDPR is already changing web design (Fast Company)
- Respect Always Comes First (Smashing Magazine)
- If you walk, breathe, or talk, this AI probably knows who you are (Fast Company)
- Twitter Founder Reveals Secret Formula for Getting Rich Online (Wired)
- Are Teenagers Replacing Drugs With Smartphones? (NY Times)
- The Internet Apologizes (New York Magazine)

