6 ms·

They altered people's feeds for a psychological experiment with the specific intent of manipulating their mood. That is highly unethical.

baddox 12y ago
Would it be unethical if they were trying to make people happier?
- GuiA 12y ago
  Yes. Would it be unethical if I broke into your house to randomly place pieces of candy and $5 bills in your drawers?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I'd happily PM you my address.
    - staunch 12y ago
      Consent is the difference between sex and rape.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Nope; the primary difference is that being raped doesn't make you happy. But please let's not go there; it's stretching analogies too far.
        walterbell 12y ago
        Who defines happy?
        oldmanjay 12y ago
        Whoever is feeling it.
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    All Facebook users have agreed to be part of research experiments. It's in their ToS. If you got people to agree to allow you to enter their homes for research it wouldn't be unethical for you to do so.
    - GuiA 12y ago
      ToS are a copout, and in my eyes a tragedy of the modern legislature around software services. Every single company in the world knows very well that 99.99% of their userbase won't read the ToS, and use this to do whatever they want with their users' information and privacy. There needs to be dramatic improvements in that area.
  - csallen 12y ago
    Except Facebook didn't break into anyone's house. They changed their own algorithms on their own website that people visit voluntarily.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Facebook is free to push boundaries, their customers and lawyers and regulators are free to differ. http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebo...
      - csallen 12y ago
        Totally agreed. I'd be surprised if there's any kind of legal action here with enough backbone to get a settlement out of Facebook, however.
  - baddox 12y ago
    That would be unethical, because of the breaking into the house part, not the mood-altering part. Would it be unethical if I placed candy and money around my own house, invited you into my house, and told you to take anything you desire?
  - ajays 12y ago
    Oh lord, not this "break into the house" fallacy again. Your FB profile is not your house; it is just some data you have shared with FB. FB decides what to do with the data: how to share it, where to share it, when to share it, who to share it with, etc. Everybody knows that FB _already_ manipulates the feed to change your mood: to make you more engaged with the site; to make you click more on ads; etc. It's been doing this basically for ever.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
But why if it's done for science it's unethical, but when done by news stations, politicians, advertising agencies, motivational speakers, salesmen, etc. it's suddenly ok?
- scintill76 12y ago
  Users of Facebook see it as a neutral platform for communicating with people they know. Consumers of the things you listed know it's top-down messaging coming from people they don't know or necessarily trust. So, there is a difference. It's still a complex question, though -- is filtering or prioritizing based on emotional sentiment really different from what they are already doing with inserting ads and such?
  - scintill76 12y ago
    New relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1390/ http://xkcd.com/1390/
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I see it this way: they did a study, so it's fair. Were they to filter posts by emotional sentiment as a part of their normal operations, I'd find it unethical, or at least something I might not want. But I'm totally fine with them subjecting users (including myself) to random research studies, as those are temporary situations, and with Facebook's data sets, they can have great benefits for humanity. Perhaps Facebook should provide an opt-in option to for user to be a subject of various sociological experiments at unspecified times. I'd happily select it.
- walterbell 12y ago
  > when done by news stations, politicians, advertising agencies, motivational speakers, salesmen Each of those are cleary identified. If Facebook wants to put a little icon next to each "experimental study" status update which disclosed the party that funded the study, it would be different. Even in "science", some studies are funded and others are not.
  - 12y ago
onewaystreet 12y ago
They got approval from an IRB, so not really.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Any idea on the name/reference?
ajays 12y ago
But they _already_ manipulate the feeds with the specific intent of increasing user engagement: to get more views, to get more ad clicks, more time spent, etc.

baddox 12y ago

Would it be unethical if they were trying to make people happier?

GuiA 12y ago
Yes. Would it be unethical if I broke into your house to randomly place pieces of candy and $5 bills in your drawers?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I'd happily PM you my address.
  - staunch 12y ago
    Consent is the difference between sex and rape.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Nope; the primary difference is that being raped doesn't make you happy. But please let's not go there; it's stretching analogies too far.
      - walterbell 12y ago
        Who defines happy?
        oldmanjay 12y ago
        Whoever is feeling it.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  All Facebook users have agreed to be part of research experiments. It's in their ToS. If you got people to agree to allow you to enter their homes for research it wouldn't be unethical for you to do so.
  - GuiA 12y ago
    ToS are a copout, and in my eyes a tragedy of the modern legislature around software services. Every single company in the world knows very well that 99.99% of their userbase won't read the ToS, and use this to do whatever they want with their users' information and privacy. There needs to be dramatic improvements in that area.
- csallen 12y ago
  Except Facebook didn't break into anyone's house. They changed their own algorithms on their own website that people visit voluntarily.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Facebook is free to push boundaries, their customers and lawyers and regulators are free to differ. http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebo...
    - csallen 12y ago
      Totally agreed. I'd be surprised if there's any kind of legal action here with enough backbone to get a settlement out of Facebook, however.
- baddox 12y ago
  That would be unethical, because of the breaking into the house part, not the mood-altering part. Would it be unethical if I placed candy and money around my own house, invited you into my house, and told you to take anything you desire?
- ajays 12y ago
  Oh lord, not this "break into the house" fallacy again. Your FB profile is not your house; it is just some data you have shared with FB. FB decides what to do with the data: how to share it, where to share it, when to share it, who to share it with, etc. Everybody knows that FB _already_ manipulates the feed to change your mood: to make you more engaged with the site; to make you click more on ads; etc. It's been doing this basically for ever.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

But why if it's done for science it's unethical, but when done by news stations, politicians, advertising agencies, motivational speakers, salesmen, etc. it's suddenly ok?

scintill76 12y ago
Users of Facebook see it as a neutral platform for communicating with people they know. Consumers of the things you listed know it's top-down messaging coming from people they don't know or necessarily trust. So, there is a difference. It's still a complex question, though -- is filtering or prioritizing based on emotional sentiment really different from what they are already doing with inserting ads and such?
- scintill76 12y ago
  New relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1390/ http://xkcd.com/1390/
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I see it this way: they did a study, so it's fair. Were they to filter posts by emotional sentiment as a part of their normal operations, I'd find it unethical, or at least something I might not want. But I'm totally fine with them subjecting users (including myself) to random research studies, as those are temporary situations, and with Facebook's data sets, they can have great benefits for humanity. Perhaps Facebook should provide an opt-in option to for user to be a subject of various sociological experiments at unspecified times. I'd happily select it.
walterbell 12y ago
> when done by news stations, politicians, advertising agencies, motivational speakers, salesmen Each of those are cleary identified. If Facebook wants to put a little icon next to each "experimental study" status update which disclosed the party that funded the study, it would be different. Even in "science", some studies are funded and others are not.
- 12y ago

onewaystreet 12y ago

They got approval from an IRB, so not really.

walterbell 12y ago
Any idea on the name/reference?

ajays 12y ago

But they _already_ manipulate the feeds with the specific intent of increasing user engagement: to get more views, to get more ad clicks, more time spent, etc.