(no subject)

[pensnest]

I'm glad I'm not signed up to FaceBook. Not that I would have anticipated them using their customers as lab rats, but I can't say I'm actually surprised.

Comments

[sperrywink]

I signed up, but I just use it to see pictures of my niece and keep track of my crazy cousins. I'm on it for maybe 5 minutes a day and rarely post myself.

But I also am not surprised by their shifty and shirty behavior. What assholes.

[untonuggan]

I feel like the APA and some of the other medical organizations should tighten their ethics rules so these kinds of "experiments" can't happen again without those who participate them losing their licenses or suffering other kinds of professional consequences. After all, that's what happens with unethical physical-world experiments, correct?

And yeah, ugh, super gross.

[turlough]

I've no idea what's happened but I'm always happy I've never signed up for Facebook :-)

[hsb.livejournal.com]

Yep, this in spades

H

[manna]

I'm not too surprised that Facebook thought that was a cool idea -- partly because Facebook views users only as ad clicks, not people, but also because I think it's a cool idea, too. But then I'm a scientist, and we tend to think that kind of thing is cool, which is why there are ethics committees and institutional review boards who are supposed to stop us running amok.

I am rather surprised that the University of California, and Cornell thought it was appropriate, and that the PNAS published it. The paper mentions the data collection methods, but it doesn't say anything about whether the design passed an IRB. But then, this isn't the first time I've seen researchers with the attitude of 'it doesn't matter, it's only the internet'.

The paper doesn't even show what they say it shows. As they didn't actually measure mood, only use of positive and negative words, I think they're exaggerating their conclusions. The effect they've demonstrated isn't necessarily emotional contagion, it's the way the emotional environment affects what people think is appropriate to say out loud. If people make more positive or negative posts, it could be because their mood has actually been altered, but it could also be because they feel more or less comfortable about expressing those feelings. I didn't see any way they tried to differentiate or control for that.

Also, the actual effects they get are miniscule. The biggest effect they saw was that decreasing the number of positive posts seen decreased positive words in posts compared to the expected number by 0.1%. Big whoop. The effects are only significant because of the huge volume of data they could get.

Not that the feeble results make the experimental protocol any less wrong, of course.

(Link to the full article.)

[pensnest]

There do seem to be being questions asked about the ethical side of things! I wonder if FaceBook sneaked a consent of some kind into whatever terms and conditions people have to sign up for? Nobody ever reads that stuff...

I can see the temptation to use *all those users* as data. But, eh.

[manna]

The ToS says that the data you give FB may be used for internal research, which the people who wrote the paper seem to be claiming is enough. But human subject research requires explicit, informed consent, and the ability to withdraw from the research. Even if the Facebook ToS stated that Facebook might at any time use you as guinea pigs in psychology experiments, that still wouldn't be enough to fulfill the conditions of PNAS's own editorial policy.

[brandywine28.livejournal.com]

Ugh, ditto. From what I hear, Facebook is slowly turning into an Orwellian horror show. That's a big ol' nope from me, thanks.

But on the bright side: all those years of paranoid grumbling about "The Man", and it turns out I was right! Vindication!

[pensnest]

Google is bad enough, these days - I can't remember when I last saw a non-targeted ad - but FaceBook, no thanks!