They had someone on Radio 2 the other day trying to pass this off as "Standard A/B testing, as done by many corporations worldwide".
Yes A/B testing is common practice, I've personally set A/B tests up. But it generally doesn't involve curating content as an experiment on the human psyche...
I can't wait until we see the death of Facebook. Shame people expect you to have an account these days (I Don't).
I still don't see why this is "so evil" or whatever, but if it means people will stop using Facebook, that'd be nice.
I'm perfectly fine with FB doing this honestly.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;45290211]I still don't see why this is "so evil" or whatever, but if it means people will stop using Facebook, that'd be nice.[/QUOTE]
Researcher here. The issue with what Facebook has done is that at no point did they seek the informed consent of their test subjects (that is to say, the experiment and consequences thereof are explained in full to the participant), nor did they give them the option to pull out; both of these are essential when performing any experiment ethically with human subjects.
[QUOTE=Tezzanator92;45290080]
I can't wait until we see the death of Facebook. Shame people expect you to have an account these days (I Don't).[/QUOTE]
For all its worth I like Facebook. I rarely look at the feed but use it a lot for group convos, keeping up with old friends and organizing events easily than having to collect phone numbers and feeling like I'm trying to herd cats. The fact that its so widespread and everyone has it makes it much easier to do so.
I don't like how much data they collect, but you can fix that with various browser extensions and from then they only have the information that you actually hand over to them.
I wouldn't miss it if something better replaced it that pretty much everyone had, but until then...
oh no they did a small experiment nuke facebook hq
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45293490]oh no they did a small experiment nuke facebook hq[/QUOTE]
A small experiment involving 700,000 people
dont you know theres like 7billionses peoples in the world? thats like, a tiny fraction
gosh
it might not have had a noticeable impact on the users who were tested, but what's important is that it sets a dangerous precedent for corporations looking to experiment on their consumers without consent
pretty sure facebooks eula allows them to do whatever they want really
telling people they're going to be part of a study on their emotions kinda skews things
Yeah for realsies I'm pretty sure it was a part of the facebook agreement that they can do stuff like this. Not to mention that if they did announce it beforehand the results would be very skewed
TBH I couldn't care less.
It's fine by me if they looked at how I respond to things or something.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45293490]oh no they did a small experiment nuke facebook hq[/QUOTE]
hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to negative content with the intent of seeing if it made them negative in their own emotions
If you agreed to the EULA you agreed to be part of the study. This just screams of desperate attempt to cash in on manufactured outrage.
[QUOTE=153x;45294314]it might not have had a noticeable impact on the users who were tested, but what's important is that it sets a dangerous precedent for corporations looking to experiment on their consumers without consent[/QUOTE]
Did you read facebooks terms of use? They have your consent. You expressed consent for them to do it
[QUOTE=153x;45294314]it might not have had a noticeable impact on the users who were tested, but what's important is that it sets a dangerous precedent for corporations looking to experiment on their consumers without consent[/QUOTE]
Kind of like television channels have been doing everyday for the past decades
[QUOTE=Code3Response;45301524]Did you read facebooks terms of use? They have your consent. You expressed consent for them to do it[/QUOTE]
That's legal cover but researchers are meant to get informed consent, not do whatever they want and then say welp you should have read the terms of use!!
[QUOTE=153x;45294314]it might not have had a noticeable impact on the users who were tested, but what's important is that it sets a dangerous precedent for corporations looking to experiment on their consumers without consent[/QUOTE]
You consented when you registered on the site.
This is how psychology tests go down, you don't tell the people you are testing what they are actually being tested on because it will skew the results. Normally this means you as the tester need to lie to them and say you're testing something else. Facebook have the advantage of just being able to quietly modify your newsfeed and monitor your posting habits, less lying.
However, you normally need to ensure that the people you're testing won't react to the test in such a way that it becomes a problem (suicide, depression, what have you). Something Facebook wouldn't have been able to do without giving away they are testing something. They could maybe have chosen candidates through a lot of data mining, but it's a lot of work for little payoff.
[QUOTE=Tezzanator92;45290080]I can't wait until we see the death of Facebook. Shame people expect you to have an account these days (I Don't).[/QUOTE]
I really don't understand FP's aversion to Facebook. As a company, sure, but what's wrong with having a website that makes connecting with other people easy?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;45301281]hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to negative content with the intent of seeing if it made them negative in their own emotions[/QUOTE]
negative stuff that your own friends who you expressed desire to see posts from posted
it's not like they made stuff up just to fuck with you, you had a very real possibility of seeing these posts anyway
As always, XKCD stays relevant:
[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/research_ethics.png[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
