4 ms·

You are aware that every advertisement you look at every day has been designed to elicit an emotional response yes? The advertisers in the newspaper, Internet a

You are aware that every advertisement you look at every day has been designed to elicit an emotional response yes? The advertisers in the newspaper, Internet and billboard down the street didn't get your opt in permission either.

cryoshon 11y ago
Not the same context, though you're right, it's similar-- the context of this was specifically to study the capacity for an effective emotional change controlled by social media only. They didn't have any monetization plans for the emotional change, which could potentially be negative.
saiya-jin 11y ago
that doesn't make it any more moral. just because others are already doing it, is it automatically OK?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Actually it does. They did something relatively harmless for science (and maybe, indirectly, for profit). The whole advertising industry is based on doing worse things, all the time, for pure profit. That this Facebook study is a subject of an outrage is, frankly, ridiculous.
  - fbbbbb 11y ago
    That is an appeal to tradition, and it a fallacy. It isn't moral for advertisers to do harmful things to users just because most advertisers do it. Most scientist do not do harmful things to their subjects. Modern science requires consent. So your fallacious argument, even if it weren't, fails to argue correctly in the first place, because scientists aren't advertisers. Facebook study was done without consent. It was harmful to their users (subjects) because it interfered with their emotions. It is immoral. The outrage might seem ridiculous, from the perspective of an advertiser, because, as you said, they do worst things all the time, so this study is hardly appalling for them. But from the perspective of other people, it is. I hope this gave you an insight into (our) reaction to the study.
wfo 11y ago
They do it explicitly with malicious intent; there is no bones about their goal which is to manipulate you and trick you into spending money on their products based on psychological charlatanry rather than offering you actual value. It's different when you do 'research', i.e. purport to act like a scientist, not a scam artist.

cryoshon 11y ago

Not the same context, though you're right, it's similar-- the context of this was specifically to study the capacity for an effective emotional change controlled by social media only. They didn't have any monetization plans for the emotional change, which could potentially be negative.

saiya-jin 11y ago

that doesn't make it any more moral. just because others are already doing it, is it automatically OK?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Actually it does. They did something relatively harmless for science (and maybe, indirectly, for profit). The whole advertising industry is based on doing worse things, all the time, for pure profit. That this Facebook study is a subject of an outrage is, frankly, ridiculous.
- fbbbbb 11y ago
  That is an appeal to tradition, and it a fallacy. It isn't moral for advertisers to do harmful things to users just because most advertisers do it. Most scientist do not do harmful things to their subjects. Modern science requires consent. So your fallacious argument, even if it weren't, fails to argue correctly in the first place, because scientists aren't advertisers. Facebook study was done without consent. It was harmful to their users (subjects) because it interfered with their emotions. It is immoral. The outrage might seem ridiculous, from the perspective of an advertiser, because, as you said, they do worst things all the time, so this study is hardly appalling for them. But from the perspective of other people, it is. I hope this gave you an insight into (our) reaction to the study.

wfo 11y ago

They do it explicitly with malicious intent; there is no bones about their goal which is to manipulate you and trick you into spending money on their products based on psychological charlatanry rather than offering you actual value. It's different when you do 'research', i.e. purport to act like a scientist, not a scam artist.