5 ms·

Self-Censorship on Facebook (2013) [pdf]

51 points by okket 9y ago

macawfish 9y ago
I disagree with their interpretation of users having "a greater number of distinct friend communities" as signifying something as simple as "diversity" (see hypothesis #7). While it's related to diversity, it's more of a measure of how cliquey and/or segregated the user's different community groups are, and might even be thought of as a measure of segregation in the user's social environment. Funny that the word "diversity" would be used for this.
ideonexus 9y ago
This paper is spreading like wildfire in the science online community--not because of it's results--but because of how this data was obtained. It reveals that Facebook is monitoring everything you do on the platform. When you start to write a post, maybe in a moment of anger, think better of it, and delete that post to write something more moderate, Facebook has recorded everything you wrote and deleted. This isn't a new revelation to HN. I've seen posts here before analyzing the javascript behind Facebook and showing how it's recording your every keystroke. According to the academics I follow, this paper is the evidence that the company is sharing that data with third parties.
- asteli 9y ago
  Facebook didn't have to write this paper. They could have done the research and held onto it. They could have not bothered to do research at all. To me, this says that they're willing to do sociological research regarding the implications of their platform, and to share it publicly. It might be an unpopular opinion, but I think this shows transparency, a certain sense of social responsibility, and at the top level some semblance of understanding of the scope of the effect they have on society.
  - 659087 9y ago
    They're also willing to perform mass psychological experiments on hundreds of thousands of people without consent. I suppose we should be thanking them for that as well? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Face...
    - asteli 9y ago
      Every big website you use performs psychological experiments on millions of users without explicit consent. That's basic A/B testing. The difference here is that instead of A/B testing to see whether they can get you to click a button more, they tested to see how their platform, which has dramatically altered how people live and socialize, alters users emotional states. It's off-putting because people enjoy the illusion of unmolested free will, and don't understand the degree to which they're already being experimented on. That being said, the social and emotional health implications are too huge to leave things like this unresearched.
  - b0rsuk 9y ago
    Or they're just so confident the product* won't care, because they're too heavily invested and can't imagine life without FB. * a.k.a. users
- bllguo 9y ago
  But this paper is from 2013? Are you saying that this paper is spreading now, or had spread in the past?
- SerLava 9y ago
  I really feel like this should be over the line. If you share info with someone, sure, you're a sucker. No right to control that which you freely give up. But when you type something out and specifically decide not to transmit it? That's beyond the pale. They have no right to spy on people like that. It's the one thing.
  - username223 9y ago
    > But when you type something out and specifically decide not to transmit it? That's beyond the pale. This is why, if you still find FB useful, you should use mbasic.facebook.com. At least for now, it works with absolutely no JavaScript. The 2013 paper talks about edits, which this doesn't protect -- dickish to collect, but fair -- but the key-logging JS crosses the line for me.
- simooooo 9y ago
  Did you read the pdf? They just logged when a post/comment was started and how long before it was posted.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
partycoder 9y ago
Most people don't have the time to maintain friends lists, because the UI in that regard makes it sort of unproductive to manage different friend lists, compared to let's say, Google+. As a consequence of that, what you publish on Facebook usually appeals to the lowest common denominator of all your friends lists (in my case: acquintances and coworkers).
- asteli 9y ago
  There was a time when you could look at your whole friend list and sort people into sublists via dropdowns. The feature disappeared roughly a couple years ago IIRC. I wonder if they removed it because people started using the site in a way they didn't like.
greggarious 9y ago
I'm curious whether the Carnegie Mellon IRB approved this study, if so how they addressed the issue of informed consent? CTRL-Fing for "IRB" and "Instutional" and "informed consent" all produce zero results. While Facebook has a wide latitude as a private company, there are certain legal requirements once you bring someone affiliated with a university which receives federal grants into the mix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board#United_States_mandate_for_IRBs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board#Uni...
djabatt 9y ago
If you're typing into a web app assume it is being stored and used for profit. Sadly, my original post I was going to write was deleted because I self-censor and edit myself heavily.
badrabbit 9y ago
Average people don't know about this. Even if they did,they don't understand the implications. This is truly concerning,as in I have serious doubts about this society's short term survival. I don't mean as in democracy or cultural survival but wars,civil unrest and all the other nasty horrors humans cause on each other. It seems only a matter of time until those things happen,except this time the masses are controlled and their behavior analyzed and influenced ever so more efficiently. The west hasn't seen the type of surveillance that goes on under terrible regimes,where they use your friends and family to monitor you,and when you fall out of line you get "disappeared". I think people here in the west just assume that type of stuff only happens in north korea and other 3rd world countries. Maybe Germans who lived in east Germany can relate. Anyways, the common man's ability to stop tyranny or even help victims of tyranny goes away when the common man can't hide his views,inclinations,associations and activities even if he/she wanted to. Think of all the great wars,movements and struggles in history and all the heroic acts that shaped the present. Could any of them succed if everyone was using facebook and google and the "bad side" controlled these companies? I can't decide whether it is overconfidence in democracy and western governments or reckless ignorance of history that has made the existence of these companies in their current form tolerable. I think we're nearing(or have passed) the "point of no return". Maybe we are living in one of those "prelude" years before an era of unthinkable chaos and worlds turning upside down begins. The risks,potential casualties and how much it would take for peace to return all seem exponentially higher. I think some sober thinking is needed. Facebook,google,amazon and friends can all operate well(even better) while eliminating most of their capacity they have to monitor user activity and without mining and analyzying user behavior. Really,they have the money and the technology exists to allow that to happen. What lacks is the will.
perebor_ 9y ago
I suppose subsequent research will have to somehow consider self censorship of users that don't trust unsent form input now.
Dowwie 9y ago
How you interpret this research depends on your frame of mind. If you have an adversarial frame, you may see this as a negative with a bright red flag, but for a moment consider an optimistic frame: Whether you're studying human behavior for its own sake or trying to improve a product, you're going to measure that which is required for experiments. The scientific method requires measurement. Tracking is measuring. If Facebook shares anonymous, aggregated information relevant to academic research, it is sharing in the noble academic pursuit of "light" in knowledge.
jocoda 9y ago
Not a FB fanboy but I have to consider this paper horseshit. They equate censorship with an article not being posted within 10 min of its creation. Confession - did not read more once I found that but for me that's the core and invalid. I don't know about you but for me converting thoughts into a post usually clarifies things and usually needs revision and takes time. Often way too much time. Here the quite normal process of editing is being called self censorship and that's enough for the pitchfork mob to saddle up...

51 points by okket 9y ago

I disagree with their interpretation of users having "a greater number of distinct friend communities" as signifying something as simple as "diversity" (see hypothesis #7). While it's related to diversity, it's more of a measure of how cliquey and/or segregated the user's different community groups are, and might even be thought of as a measure of segregation in the user's social environment. Funny that the word "diversity" would be used for this.

ideonexus 9y ago

This paper is spreading like wildfire in the science online community--not because of it's results--but because of how this data was obtained. It reveals that Facebook is monitoring everything you do on the platform. When you start to write a post, maybe in a moment of anger, think better of it, and delete that post to write something more moderate, Facebook has recorded everything you wrote and deleted. This isn't a new revelation to HN. I've seen posts here before analyzing the javascript behind Facebook and showing how it's recording your every keystroke. According to the academics I follow, this paper is the evidence that the company is sharing that data with third parties.

asteli 9y ago
Facebook didn't have to write this paper. They could have done the research and held onto it. They could have not bothered to do research at all. To me, this says that they're willing to do sociological research regarding the implications of their platform, and to share it publicly. It might be an unpopular opinion, but I think this shows transparency, a certain sense of social responsibility, and at the top level some semblance of understanding of the scope of the effect they have on society.
- 659087 9y ago
  They're also willing to perform mass psychological experiments on hundreds of thousands of people without consent. I suppose we should be thanking them for that as well? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Face...
  - asteli 9y ago
    Every big website you use performs psychological experiments on millions of users without explicit consent. That's basic A/B testing. The difference here is that instead of A/B testing to see whether they can get you to click a button more, they tested to see how their platform, which has dramatically altered how people live and socialize, alters users emotional states. It's off-putting because people enjoy the illusion of unmolested free will, and don't understand the degree to which they're already being experimented on. That being said, the social and emotional health implications are too huge to leave things like this unresearched.
- b0rsuk 9y ago
  Or they're just so confident the product* won't care, because they're too heavily invested and can't imagine life without FB. * a.k.a. users
bllguo 9y ago
But this paper is from 2013? Are you saying that this paper is spreading now, or had spread in the past?
SerLava 9y ago
I really feel like this should be over the line. If you share info with someone, sure, you're a sucker. No right to control that which you freely give up. But when you type something out and specifically decide not to transmit it? That's beyond the pale. They have no right to spy on people like that. It's the one thing.
- username223 9y ago
  > But when you type something out and specifically decide not to transmit it? That's beyond the pale. This is why, if you still find FB useful, you should use mbasic.facebook.com. At least for now, it works with absolutely no JavaScript. The 2013 paper talks about edits, which this doesn't protect -- dickish to collect, but fair -- but the key-logging JS crosses the line for me.
simooooo 9y ago
Did you read the pdf? They just logged when a post/comment was started and how long before it was posted.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

partycoder 9y ago

Most people don't have the time to maintain friends lists, because the UI in that regard makes it sort of unproductive to manage different friend lists, compared to let's say, Google+. As a consequence of that, what you publish on Facebook usually appeals to the lowest common denominator of all your friends lists (in my case: acquintances and coworkers).

asteli 9y ago
There was a time when you could look at your whole friend list and sort people into sublists via dropdowns. The feature disappeared roughly a couple years ago IIRC. I wonder if they removed it because people started using the site in a way they didn't like.

greggarious 9y ago

I'm curious whether the Carnegie Mellon IRB approved this study, if so how they addressed the issue of informed consent? CTRL-Fing for "IRB" and "Instutional" and "informed consent" all produce zero results. While Facebook has a wide latitude as a private company, there are certain legal requirements once you bring someone affiliated with a university which receives federal grants into the mix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board#United_States_mandate_for_IRBs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board#Uni...

djabatt 9y ago

If you're typing into a web app assume it is being stored and used for profit. Sadly, my original post I was going to write was deleted because I self-censor and edit myself heavily.

badrabbit 9y ago

Average people don't know about this. Even if they did,they don't understand the implications. This is truly concerning,as in I have serious doubts about this society's short term survival. I don't mean as in democracy or cultural survival but wars,civil unrest and all the other nasty horrors humans cause on each other. It seems only a matter of time until those things happen,except this time the masses are controlled and their behavior analyzed and influenced ever so more efficiently. The west hasn't seen the type of surveillance that goes on under terrible regimes,where they use your friends and family to monitor you,and when you fall out of line you get "disappeared". I think people here in the west just assume that type of stuff only happens in north korea and other 3rd world countries. Maybe Germans who lived in east Germany can relate. Anyways, the common man's ability to stop tyranny or even help victims of tyranny goes away when the common man can't hide his views,inclinations,associations and activities even if he/she wanted to. Think of all the great wars,movements and struggles in history and all the heroic acts that shaped the present. Could any of them succed if everyone was using facebook and google and the "bad side" controlled these companies? I can't decide whether it is overconfidence in democracy and western governments or reckless ignorance of history that has made the existence of these companies in their current form tolerable. I think we're nearing(or have passed) the "point of no return". Maybe we are living in one of those "prelude" years before an era of unthinkable chaos and worlds turning upside down begins. The risks,potential casualties and how much it would take for peace to return all seem exponentially higher. I think some sober thinking is needed. Facebook,google,amazon and friends can all operate well(even better) while eliminating most of their capacity they have to monitor user activity and without mining and analyzying user behavior. Really,they have the money and the technology exists to allow that to happen. What lacks is the will.

perebor_ 9y ago

I suppose subsequent research will have to somehow consider self censorship of users that don't trust unsent form input now.

Dowwie 9y ago

How you interpret this research depends on your frame of mind. If you have an adversarial frame, you may see this as a negative with a bright red flag, but for a moment consider an optimistic frame: Whether you're studying human behavior for its own sake or trying to improve a product, you're going to measure that which is required for experiments. The scientific method requires measurement. Tracking is measuring. If Facebook shares anonymous, aggregated information relevant to academic research, it is sharing in the noble academic pursuit of "light" in knowledge.

jocoda 9y ago

Not a FB fanboy but I have to consider this paper horseshit. They equate censorship with an article not being posted within 10 min of its creation. Confession - did not read more once I found that but for me that's the core and invalid. I don't know about you but for me converting thoughts into a post usually clarifies things and usually needs revision and takes time. Often way too much time. Here the quite normal process of editing is being called self censorship and that's enough for the pitchfork mob to saddle up...