8 ms·

This concept is very creepy. This particular pizza example reported is not but who knows if they come clean on ALL their experiments. They have a lot of power i

• ThomPete 8y ago
  I am trying to understand the moral/ethical issue here. Care to elaborate? There might be something I am missing here cause I just don't see it. It's a genuine question.
  • Bluestrike2 8y ago
    Google ran ads under a false brand name to test how viewers reacted to them. From what I can tell, the marketing experiment was fairly similar to standard A/B tests advertisers on ad design and copy or the kind of tests used by designers and developers for new site functionality. The biggest difference being that--and this is the possible ethical concern from the parent comment--the the brand wasn't real. Users had no way of knowing who the ad was produced by, or who was attempting to analyze their behavior. They aren't totally analogous, but there are circumstances where obscured identity is tested: focus groups market research tests that ask consumers opinions about possible product lines and/or changes, political polling asking how potential voters would perceive an unnamed politician (such as might done when developing a response plan prior to a major scandal breaking...if they have time), etc. In those examples, however, the subject at least knows who is doing the research if not who commissioned it. And most importantly, they give consent. The Facebook paper was a much more significant ethical concern, largely because it was (1) clearly a psychological study and was, in fact, published as such[0]; (2) had the explicit goal of eliciting changes in subject emotional responses and behavior in order to test the hypothesis; and (3) made no effort to comply with standard ethical practices for informed consent in human research. The paper got around the lack of informed consent because Facebook was a private company and was able to point to their Data Use Policy. That was enough of a fig leaf for Cornell's Institutional Review Board to accept because the Cornell professor was only given access to completed data after the experiment was independently run by Facebook. They accepted it in those circumstances, but I doubt anyone was very happy about it. Google's experiment is quite tame in comparison, and there are obvious parallels to the sort of benign A/B testing marketers use. There's also--arguably--a pretty major difference in the type of experimentation going on, and it's not intended for academic publication. Also, YouTube terms of use presumably contain language that gives them enough cover to avoid any legal consequences. Ethicists and university IRBs put a lot of thought into where the boundaries lie and how proposed experiments can cross them unexpectedly. Some of those boundaries have been learned about after some truly horrendous experiments in our past that nobody ever wants to even consider repeating. Others have been much less destructive, but nevertheless with their own flaws and problems. Personally, I think Google ought to have at least labeled it as a research ad and put their name on it at the end or on the page users clicked through to. While this example was fairly benign with only relatively minor ethical concerns, I understand the parent comment's concerns. There's a lot of interesting questions that can be researched, and I'd imagine some pretty abusive ways in relevant data could be discovered. In that context, the discussion's a good one to have for both the public and the companies themselves. Not because they're likely to jump into those abusive methods or because they'll repeat something along the lines of the Milgram experiment (or far, far worse). It's simply useful to understand the pitfalls beforehand. I'm not normally one for slippery slopes, but there are instances where considering them beforehand helps avoid the problematic outcomes altogether. 0. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/24/8788.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/24/8788.full.pdf
    • iambenjones 8y ago
      Just a note of response here: We did put our name on it--there was a landing page with details on the aims of the research, the methodology used, etc. It included contact info, and we responded personally to any and all questions. Ben (the creative director on this research)
  • anonymfus 8y ago
    These ads were lying.
    • kowdermeister 8y ago
      Aren't all ads lying?
      • DowsingSpoon 8y ago
        >Aren't all ads lying? Not at all. Please refer to the Wikipedia page on "False advertising" for an overview of what does and does not constitute false advertising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
        • Skunkleton 8y ago
          Don't you deserve to be free of Symptom X? Try drug Y! *warning results vary, and may result in sudden death.
      • anyfoo 8y ago
        I keep being baffled at how transgressions tend to get handwaved away with "everybody does it" by some commenters on Hacker News. First, there are plenty of locations where advertising is heavily regulated. Second, even in locations where that is not true, "everybody does it" does not justify anything. Every surgeon used to perform their job without washing their hands, and yet we got rid of that behavior.
        • kowdermeister 8y ago
          > "everybody does it" does not justify anything Indeed, it doesn't, I just found the commenter being way too captain obvious :)
    • oh_sigh 8y ago
      What did the ads lie about? That fresh mozzarella tastes good?
  • lalos 8y ago
    There is a lot to it. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_of_the_Nuremberg_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#The_ten_points_... Specially point number 1. Also read on the history of Nuremberg Code and why it was triggered after WW2. Also you could read this explanation by a professor of law at U of Maryland http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanton_boys http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanto... which talks about Facebook research which is similar to this one. In general: you are tricking the end user, this is not a simple A/B test this is more of here is a company that does not exist providing nothing but let's see how you react to it. Today is fake pizza, tomorrow is a fake HIV med that cures it in one day (you click on it, there is a strong inference that you have it), etc the possibility is endless. Who is deciding this? That's why I mention ethic panels or regulation or whatever way of putting limits on it. The only good thing here is now we know that we are test subjects when using Youtube/Google.
    • philwelch 8y ago
      This is almost literally a Godwin argument. Your argument basically unpacks into, "there's a dangerously slippery slope between fake door tests and war crimes", and it's most often used as a self-serving justification by bureaucrats who want you to do hours of busy work before giving people a questionnaire: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/ Look, marketing researchers are not going to just accidentally vivisect concentration camp inmates to death just because you leave them unregulated. It's not like people just accidentally go around committing crimes against humanity because there aren't any regulations stopping them from doing so. In fact, at Nuremberg, it turned out that most of them committed crimes against humanity specifically because there were regulations requiring them to do so! This isn't to completely pooh-pooh the necessity of research ethics and regulation. But those regulations need to be based on realistic risk models.
      • lalos 8y ago
        It is not my fault that the rules that govern research and interaction between researchers and tests subjects occurred because of WW2 and that Godwin's law exists. I mentioned that as a historic fact. So nobody can talk about how this started because it is literally Godwin's law? Great idea.
• Apocryphon 8y ago
  There's definitely been creepy experiments done on Facebook and OkCupid when they play with peoples' emotions and social responses- especially on platforms they themselves control, but this specific example just seems like market research at its purest: seeing how people respond to a typical product. Agreed that such experiments should be published, or at least made to follow ethical guidelines.
  • rhizome 8y ago
    25 years ago I'd regularly (every month or two) get focus group invitations that paid $100+/hr. Along with informing the subjects, compensating participants is a rock-bottom ethical standard that Google apparently cannot meet.
    • joshuamorton 8y ago
      Do you consider all A/B tests to be studies one should be compensated for? Not to mention that they are compensating you by sponsoring the content you're viewing, but that should go without saying. (Focus groups and A/B tests are different, and afaik, Google does compensate for focus groups)
      • rhizome 8y ago
        Of course not, but where do you draw the line?
        • joshuamorton 8y ago
          That's a good question. So let's clarify: Would this be unethical if it was a real pizza company doing an A/B test for their real brand? Would this be unethical if it was a real pizza company doing the A/B test for a fake brand? Is it unethical for Google to have done this? You've just said no to the first question, and previously yes to the last. so I'm curious where you lie on the second, and how you justify those different answers. I don't see a difference between any of them. (in other words: the line is "when its no longer an A/B test and they're actively soliciting your feedback", but you draw it differently. Why?)
• norswap 8y ago
  Now? Anyone's willing to spend ad $ has been able to do this for ages. It's basic A/B testing. It's impossible to prevent.