3 ms·

The effect size is barely a blip on the radar... This study is barely worth the paper it's printed on. Everyone in my lab was left scratching their heads that

• kick 7y ago
  They created consent where there wasn't any, and attempted to sway the emotions of hundreds of thousands of people at once for the negative. It's not important for the effect, it's important and period-defining because A: it was the first publicly-admitted instance of Facebook actually using what they had to do harm (admitted to in a way that implied they didn't realize they had done harm), and B: because it laid out how the rest of the decade would look in regard to the behavior of tech companies. What you think about the study itself isn't the interesting part; statistics/psychology aren't actually science. It's the actions and motive found within of the researchers and company that are of interest.
  • omginternets 7y ago
    >They created consent where there wasn't any Well... maybe. The effect size is so weak, it barely did anything. To give you an idea: people's hunger-levels probably influenced them about 10x more than whatever Facebook was doing. I'm sorry, you're giving this study credit where none is due. Your conclusions are not supported by the evidence.