4 ms·

But "emotional manipulation" may already be happening by using the website. If the user gave consent to that, I don't see what difference the act of gathering s

But "emotional manipulation" may already be happening by using the website. If the user gave consent to that, I don't see what difference the act of gathering scientific data makes. Your argument seems to be against the current bar of consent that facebook and similar sites are required to get.

xg15 6y ago
The user never consented to "emotional manipulation". If anything, the user consented to usage of an algorithmic newsfeed that ranks posts based on unknown criteria, but always with "relevance" as the overall goal. There is nothing about emotional manipulation in this. Emotional manipulation is also clearly not in the user's self interest, so there is no reason why they ever should give consent. (As opposed to an AI newsfeed, which could be a useful feature if it worked in the user's interest)
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  Emotional manipulation was scare quoted for a reason. Consent to "rank posts based on unknown criteria to maximize relevance" will incidentally, at least on some occasions, cause "emotional manipulation" in the consumers of the feed. So again, consent is already provided for the possibility of emotional manipulation. What's the difference between accidental and scientifically valid emotional manipulation such that extra consent is needed?
  - xg15 6y ago
    > Consent to "rank posts based on unknown criteria to maximize relevance" will incidentally, at least on some occasions, cause "emotional manipulation" in the consumers of the feed. Why is that automatically the case and how would the user know that? > So again, consent is already provided for the possibility of emotional manipulation. Giving consent for one specific form of emotional manipulation does not give blanket consent to all forms - especially not to deliberate acts. Using the same logic, a surgeon could argue: This patient asks me to fix his broken leg. To do this, I have to operate on him and create an incision. An incision is an instance of causing bodily harm. Therefore, the patient has given consent for me to cause him bodily harm. Therefore, I now have consent to punch the patient's face and steal his kidneys. See the problem? > What's the difference between accidental and scientifically valid emotional manipulation such that extra consent is needed? One is accidental, the other is deliberate. Also, that's not just my opinion. Just read the other guardian article linked from this one and the statements linked there: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-... http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanton_boys http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanto... http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/ http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/
    - hackinthebochs 6y ago
      >Why is that automatically the case and how would the user know that? Of course it is automatically the case. If a post can have emotional valence, but emotional valence isn't controlled for, then occasionally some sequence of posts will be more negative than average just by chance. This is accidental emotional manipulation. >Giving consent for one specific form of emotional manipulation does not give blanket consent to all forms - especially not to deliberate acts. But it's not all forms, its a specific type of maniupation: posts in your feed with more or less than average positive or negative emotional valence. This is just a consequence of having a feed at all. >One is accidental, the other is deliberate. You have a knack for restating the facts of the case and then (figuratively) going QED. It's a little frustrating. Again, why does intentional manipulation require more consent than accidental manipulation when the process by which it happens (alterations to the feed) already has blanket consent? >Also, that's not just my opinion. Just read the other guardian article linked from this one and the statements linked there: I'm not interested in more opinions, I'm interested in arguments. EDIT: One of your own links references a post that details the circumstances in which the "informed consent" requirement can be waived: "According to Prof. Fiske’s now-uncertain report of her conversation with the authors, by contrast, the local IRB approved the study “on the grounds that Facebook apparently manipulates people’s News Feeds all the time.” This fact actually is relevant to a proper application of the Common Rule to the study. Here’s how. Section 46.116(d) of the regulations provides: An IRB may approve a consent procedure which does not include, or which alters, some or all of the elements of informed consent set forth in this section, or waive the requirements to obtain informed consent provided the IRB finds and documents that: The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects; The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration; and Whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation. The Common Rule defines “minimal risk” to mean “that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life . . . .” The IRB might plausibly have decided that since the subjects’ environments, like those of all Facebook users, are constantly being manipulated by Facebook, the study’s risks were no greater than what the subjects experience in daily life as regular Facebook users, and so the study posed no more than “minimal risk” to them." More discussion on: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/how-an-irb-could-have-legitimately-approved-the-facebook-experimentand-why-that-may-be-a-good-thing.html https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/how-an-irb-could-ha...

xg15 6y ago

The user never consented to "emotional manipulation". If anything, the user consented to usage of an algorithmic newsfeed that ranks posts based on unknown criteria, but always with "relevance" as the overall goal. There is nothing about emotional manipulation in this. Emotional manipulation is also clearly not in the user's self interest, so there is no reason why they ever should give consent. (As opposed to an AI newsfeed, which could be a useful feature if it worked in the user's interest)

hackinthebochs 6y ago
Emotional manipulation was scare quoted for a reason. Consent to "rank posts based on unknown criteria to maximize relevance" will incidentally, at least on some occasions, cause "emotional manipulation" in the consumers of the feed. So again, consent is already provided for the possibility of emotional manipulation. What's the difference between accidental and scientifically valid emotional manipulation such that extra consent is needed?
- xg15 6y ago
  > Consent to "rank posts based on unknown criteria to maximize relevance" will incidentally, at least on some occasions, cause "emotional manipulation" in the consumers of the feed. Why is that automatically the case and how would the user know that? > So again, consent is already provided for the possibility of emotional manipulation. Giving consent for one specific form of emotional manipulation does not give blanket consent to all forms - especially not to deliberate acts. Using the same logic, a surgeon could argue: This patient asks me to fix his broken leg. To do this, I have to operate on him and create an incision. An incision is an instance of causing bodily harm. Therefore, the patient has given consent for me to cause him bodily harm. Therefore, I now have consent to punch the patient's face and steal his kidneys. See the problem? > What's the difference between accidental and scientifically valid emotional manipulation such that extra consent is needed? One is accidental, the other is deliberate. Also, that's not just my opinion. Just read the other guardian article linked from this one and the statements linked there: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-... http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanton_boys http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanto... http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/ http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    >Why is that automatically the case and how would the user know that? Of course it is automatically the case. If a post can have emotional valence, but emotional valence isn't controlled for, then occasionally some sequence of posts will be more negative than average just by chance. This is accidental emotional manipulation. >Giving consent for one specific form of emotional manipulation does not give blanket consent to all forms - especially not to deliberate acts. But it's not all forms, its a specific type of maniupation: posts in your feed with more or less than average positive or negative emotional valence. This is just a consequence of having a feed at all. >One is accidental, the other is deliberate. You have a knack for restating the facts of the case and then (figuratively) going QED. It's a little frustrating. Again, why does intentional manipulation require more consent than accidental manipulation when the process by which it happens (alterations to the feed) already has blanket consent? >Also, that's not just my opinion. Just read the other guardian article linked from this one and the statements linked there: I'm not interested in more opinions, I'm interested in arguments. EDIT: One of your own links references a post that details the circumstances in which the "informed consent" requirement can be waived: "According to Prof. Fiske’s now-uncertain report of her conversation with the authors, by contrast, the local IRB approved the study “on the grounds that Facebook apparently manipulates people’s News Feeds all the time.” This fact actually is relevant to a proper application of the Common Rule to the study. Here’s how. Section 46.116(d) of the regulations provides: An IRB may approve a consent procedure which does not include, or which alters, some or all of the elements of informed consent set forth in this section, or waive the requirements to obtain informed consent provided the IRB finds and documents that: The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects; The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration; and Whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation. The Common Rule defines “minimal risk” to mean “that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life . . . .” The IRB might plausibly have decided that since the subjects’ environments, like those of all Facebook users, are constantly being manipulated by Facebook, the study’s risks were no greater than what the subjects experience in daily life as regular Facebook users, and so the study posed no more than “minimal risk” to them." More discussion on: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/how-an-irb-could-have-legitimately-approved-the-facebook-experimentand-why-that-may-be-a-good-thing.html https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/how-an-irb-could-ha...