3 ms·

I'm concerned that this whole narrative implies that research is the problem. It feels like a continuation of when people were shocked, shocked when it was reve

I'm concerned that this whole narrative implies that research is the problem. It feels like a continuation of when people were shocked, shocked when it was revealed that Facebook was conducting experiments on people. Well, the issue wasn't the A/B testing exactly, but rather the publishing of the experiments in scientific journals. As you know, public outrage put a stop to that. (The scientific publishing, not the A/B tests) Now, there is outrage over "secret" internal research on the effect of Facebook on mental health. Well, i guess that means Zuck will just gut the entire research domain investigating user wellbeing. Too bad.

modriano 5y ago
What would stop the good Facebook employees from just memorializing evidence of the harm Facebook does to girls/society/the elderly/the conspiracy minded/the Rohingya/etc by emailing supervisors about it and then leaking the response or lack of response? Is Facebook just going to fire the good people that still work there?
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  Errr... Yes?
burkaman 5y ago
No, publishing research was not the issue, the issue was experimenting on people without their consent.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  That was part of the journalistic fallacy. A/B testing is experimenting with people without their consent. (And everyone agreed to the terms of service)
  - burkaman 5y ago
    That's true. However, most A/B testing doesn't result in an academic paper, and there are strict ethical rules about academic work based on human subjects. Second, obviously not all A/B tests are the same. If you're testing two different fonts and comparing bounce rates, there are far fewer ethical concerns than if you're intentionally spreading an "emotional contagion" (that's the term Facebook used). And note that if you wanted to publish an academic study based on the font experiment, you would still need informed consent, not just "these people agreed to let us do whatever we want when they signed up 10 years ago, so it's fine".
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      There is nuance to this. The point of IRB is ethics. 1. If the experiment is minimal risk and expected to benefit participants (as the notorious fb experiment was—it was emotional contagion of positive emotions), then informed consent may be waived. 2. When there is a greater risk from the act of gathering informed consent (e.g., because you need to store identity for that purpose), then informed consent may be waived, if minimal risk.
      - burkaman 5y ago
        > as the notorious fb experiment was—it was emotional contagion of positive emotions No, they tried both positive and negative. > When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. > If affective states are contagious via verbal expressions on Facebook (our operationalization of emotional contagion), people in the positivity-reduced condition should be less positive compared with their control, and people in the negativity-reduced condition should be less negative. - https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full The experiment was expected to make half of the subjects less positive. Edit: This discussion of whether consent could be waived is sort of irrelevant when Facebook didn't even have an IRB at the time, and Cornell's IRB inexplicably declined to review the study even though two of the authors were part of Cornell.
        5y ago
shadilay 5y ago
If facebook doesn't do this research a third party will and it will be much worse for them because they won't have prepared.
Frost1x 5y ago
The outrage, I hope, is that Facebook conducted research that made it aware of something negative it was doing that made it money but kept the information tight and continued acting in a harmful way because... it makes them money. Ignorance is one thing and can be forgiven to some degree or treated as negligence. Wanton money chasing at all costs with no regard to damages you knowingly cause because, again, money, isn't forgivable. A side effect of this is that it can create disincentives for publishing such research but let's be honest, FB as an organization would never knowingly allow such information like this to ever be published, even if the general public ignores most of everything. That's just stupid from a business perspective. It would be like cigarette makers creating their own surgeon general warning without a mandate to do so. They have every reason not to. Research will continue because businesses understand the value of science and research even if they don't respect it. That research will only ever be used to their advantage though.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  > Research will continue because businesses understand the value of science and research even if they don't respect it. That research will only ever be used to their advantage though. Except it can't if it requires both internal data access and approval from FB management.

modriano 5y ago

What would stop the good Facebook employees from just memorializing evidence of the harm Facebook does to girls/society/the elderly/the conspiracy minded/the Rohingya/etc by emailing supervisors about it and then leaking the response or lack of response? Is Facebook just going to fire the good people that still work there?

black_puppydog 5y ago
Errr... Yes?

burkaman 5y ago

No, publishing research was not the issue, the issue was experimenting on people without their consent.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
That was part of the journalistic fallacy. A/B testing is experimenting with people without their consent. (And everyone agreed to the terms of service)
- burkaman 5y ago
  That's true. However, most A/B testing doesn't result in an academic paper, and there are strict ethical rules about academic work based on human subjects. Second, obviously not all A/B tests are the same. If you're testing two different fonts and comparing bounce rates, there are far fewer ethical concerns than if you're intentionally spreading an "emotional contagion" (that's the term Facebook used). And note that if you wanted to publish an academic study based on the font experiment, you would still need informed consent, not just "these people agreed to let us do whatever we want when they signed up 10 years ago, so it's fine".
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    There is nuance to this. The point of IRB is ethics. 1. If the experiment is minimal risk and expected to benefit participants (as the notorious fb experiment was—it was emotional contagion of positive emotions), then informed consent may be waived. 2. When there is a greater risk from the act of gathering informed consent (e.g., because you need to store identity for that purpose), then informed consent may be waived, if minimal risk.
    - burkaman 5y ago
      > as the notorious fb experiment was—it was emotional contagion of positive emotions No, they tried both positive and negative. > When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. > If affective states are contagious via verbal expressions on Facebook (our operationalization of emotional contagion), people in the positivity-reduced condition should be less positive compared with their control, and people in the negativity-reduced condition should be less negative. - https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full https://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full The experiment was expected to make half of the subjects less positive. Edit: This discussion of whether consent could be waived is sort of irrelevant when Facebook didn't even have an IRB at the time, and Cornell's IRB inexplicably declined to review the study even though two of the authors were part of Cornell.
      - 5y ago

shadilay 5y ago

If facebook doesn't do this research a third party will and it will be much worse for them because they won't have prepared.

Frost1x 5y ago

The outrage, I hope, is that Facebook conducted research that made it aware of something negative it was doing that made it money but kept the information tight and continued acting in a harmful way because... it makes them money. Ignorance is one thing and can be forgiven to some degree or treated as negligence. Wanton money chasing at all costs with no regard to damages you knowingly cause because, again, money, isn't forgivable. A side effect of this is that it can create disincentives for publishing such research but let's be honest, FB as an organization would never knowingly allow such information like this to ever be published, even if the general public ignores most of everything. That's just stupid from a business perspective. It would be like cigarette makers creating their own surgeon general warning without a mandate to do so. They have every reason not to. Research will continue because businesses understand the value of science and research even if they don't respect it. That research will only ever be used to their advantage though.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
> Research will continue because businesses understand the value of science and research even if they don't respect it. That research will only ever be used to their advantage though. Except it can't if it requires both internal data access and approval from FB management.