4 ms·

Their apology really doesn't address one of their most egregious wrongdoings. I see them boasting that the IRB determined "our study does not constitute human

Their apology really doesn't address one of their most egregious wrongdoings. I see them boasting that the IRB determined "our study does not constitute human subjects research." I don't see them acknowledging that they slipped under the IRB's radar by consistently referring to human subjects as "websites."

eli 5y ago
I think the IRB should investigate how they reached that conclusion and probably issue their own apology. Hard to say without seeing the actual application and not being familiar with Princeton IRB rules.
- kodah 5y ago
  What is it about an apology that makes you seek them? I prefer action, charitable interpretation, and progress. I found this update rather encouraging: > Third, I will use the lessons learned from this experience to write and post a formal research ethics case study, explaining in detail what we did, why we did it, what we learned, and how researchers should approach similar studies in the future. I will teach that case study in coursework, and I will encourage academic colleagues to do the same. While I cannot turn back the clock on this study, I can help ensure that the next generation of technology policy researchers learns from it. Instead of wasting time by making another person or entity go through the humiliation gauntlet, let them improve their surroundings.
  - eli 5y ago
    Yes, a good apology always explains what is being done to prevent the wrong from happening again. I think we're saying the same thing.
    - kodah 5y ago
      Potentially. What I explicitly dislike is the mea culpa portion (and subsequent apology grading, where people try to derive some intent) Rather, I like "responses" with a plan. Is that the same as an apology to you, even without explicitly saying "I'm sorry"?
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Well an apology is usually the first step in admitting wrong-doing and changing a formal process like IRB reviews.
volta83 5y ago
This might be an error on both sides. They want to study how websites handle GDPR and CCPA, and that's probably what they submitted. The IRB reasoned that "websites are not people", which is true, but failed to reason that "websites are operated by people", and therefore certain measures should be taken. The IRB bears some responsibility for this.
vhold 5y ago
I don't think they even realize that is what happened. You can see the flawed thinking throughout the entire description of the experiment. They anthropomorphized websites, imagining them to have the abilities that the humans behind them have. That's probably the big thing that people should learn from this, I think this is a pretty common misconception.
- double_nan 5y ago
  That is a very generous way of thinking about (no doubt) very smart people.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
    Some ethical questions are very subtle, it doesn't strike me as malicious. I feel like their logic is valid for larger websites where you have teams of people handling these questions, and even possibly for smaller website that are incorporated. There is a lot of precedent in using the mystery shopper technique to assess companies that aren't considered Human Subjects Research even if the interface to that company is a single human being.
    - double_nan 5y ago
      I would argue that even for larger websites this would not be a valid logic either. Such websites might have a team responsible for such issues, but this is not the service these websites provide nor the primary way of operation for these websites but rather a way to mitigates risks. Such risks burden the websites and are raising costs for the websites to operate. It's an abuse of service somewhat similar to shoplifting. Your analogy with mystery shopper doesn't hold the water as well since the researchers in such cases are just executing the primary function of the businesses in question. So while for the bigger sites you might be correct that the research is not a human subject research but it's still an abuse of service which in unethical without consent as well.

eli 5y ago

I think the IRB should investigate how they reached that conclusion and probably issue their own apology. Hard to say without seeing the actual application and not being familiar with Princeton IRB rules.

kodah 5y ago
What is it about an apology that makes you seek them? I prefer action, charitable interpretation, and progress. I found this update rather encouraging: > Third, I will use the lessons learned from this experience to write and post a formal research ethics case study, explaining in detail what we did, why we did it, what we learned, and how researchers should approach similar studies in the future. I will teach that case study in coursework, and I will encourage academic colleagues to do the same. While I cannot turn back the clock on this study, I can help ensure that the next generation of technology policy researchers learns from it. Instead of wasting time by making another person or entity go through the humiliation gauntlet, let them improve their surroundings.
- eli 5y ago
  Yes, a good apology always explains what is being done to prevent the wrong from happening again. I think we're saying the same thing.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Potentially. What I explicitly dislike is the mea culpa portion (and subsequent apology grading, where people try to derive some intent) Rather, I like "responses" with a plan. Is that the same as an apology to you, even without explicitly saying "I'm sorry"?
- kortilla 5y ago
  Well an apology is usually the first step in admitting wrong-doing and changing a formal process like IRB reviews.

volta83 5y ago

This might be an error on both sides. They want to study how websites handle GDPR and CCPA, and that's probably what they submitted. The IRB reasoned that "websites are not people", which is true, but failed to reason that "websites are operated by people", and therefore certain measures should be taken. The IRB bears some responsibility for this.

vhold 5y ago

I don't think they even realize that is what happened. You can see the flawed thinking throughout the entire description of the experiment. They anthropomorphized websites, imagining them to have the abilities that the humans behind them have. That's probably the big thing that people should learn from this, I think this is a pretty common misconception.

double_nan 5y ago
That is a very generous way of thinking about (no doubt) very smart people.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  Some ethical questions are very subtle, it doesn't strike me as malicious. I feel like their logic is valid for larger websites where you have teams of people handling these questions, and even possibly for smaller website that are incorporated. There is a lot of precedent in using the mystery shopper technique to assess companies that aren't considered Human Subjects Research even if the interface to that company is a single human being.
  - double_nan 5y ago
    I would argue that even for larger websites this would not be a valid logic either. Such websites might have a team responsible for such issues, but this is not the service these websites provide nor the primary way of operation for these websites but rather a way to mitigates risks. Such risks burden the websites and are raising costs for the websites to operate. It's an abuse of service somewhat similar to shoplifting. Your analogy with mystery shopper doesn't hold the water as well since the researchers in such cases are just executing the primary function of the businesses in question. So while for the bigger sites you might be correct that the research is not a human subject research but it's still an abuse of service which in unethical without consent as well.