2 ms·
>Framing A/B testing as "social experiments" for shock value is disingenuous, Is it? I've only done minor human experimentation, but had to go through the IRB
by SkyBelow 4y ago
>Framing A/B testing as "social experiments" for shock value is disingenuous,
Is it? I've only done minor human experimentation, but had to go through the IRB process. What I did was on par with simple AB testing. The only difference here is that the AB testing is not being done to be published and not under the purview of the IRB. If it were, they would require the same sort of approve for human experimentation. Sure, the paperwork is nothing like a drug test, and I think the IRB is extra heavy weighted on the side of seeking too much approval, but there is a history of human experimentation to explain why that is the case. That new unmonitored experiments are happening under tech employees running loose instead of scientists running loose doesn't really indicate any significant difference and we should be watchful that similar abuses of power as had previously happened don't reoccur. I think we've seen enough with facebook and their influence on children to know it is a real concern and we might already be far enough along the path to be worth raising the alarm.
- BurningFrog 4y agoIRBs are a substantial break on scientific progress today, and need massive reform. Instituted to prevent repeats of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, they now claim (slow) pre-approval rights to survey questions. To me, it shows that gate-keepers are going to gate-keep. Institutions always strive to expand their powers.