6 ms·

Not saying it makes it okay, but every company in existence does this to some extent. Everyone does A/B testing with the intent to alter user behavior (aka psyc

by gfd 4y ago

Not saying it makes it okay, but every company in existence does this to some extent. Everyone does A/B testing with the intent to alter user behavior (aka psychology) to increase their profits.

Lutger 4y ago
I doubt that the mentioned 'psychological experiments' are just A/B testing. There is a very strong case to be made that Trump and Brexit would not have happened without Facebook, and those are just two examples.
zeruch 4y ago
A/B testing (which is getting users to respond/react to a UX event, and choosing which outcome is more suited to the business) is considerably different from "can we manipulate users up front, to perceive or react to things assertively and programmatically, even if against their interests?"
bigbacaloa 4y ago
Not every company consciously does unethical things, no.
londons_explore 4y ago
And without A/B testing, every product you use would be worse. Not only would it be less profitable, but it would also be harder to use, less useful, and less productive. A/B testing isn't a new thing - I'm sure the inventor of the wheel experimented with different shapes, and the buyer of the hexagonal wheel probably didn't have the best user experience. Multiply that by the number of people in the world and the number of products people use, and A/B testing is really up there as possibly one of the most beneficial ideas ever. I really don't understand those who claim it should be banned - I see no way that testing two different versions of a website with people who desire to use that website can bring sufficient harm to outweigh those massive benefits.
- fragmede 4y ago
  The specific test that did it for me, is that Facebook ran this experiment where they logged users out and then wouldn't let them log them back in despite the correct password, just to toy with them to see how long/hard they would keep trying to login, in order to see how addicted they were to Facebook. I was in the "B" group, and felt so humiliated at how many times I tried to reset my password to get into Facebook.
  - andromeduck 4y ago
    I had this happen to me I think, and another case where half my links/screenshots would randomly get censored. Not just like random blogs/tweets/forums but even to super mainstream stuff like wikipedia/cnn/bbc.
  - rjbwork 4y ago
    Wow. That is insanely user hostile and borderline gaslighting/psychological torture. That is truly one of the most insane experiments I've ever hard of someone running.
    - anthonypasq 4y ago
      i agree, Zuck should be put on trial for violating the Geneva convention because some people couldnt log into facebook.
  - anonomousename 4y ago
    Is there any evidence of this? Especially for people that use a password manager, this seems incredibly stupid on Facebooks side.
  - strulovich 4y ago
    Never heard of this one. Any articles about it?
    - warkdarrior 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lanstin 4y ago
It isn’t just the one thing, it is a pattern where when given a choice between respected a sense of ethics and decency or taking more money, Facebook as an org has at every instance that is publically known, has taken the money. The high salaries seem to be justified not by their technical skill but their willingness to do what they are told for momey without regard to conscience. Read the whistle blower report, witness the evolution from seeing content from your friends posted in less addictive chronological feed to addictive content your friends like in the internet sorted by addictive news. Hell, the site started as a PHP hack to creep on pretty women. They sold a bunch of data to foreign adversaries. For years, they let people sell ads to Nazis. They don’t give the people faced with the psychologically brutal jobs of moderation get benefits. They have been a platform for genocide and government surveillance. I might be missing some examples of them missing some money to do the right thing, but nothing comes to mind.
cj 4y ago
A/B testing compared to creating algorithms that prey on human vulnerabilities to drive “engagement” are 2 categorically different things. Absolutely, go bananas A/B testing different colors for a “Sign Up” button or testing different pricing models. But let’s not go bananas optimizing algorithms that are damaging to users mental health at a massive scale.
three_seagrass 4y ago
IIRC it wasn't a generic A/B test but an experiment intentionally designed to manipulate the emotion of users and measure their reactions. In research, these types of experiments typically require consent..
mrinterweb 4y ago
Let's not confuse or conflate A/B testing with making ethical decisions.
kat_rebelo 4y ago
A/B testing is a completely different thing from hiring Behavioral Psychologists to design your platform to be as addictive as possible https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30962055-irresistible https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30962055-irresistible
- pas 4y ago
  this is a categorical error obviously "A/B testing" is not "hiring psychologists", because one is in the category of experimental methods the other one is about human resources yet there are obvious connections. A/B testing is used to increase "conversion", which is profitability. which is the same fuckin' thing as addictiveness in case of a site where you pay with your eyeballs
worik 4y ago
> but every company in existence does this to some extent That is untrue. A/B testing is not the same thing as seeing how bad your users' mental state becomes if you muck with what they read. A/B testing is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. That was Facebook's choice how to use it.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. You decide what they read. You would want to know if it's harming their mental state. Closing your eyes to the impact you have does not negate the impact
  - danaris 4y ago
    The problem is, Facebook didn't do it to make sure they wouldn't cause psychological damage. They did it to make sure they could keep people's attention, despite the psychological damage.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Is that the stated goal or your projection?
throw827474737 4y ago
Nope, not every, really such an ignorant statement.
kube-system 4y ago
Maybe every company financed by adtech does this. But that's a far cry from "every company in existence".
webmobdev 4y ago
You have a good point. But let's not forget that the Nazi's and the Japanese used to do incredibly invasive medical tests on human beings in the name of "science". (Even the Americans have done political and medical experiments on their citizens, using the CIA, on African Americans and criminals). All these are condemned today by the scientific community because of it caused great harm (or even death) to the subjects who never gave their consent to such experiments. The psychological experiments conducted by FB on its users was equally bad because it looked to trigger emotions in the users (a useful feature for an advertising platform), some of which could cause users to go into depression. I don't know if the FB people conducting those experiments are aware that even mild depression causes great stress on an individual, and serious depression triggers suicidal impulses. (This is not an attack on you or your otherwise valid point. Just a reminder that people should be mindful of their ethical obligations to get informed consent and not cause harm to others with their experiments).

by gfd 4y ago

Not saying it makes it okay, but every company in existence does this to some extent. Everyone does A/B testing with the intent to alter user behavior (aka psychology) to increase their profits.

Lutger 4y ago

I doubt that the mentioned 'psychological experiments' are just A/B testing. There is a very strong case to be made that Trump and Brexit would not have happened without Facebook, and those are just two examples.

zeruch 4y ago

A/B testing (which is getting users to respond/react to a UX event, and choosing which outcome is more suited to the business) is considerably different from "can we manipulate users up front, to perceive or react to things assertively and programmatically, even if against their interests?"

bigbacaloa 4y ago

Not every company consciously does unethical things, no.

londons_explore 4y ago

And without A/B testing, every product you use would be worse. Not only would it be less profitable, but it would also be harder to use, less useful, and less productive. A/B testing isn't a new thing - I'm sure the inventor of the wheel experimented with different shapes, and the buyer of the hexagonal wheel probably didn't have the best user experience. Multiply that by the number of people in the world and the number of products people use, and A/B testing is really up there as possibly one of the most beneficial ideas ever. I really don't understand those who claim it should be banned - I see no way that testing two different versions of a website with people who desire to use that website can bring sufficient harm to outweigh those massive benefits.

fragmede 4y ago
The specific test that did it for me, is that Facebook ran this experiment where they logged users out and then wouldn't let them log them back in despite the correct password, just to toy with them to see how long/hard they would keep trying to login, in order to see how addicted they were to Facebook. I was in the "B" group, and felt so humiliated at how many times I tried to reset my password to get into Facebook.
- andromeduck 4y ago
  I had this happen to me I think, and another case where half my links/screenshots would randomly get censored. Not just like random blogs/tweets/forums but even to super mainstream stuff like wikipedia/cnn/bbc.
- rjbwork 4y ago
  Wow. That is insanely user hostile and borderline gaslighting/psychological torture. That is truly one of the most insane experiments I've ever hard of someone running.
  - anthonypasq 4y ago
    i agree, Zuck should be put on trial for violating the Geneva convention because some people couldnt log into facebook.
- anonomousename 4y ago
  Is there any evidence of this? Especially for people that use a password manager, this seems incredibly stupid on Facebooks side.
- strulovich 4y ago
  Never heard of this one. Any articles about it?
  - warkdarrior 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lanstin 4y ago

It isn’t just the one thing, it is a pattern where when given a choice between respected a sense of ethics and decency or taking more money, Facebook as an org has at every instance that is publically known, has taken the money. The high salaries seem to be justified not by their technical skill but their willingness to do what they are told for momey without regard to conscience. Read the whistle blower report, witness the evolution from seeing content from your friends posted in less addictive chronological feed to addictive content your friends like in the internet sorted by addictive news. Hell, the site started as a PHP hack to creep on pretty women. They sold a bunch of data to foreign adversaries. For years, they let people sell ads to Nazis. They don’t give the people faced with the psychologically brutal jobs of moderation get benefits. They have been a platform for genocide and government surveillance. I might be missing some examples of them missing some money to do the right thing, but nothing comes to mind.

cj 4y ago

A/B testing compared to creating algorithms that prey on human vulnerabilities to drive “engagement” are 2 categorically different things. Absolutely, go bananas A/B testing different colors for a “Sign Up” button or testing different pricing models. But let’s not go bananas optimizing algorithms that are damaging to users mental health at a massive scale.

three_seagrass 4y ago

IIRC it wasn't a generic A/B test but an experiment intentionally designed to manipulate the emotion of users and measure their reactions. In research, these types of experiments typically require consent..

mrinterweb 4y ago

Let's not confuse or conflate A/B testing with making ethical decisions.

kat_rebelo 4y ago

A/B testing is a completely different thing from hiring Behavioral Psychologists to design your platform to be as addictive as possible https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30962055-irresistible https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30962055-irresistible

pas 4y ago
this is a categorical error obviously "A/B testing" is not "hiring psychologists", because one is in the category of experimental methods the other one is about human resources yet there are obvious connections. A/B testing is used to increase "conversion", which is profitability. which is the same fuckin' thing as addictiveness in case of a site where you pay with your eyeballs

worik 4y ago

> but every company in existence does this to some extent That is untrue. A/B testing is not the same thing as seeing how bad your users' mental state becomes if you muck with what they read. A/B testing is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. That was Facebook's choice how to use it.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
That doesn't make any sense. You decide what they read. You would want to know if it's harming their mental state. Closing your eyes to the impact you have does not negate the impact
- danaris 4y ago
  The problem is, Facebook didn't do it to make sure they wouldn't cause psychological damage. They did it to make sure they could keep people's attention, despite the psychological damage.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Is that the stated goal or your projection?

throw827474737 4y ago

Nope, not every, really such an ignorant statement.

kube-system 4y ago

Maybe every company financed by adtech does this. But that's a far cry from "every company in existence".

webmobdev 4y ago

You have a good point. But let's not forget that the Nazi's and the Japanese used to do incredibly invasive medical tests on human beings in the name of "science". (Even the Americans have done political and medical experiments on their citizens, using the CIA, on African Americans and criminals). All these are condemned today by the scientific community because of it caused great harm (or even death) to the subjects who never gave their consent to such experiments. The psychological experiments conducted by FB on its users was equally bad because it looked to trigger emotions in the users (a useful feature for an advertising platform), some of which could cause users to go into depression. I don't know if the FB people conducting those experiments are aware that even mild depression causes great stress on an individual, and serious depression triggers suicidal impulses. (This is not an attack on you or your otherwise valid point. Just a reminder that people should be mindful of their ethical obligations to get informed consent and not cause harm to others with their experiments).