4 ms·
In strict terms yes, if you didn't get informed consent from your test subjects that would be unethical. Research has a lot of policies and systems set up to e
by csydas 3y ago
In strict terms yes, if you didn't get informed consent from your test subjects that would be unethical.
Research has a lot of policies and systems set up to ensure that if your testing involves people, you must get informed consent from the persons before even trying to do the test, and it's really not hard to imagine why this is a stringent standard -- it's very easy to miss how "simple tests" can and often are adverse to those participating in the test or have unintended consequences that the researchers didn't accommodate for, regardless of the reason they did not.
Ads are often portrayed as harmless but, like, there's a reason there are restrictions on advertising for certain highly addictive products and regulations against false or misleading advertising, or certain tactics aren't allowed.
- jfim 3y agoI think that's the crux of the matter here. A/B testing can be anything from which page layout leads people to complete their shopping check out process to which ad campaign has the best ad click through rate. The former is pretty inoffensive, but the latter could be bad if it involves gambling/alcoholic beverage ads to people with gambling addiction or alcoholism, for example.
- 13of40 3y ago> unethical If this is based on the possibility that one or more of the ads is harmful, how is it less ethical than the time-honored alternative, which is skipping the study and just running the ads?
- matheusmoreira 3y agoIt's not. Ads are inherently unethical and it should be illegal to run them anywhere.