5 ms·

I'm puzzled about the outrage. FB _already_ filters out updates based on some blackbox algorithm. So they tweaked the parameters of that algorithm to filter ou

by ajays 12y ago

I'm puzzled about the outrage. FB _already_ filters out updates based on some blackbox algorithm. So they tweaked the parameters of that algorithm to filter out the "happier" updates, and observed what happens. How is this unethical? The updates were posted by the users' friends! FB didn't manufacture the news items; they were always there. I detest FB as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous.

masnick 12y ago
Human subjects research has ethical obligations that at times go beyond what seems like common sense, but are still really important because of past ethical abuses. See http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/ http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/ and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7959941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7959941 In this case, I don't think there was actual risk but just reading the PNAS paper it doesn't sound like the study went through the proper process. If it was reviewed by an IRB then it did go through the proper process and it's ethically sound, but a PR nightmare.
- azakai 12y ago
  Facebook altering it's block-box proprietary algorithm for what to show is something it does every day. That can't be unethical by itself. It's possible that for it to be published, a higher standard would be needed. That is, the actions they took were ethical, but perhaps inappropriate for scientific publication. But, if that were the case, the peer reviewers and the journal in which it was published should have flagged that. That it was published shows they didn't have any significant concerns.
  - masnick 12y ago
    > It's possible that for it to be published, a higher standard would be needed. That is, the actions they took were ethical, but perhaps inappropriate for scientific publication. > But, if that were the case, the peer reviewers and the journal in which it was published should have flagged that. That it was published shows they didn't have any significant concerns. This would not be a scientific ethics issue if they explained their IRB review in the manuscript. It is so unusual to not do this that it is a reasonable assumption something funny is going on, in my experience. For example, the journal could be incentivized to look the other way in order to publish a high publicity article. I'm NOT saying that's what PNAS did, but just because something is published doesn't mean it's ethical. (See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20137807 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20137807)
    - azakai 12y ago
      Fair point, yes, it is not evidence of it being ethical or even of PNAS believing it was ethical. But it's reasonable to assume that a high-profile journal like PNAS is extremely aware of the relevant ethical considerations, and likely (but not certaintly) would not violate them.
      - masnick 12y ago
        Then why did they let the manuscript go to press without the "this study was reviewed by the University of Somewhere IRB (protocol #XXXX) and was ruled exempt" sentence? I see this enough in papers that it seems pretty standard to me, and it especially makes sense in a paper where the editors think there are potential ethical issues. If I was an author of this paper, I would have actually spent a sentence or two explaining why there was not a risk to human subjects, etc. The way they address this by basically saying it is ok because of the ToS that no one reads is the worst possible way to handle this. It seems to me more like no one thought about it at all than that the editors carefully considered it. I just don't see how you get from recognizing big ethical issues to not even addressing them in the manuscript.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    > Facebook altering it's block-box proprietary algorithm for what to show is something it does every day. That can't be unethical by itself. Why not?
    - azakai 12y ago
      Well, it could be, but (1) a commercial site optimizing itself seems quite reasonable, and (2) the public knew they were optimizing themselves, and did not complain in any significant way.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
        That "optimization" might be reasonable does not imply that any method is, "optimization" is not an actual activity, but a label for the purpose of a wide variety of things you can do. Murdering your competitors is also good for "optimizing" your bottom line, but still unethical, to put it mildly. Also, I strongly doubt that the public has any clue of what facebook is doing. For all the public knows and understands, facebook could be employing magic message fairies.
LoganCale 12y ago
They altered people's feeds for a psychological experiment with the specific intent of manipulating their mood. That is highly unethical.
- baddox 12y ago
  Would it be unethical if they were trying to make people happier?
  - GuiA 12y ago
    Yes. Would it be unethical if I broke into your house to randomly place pieces of candy and $5 bills in your drawers?
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      I'd happily PM you my address.
      - staunch 12y ago
        Consent is the difference between sex and rape.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Nope; the primary difference is that being raped doesn't make you happy. But please let's not go there; it's stretching analogies too far.
        walterbell 12y ago
        Who defines happy?
        oldmanjay 12y ago
        Whoever is feeling it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
michaelt 12y ago
I'm puzzled about the outrage. As I understand it, the American scholarly tradition uses a 'bright line' definition of human experimentation that stresses getting ethical review board approval for pretty much everything involving humans other than the experimenter. Doing anything that needs review board approval without getting review board approval is seen as highly unethical, even if approval would clearly be granted were it requested. For example, I once saw a British student e-mail out surveys about newspaper-buying habits; one was sent to an American academic, who replied to the student's supervisor saying the student should be thrown out of university for performing experiments on humans without ethical review board approval.

by ajays 12y ago

masnick 12y ago

Human subjects research has ethical obligations that at times go beyond what seems like common sense, but are still really important because of past ethical abuses. See http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/ http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/ and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7959941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7959941 In this case, I don't think there was actual risk but just reading the PNAS paper it doesn't sound like the study went through the proper process. If it was reviewed by an IRB then it did go through the proper process and it's ethically sound, but a PR nightmare.

azakai 12y ago
Facebook altering it's block-box proprietary algorithm for what to show is something it does every day. That can't be unethical by itself. It's possible that for it to be published, a higher standard would be needed. That is, the actions they took were ethical, but perhaps inappropriate for scientific publication. But, if that were the case, the peer reviewers and the journal in which it was published should have flagged that. That it was published shows they didn't have any significant concerns.
- masnick 12y ago
  > It's possible that for it to be published, a higher standard would be needed. That is, the actions they took were ethical, but perhaps inappropriate for scientific publication. > But, if that were the case, the peer reviewers and the journal in which it was published should have flagged that. That it was published shows they didn't have any significant concerns. This would not be a scientific ethics issue if they explained their IRB review in the manuscript. It is so unusual to not do this that it is a reasonable assumption something funny is going on, in my experience. For example, the journal could be incentivized to look the other way in order to publish a high publicity article. I'm NOT saying that's what PNAS did, but just because something is published doesn't mean it's ethical. (See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20137807 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20137807)
  - azakai 12y ago
    Fair point, yes, it is not evidence of it being ethical or even of PNAS believing it was ethical. But it's reasonable to assume that a high-profile journal like PNAS is extremely aware of the relevant ethical considerations, and likely (but not certaintly) would not violate them.
    - masnick 12y ago
      Then why did they let the manuscript go to press without the "this study was reviewed by the University of Somewhere IRB (protocol #XXXX) and was ruled exempt" sentence? I see this enough in papers that it seems pretty standard to me, and it especially makes sense in a paper where the editors think there are potential ethical issues. If I was an author of this paper, I would have actually spent a sentence or two explaining why there was not a risk to human subjects, etc. The way they address this by basically saying it is ok because of the ToS that no one reads is the worst possible way to handle this. It seems to me more like no one thought about it at all than that the editors carefully considered it. I just don't see how you get from recognizing big ethical issues to not even addressing them in the manuscript.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  > Facebook altering it's block-box proprietary algorithm for what to show is something it does every day. That can't be unethical by itself. Why not?
  - azakai 12y ago
    Well, it could be, but (1) a commercial site optimizing itself seems quite reasonable, and (2) the public knew they were optimizing themselves, and did not complain in any significant way.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
      That "optimization" might be reasonable does not imply that any method is, "optimization" is not an actual activity, but a label for the purpose of a wide variety of things you can do. Murdering your competitors is also good for "optimizing" your bottom line, but still unethical, to put it mildly. Also, I strongly doubt that the public has any clue of what facebook is doing. For all the public knows and understands, facebook could be employing magic message fairies.

LoganCale 12y ago

They altered people's feeds for a psychological experiment with the specific intent of manipulating their mood. That is highly unethical.

baddox 12y ago
Would it be unethical if they were trying to make people happier?
- GuiA 12y ago
  Yes. Would it be unethical if I broke into your house to randomly place pieces of candy and $5 bills in your drawers?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I'd happily PM you my address.
    - staunch 12y ago
      Consent is the difference between sex and rape.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Nope; the primary difference is that being raped doesn't make you happy. But please let's not go there; it's stretching analogies too far.
        walterbell 12y ago
        Who defines happy?
        oldmanjay 12y ago
        Whoever is feeling it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

michaelt 12y ago

I'm puzzled about the outrage. As I understand it, the American scholarly tradition uses a 'bright line' definition of human experimentation that stresses getting ethical review board approval for pretty much everything involving humans other than the experimenter. Doing anything that needs review board approval without getting review board approval is seen as highly unethical, even if approval would clearly be granted were it requested. For example, I once saw a British student e-mail out surveys about newspaper-buying habits; one was sent to an American academic, who replied to the student's supervisor saying the student should be thrown out of university for performing experiments on humans without ethical review board approval.