4 ms·

Exactly. The issue here isn't the anonymization of data (people are jumping on this immediately due to the fact that Facebook is known for their disregard for p

Exactly. The issue here isn't the anonymization of data (people are jumping on this immediately due to the fact that Facebook is known for their disregard for privacy). Its the fact that they're deliberately manipulating emotions for science without consent. What if they inadvertently persuade someone to self-harm? Are they willing to take responsibility for it?

adamnemecek 12y ago
That seems as a bit of a slippery slope. Also, I dislike FB as much as the next guy but I can't really imagine that someone would sign up for FB without realizing that something like this feed manipulation is a real possibility.
- cscurmudgeon 12y ago
  There are laws regulating the use of human subjects in experimentation. I have faint but enough knowledge to believe that Facebook might not be in the clear here.
- gaelian 12y ago
  As a person who works in IT, and from my own personal point of view, I agree that I find it hard to imagine that someone would sign up to FB without clear awareness that feed manipulation and other shenanigans might occur[0]. But the thing is, people are doing so every day. Most people on FB are using FB assuming it's a utility something like email, without realising that it is like email, if email had its own agenda. It's really easy to forget that most people in this world do not live/work in the echo chamber that we do. When I talk to them about the issues, sure, at best they might profess to understand or even be concerned at the time of that conversation, but by and large they won't change their behaviour and the conversation will be quickly forgotten. Never underestimate the indifference with which people can view the inner workings of technology. 0. I see the fact that I find this hard to imagine as a form of "Expert Blindness" or "Knowledge Blindness". If someone has a better or more accepted term for this phenomenon, I'd like to hear it.
- darylteo 12y ago
  Well I understand that feed manipulation is expected. After all, everyone knows they manipulate their feeds to expose sponsors and advertising. I have no problems with the actual manipulation. My problem is with the goal of the manipulation in this case. Its not something like "persuade people to view pages". Its (as I understand it) "make people sad" or "make people happy". As someone who personally battles with emotional episodes, could something like this have inadvertently triggered an episode for me? Can I prove it? Some people have put forward the argument that advertising is by definition a mood influencer and we see it everywhere. However, that doesn't mean that we allow all advertising. We frown on tobacco advertising because it influences people to buy an unhealthy product. We frown on displaying unhealthy bodies because of the impact it has on our self-images. tl;dr; I'm not saying feed manipulation is bad. I'm saying the goal of the manipulation in this case was potentially ill-conceived.

adamnemecek 12y ago

That seems as a bit of a slippery slope. Also, I dislike FB as much as the next guy but I can't really imagine that someone would sign up for FB without realizing that something like this feed manipulation is a real possibility.

cscurmudgeon 12y ago
There are laws regulating the use of human subjects in experimentation. I have faint but enough knowledge to believe that Facebook might not be in the clear here.
gaelian 12y ago
As a person who works in IT, and from my own personal point of view, I agree that I find it hard to imagine that someone would sign up to FB without clear awareness that feed manipulation and other shenanigans might occur[0]. But the thing is, people are doing so every day. Most people on FB are using FB assuming it's a utility something like email, without realising that it is like email, if email had its own agenda. It's really easy to forget that most people in this world do not live/work in the echo chamber that we do. When I talk to them about the issues, sure, at best they might profess to understand or even be concerned at the time of that conversation, but by and large they won't change their behaviour and the conversation will be quickly forgotten. Never underestimate the indifference with which people can view the inner workings of technology. 0. I see the fact that I find this hard to imagine as a form of "Expert Blindness" or "Knowledge Blindness". If someone has a better or more accepted term for this phenomenon, I'd like to hear it.
darylteo 12y ago
Well I understand that feed manipulation is expected. After all, everyone knows they manipulate their feeds to expose sponsors and advertising. I have no problems with the actual manipulation. My problem is with the goal of the manipulation in this case. Its not something like "persuade people to view pages". Its (as I understand it) "make people sad" or "make people happy". As someone who personally battles with emotional episodes, could something like this have inadvertently triggered an episode for me? Can I prove it? Some people have put forward the argument that advertising is by definition a mood influencer and we see it everywhere. However, that doesn't mean that we allow all advertising. We frown on tobacco advertising because it influences people to buy an unhealthy product. We frown on displaying unhealthy bodies because of the impact it has on our self-images. tl;dr; I'm not saying feed manipulation is bad. I'm saying the goal of the manipulation in this case was potentially ill-conceived.