The Scarlet Pimp
Supreme Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 1,417
- 4,458
Facebook's News Feed -- the main list of status updates, messages, and photos you see when you open Facebook on your computer or phone -- is not a perfect mirror of the world.
But few users expect that Facebook would change their News Feed in order to manipulate their emotional state.
We now know that's exactly what happened two years ago. For one week in January 2012, data scientists skewed what almost 700,000 Facebook users saw when they logged into its service. Some people were shown content with a preponderance of happy and positive words; some were shown content analyzed as sadder than average.
And when the week was over, these manipulated users were more likely to post either especially positive or negative words themselves.
This tinkering was just revealed as part of a new study, published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Many previous studies have used Facebook data to examine "emotional contagion," as this one did. This study is different because, while other studies have observed Facebook user data, this one set out to manipulate it.
The experiment is almost certainly legal. In the company's current terms of service, Facebook users relinquish the use of their data for "data analysis, testing, [and] research."
Is it ethical, though?
Since news of the study first emerged, I've seen and heard both privacy advocates and casual users express surprise at the audacity of the experiment.
We're tracking the ethical, legal, and philosophical response to this Facebook experiment here. We've also asked the authors of the study for comment. Author Jamie Guillory replied and referred us to a Facebook spokesman. Early Sunday morning, a Facebook spokesman sent this comment in an email:
This research was conducted for a single week in 2012 and none of the data used was associated with a specific person's Facebook account. We do research to improve our services and to make the content people see on Facebook as relevant and engaging as possible.
A big part of this is understanding how people respond to different types of content, whether it's positive or negative in tone, news from friends, or information from pages they follow.
We carefully consider what research we do and have a strong internal review process. There is no unnecessary collection of people's data in connection with these research initiatives and all data is stored securely.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...s-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/
---
Controversy Over Facebook Emotions Experiment Continues
When it came out earlier this week that Facebook was secretly experimenting with the emotions of users via their Timeline, many people were outraged. How could the site have done something so unethical? Why weren't any standards in place to prevent such a study?
More information has continued to come out about the study this week, and none of it's good; it's been revealed that the Cornell University ethics board did not pre-approve the study before they participated in it with Facebook, and that Facebook's own data usage policy at the time of the experiment may have not "implied" user permission, as previously argued by the site.
Four months after the study was conducted, Facebook added a line to its data policy about how it could use user information "For internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement."
This would suggest that Facebook conducted the study without user permission, though the site insisted otherwise in an interview with Forbes.
"When someone signs up for Facebook, we've always asked permission to use their information to provide and enhance the services we offer," a Facebook spokesman said.
"To suggest we conducted any corporate research without permission is complete fiction. Companies that want to improve their services use the information their customers provide, whether or not their privacy policy uses the word 'research' or not."
For as much as Facebook wants this story to go away (and as many half-hearted apologies it offers), it's clear this controversy won't be done anytime soon.
http://facecrooks.com/Internet-Safe...-Facebook-Emotions-Experiment-Continues.html/
---
Sheryl Sandberg Apologizes For Facebook Emotion Manipulation Study... Kind Of
The Facebook emotion contagion study has finally reached the executive level. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said the word "apologize" in reference to the study that involved nearly 700,000 Facebook users in January 2012, but she made it into one of those classic corporate "We're sorry if this offended you" apologies. Via the Wall Street Journal:
"This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was; it was poorly communicated," Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, said while in New Delhi. "And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you."
Her wording is maybe not the best there. Part of why people are so upset is that Facebook did mean to upset some of them as part of the study. Translation: Facebook is not sorry for doing the emotion contagion study. It was done in the normal course of business.
It is sorry that everyone is upset about the fact that it purposely made some users upset a couple years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...-facebook-emotion-manipulation-study-kind-of/
But few users expect that Facebook would change their News Feed in order to manipulate their emotional state.
We now know that's exactly what happened two years ago. For one week in January 2012, data scientists skewed what almost 700,000 Facebook users saw when they logged into its service. Some people were shown content with a preponderance of happy and positive words; some were shown content analyzed as sadder than average.
And when the week was over, these manipulated users were more likely to post either especially positive or negative words themselves.
This tinkering was just revealed as part of a new study, published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Many previous studies have used Facebook data to examine "emotional contagion," as this one did. This study is different because, while other studies have observed Facebook user data, this one set out to manipulate it.
The experiment is almost certainly legal. In the company's current terms of service, Facebook users relinquish the use of their data for "data analysis, testing, [and] research."
Is it ethical, though?
Since news of the study first emerged, I've seen and heard both privacy advocates and casual users express surprise at the audacity of the experiment.
We're tracking the ethical, legal, and philosophical response to this Facebook experiment here. We've also asked the authors of the study for comment. Author Jamie Guillory replied and referred us to a Facebook spokesman. Early Sunday morning, a Facebook spokesman sent this comment in an email:
This research was conducted for a single week in 2012 and none of the data used was associated with a specific person's Facebook account. We do research to improve our services and to make the content people see on Facebook as relevant and engaging as possible.
A big part of this is understanding how people respond to different types of content, whether it's positive or negative in tone, news from friends, or information from pages they follow.
We carefully consider what research we do and have a strong internal review process. There is no unnecessary collection of people's data in connection with these research initiatives and all data is stored securely.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...s-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/
---
Controversy Over Facebook Emotions Experiment Continues
When it came out earlier this week that Facebook was secretly experimenting with the emotions of users via their Timeline, many people were outraged. How could the site have done something so unethical? Why weren't any standards in place to prevent such a study?
More information has continued to come out about the study this week, and none of it's good; it's been revealed that the Cornell University ethics board did not pre-approve the study before they participated in it with Facebook, and that Facebook's own data usage policy at the time of the experiment may have not "implied" user permission, as previously argued by the site.
Four months after the study was conducted, Facebook added a line to its data policy about how it could use user information "For internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement."
This would suggest that Facebook conducted the study without user permission, though the site insisted otherwise in an interview with Forbes.
"When someone signs up for Facebook, we've always asked permission to use their information to provide and enhance the services we offer," a Facebook spokesman said.
"To suggest we conducted any corporate research without permission is complete fiction. Companies that want to improve their services use the information their customers provide, whether or not their privacy policy uses the word 'research' or not."
For as much as Facebook wants this story to go away (and as many half-hearted apologies it offers), it's clear this controversy won't be done anytime soon.
http://facecrooks.com/Internet-Safe...-Facebook-Emotions-Experiment-Continues.html/
---
Sheryl Sandberg Apologizes For Facebook Emotion Manipulation Study... Kind Of
The Facebook emotion contagion study has finally reached the executive level. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said the word "apologize" in reference to the study that involved nearly 700,000 Facebook users in January 2012, but she made it into one of those classic corporate "We're sorry if this offended you" apologies. Via the Wall Street Journal:
"This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was; it was poorly communicated," Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, said while in New Delhi. "And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you."
Her wording is maybe not the best there. Part of why people are so upset is that Facebook did mean to upset some of them as part of the study. Translation: Facebook is not sorry for doing the emotion contagion study. It was done in the normal course of business.
It is sorry that everyone is upset about the fact that it purposely made some users upset a couple years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...-facebook-emotion-manipulation-study-kind-of/
