Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook under fire over secret teen research

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 226 posts

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#201

Post by burkaman »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #170
burkaman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, publishing research was not the issue, the issue was experimenting on people without their consent.

That was part of the journalistic fallacy. A/B testing is experimenting with people without their consent. (And everyone agreed to the terms of service)

That's true. However, most A/B testing doesn't result in an academic paper, and there are strict ethical rules about academic work based on human subjects. Second, obviously not all A/B tests are the same. If you're testing two different fonts and comparing bounce rates, there are far fewer ethical concerns than if you're intentionally spreading an "emotional contagion" (that's the term Facebook used). And note that if you wanted to publish an academic study based on the font experiment, you would still need informed consent, not just "these people agreed to let us do whatever we want when they signed up 10 years ago, so it's fine".

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#202

Post by cybernautique »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #190
cybernautique wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider "ethically compromised" and "morally corrupt" to be the same thing. I will accede to your claim: this is largely histrionics. I don't disavow my position, but I certainly do regret having so casually made these "totalizing" claims. It's a position I'm still working on formalizing well, but posting pure rhetoric is not that well-formalism. You are correct that a single person isn't the world; however, my si…

Great dialogue. Why Microsoft though? Not sure they can be compared to Google or Facebook. But maybe I'm missing something. If Microsoft - why not Apple? I think most of us are morally corrupt however or let's call it applying a flexible morality. When it comes to pleasure or money, e.g. going to McDonalds, buying fast fashion, or working for these massive ad companies, it's not always easy to do the right thing. It'…

Microsoft and Apple both provide tech and data to the CCP, which makes them unethical vis-a-vis human rights violations in much the same ilk. They're definitely included in what I refer to as the uncivil technology corps. Generally, any tech company that enforces their product be used in only certain ways is a company I'd consider unethical and uncivil. The end-user is the only individual apt to decide how a tool is best used. Trying to subvert that, or make an end-run around the user, is a societal ill in my opinion.

I'm not sure how I'd obviate the problem entirely. I would propose a new tax on companies, commensurate to the degree they lock down their tech. This tax would be ear-marked towards a granting program for groups and individuals in the US, with the sole purpose of enabling grantees to publish new technology for the community.

That is, a grantee would be a non-corporate interest. The work of the grantee would be released as a public good, possibly competing in the same space as the companies from whom the tax came. As an example: Apple, having locked down their ecosystem so tightly, would be taxed highly under this program. The tax goes into a grant. Interested software developers apply for the tax, possibly to contribute work towards an OS or a command-line utility or sundry other projects.

I don't know if this would help. I feel that it would because it ideally helps convert technological rent from the rent-seeking corporations into tangible public goods.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#203

Post by BeetleB »

fsflover wrote: post #198
BeetleB wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been a FB user. Years ago, when FB was relatively new, I was very anti-FB, and would discourage everyone from using it due to privacy concerns. Then a Sudanese friend was staying with me for a few days. He had spent years separated from his relatives who lived in multiple countries, as he was working odd jobs to save enough money for a degree. Through FB, he got to see his nephews and nieces be born and gr…

> Today, there may be viable alternatives, but there weren't in those days. Wait, there was no email yet?

There was, and the reality is that most people were not able to use it effectively enough to be a replacement for FB. Sure, tech heavy users were fine with mailing lists, cc's, attachments, etc - but most of the world wasn't.

Email's been around forever. If email were a viable alternative, FB would not exist. The amount of sharing between the Sudanese guy and his family skyrocketed after FB came along.

And this was before smartphones.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#204

Post by notyourwork »

mc32 wrote: post #5
notyourwork wrote: post #3

Does anyone remember Cosmopolitan and other like magazines. Teenage body issues and associated anxiety are not new. What has happened is we gave everyone internet access so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. The result is body dysmorphia on steroids.

It's true, but how many girls bought/could afford Cosmo, Elle, etc. subs? I suspect it wasn't as many as have Insta/Fb accounts --which is world-wide and reaches into every class and society. And given we now know it's severely detrimental to their well-being, I think it deserves serious consideration and requires change. I don't mean to censor people, but we must stop fomenting the image problem on purpose via progr…

Where I grew up girls read Cosmo and talked about it even as teenagers. That's my point, it wasn't as prevalent or accessible as it is today. We made it more accessible and hence the problem exacerbated.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#206

Post by curryst »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #10

This is more interesting (Instagram response to WSJ, linked to in the article): https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-researc... "We're increasingly focused on addressing negative social comparison and negative body image. One idea we think has promise is finding opportunities to jump in if we see people dwelling on certain types of content." "From our research, we're starting to understand the types o…

I'm not a fan of Facebook, but it's not a bad idea. I think Facebook/Instagram being present is poisoning the well on what might be a good idea.

In a different context, you could use a similar tech to suggest opposing viewpoints. "We noticed you've been watching a lot of flat earth documentaries. Why don't you take a look at the other side of the argument?". Or maybe on Reddit "We noticed a lot of the threads you've been viewing are overly hostile. Why not relax for a little bit over on /r/chillmusicandducks?"

I also wouldn't mind a system like that on days that something terrible has happened. The stuff that happened in Kabul was terrible, but I don't think I would've minded a nudge to go remind myself that there are happy things too.

It's not like they weren't already collecting info on what you look and for how long anyways. I don't really see a change in privacy here (it was abysmal to being with), just Facebook leveraging its user data to maybe actually help users for once.

I give it 3 months until they realize it impacts engagement numbers and replace it with a toothless version that doesn't help, but also doesn't impact engagement.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#207

Post by forgotmypw17 »

tomrod wrote: post #101
cybernautique wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have one caveat: people whose immigration to the USA was conditioned on their employment in Silicon Valley. Aside from that, I think _every single person_ that works at Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. (the uncivil technology corps) is morally bankrupt. Every last one of them is fundamentally compromised by their work.

Weird. I know a lot of people who work in that space. None of them are morally corrupt. What kind of people are you seeking out?

At the risk of making a No True Scotsman argument...

Can someone deriving income from such a business model, while other options are almost certainly available to them, NOT be considered morally corrupt?

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#208

Post by dr_dshiv »

burkaman wrote: post #201
dr_dshiv wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was part of the journalistic fallacy. A/B testing is experimenting with people without their consent. (And everyone agreed to the terms of service)

That's true. However, most A/B testing doesn't result in an academic paper, and there are strict ethical rules about academic work based on human subjects. Second, obviously not all A/B tests are the same. If you're testing two different fonts and comparing bounce rates, there are far fewer ethical concerns than if you're intentionally spreading an "emotional contagion" (that's the term Facebook used). And note that…

There is nuance to this. The point of IRB is ethics.

1. If the experiment is minimal risk and expected to benefit participants (as the notorious fb experiment was—it was emotional contagion of positive emotions), then informed consent may be waived.

2. When there is a greater risk from the act of gathering informed consent (e.g., because you need to store identity for that purpose), then informed consent may be waived, if minimal risk.

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#209

Post by VRay »

cybernautique wrote: post #202
uxcolumbo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great dialogue. Why Microsoft though? Not sure they can be compared to Google or Facebook. But maybe I'm missing something. If Microsoft - why not Apple? I think most of us are morally corrupt however or let's call it applying a flexible morality. When it comes to pleasure or money, e.g. going to McDonalds, buying fast fashion, or working for these massive ad companies, it's not always easy to do the right thing. It'…

Microsoft and Apple both provide tech and data to the CCP, which makes them unethical vis-a-vis human rights violations in much the same ilk. They're definitely included in what I refer to as the uncivil technology corps. Generally, any tech company that enforces their product be used in only certain ways is a company I'd consider unethical and uncivil. The end-user is the only individual apt to decide how a tool is…

Man, I think you're probably right about everyone benefiting from doing immoral things, but I don't know how we could avoid it other than hiding out in a national park or something

By that logic, the linux community is corrupted by helping and accepting submissions from evil companies and evil governments

Everyone who buys and/or uses any sort of devices is corrupt too

Kinda reminds me of "The Good Place", haha

Re: Facebook under fire over secret teen research

#210

Post by VRay »

polyomino wrote: post #40
munk-a wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAANG is composed of large companies - not great companies. Those employers rarely make it onto genuine lists of best employers and if you want real pedigree on your resume you'll want to come out of a small but successful company. You can be asleep at the wheel for two years and leave a FAANG with neutral or positive reviews because you were sociable - if you helped grow a tiny company into a small company recruiter…

lets be real, recruiters will take notice no matter what

I think your average "asleep at the wheel" Facebook employee could easily do the work of 10 or 20 ethical guys from your average Midwestern consulting firm.

(Unless the work involves having some sort of strong moral compass anyway)

Post reply on HN