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

The brief history of Facebook apologizing

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing

#11

Post by spike021 »

sp332 wrote: post #8
spike021 wrote: post #5

Not really sure why Facebook needs to apologize at all. It's a free service that you agree to use. You should read the fine-print if you care about anything like this. If it can be proven that experiments or anything else worth apologizing for is detrimental in some way, then something needs to be said. But otherwise, I think they're free to do with they want with their data.

Free things still aren't allowed to cause harm to the people who use them. And the fine print wasn't changed until after the experiment.

Right. Like I said, if it can be proven that their experiment caused harm of some kind, then that's when something should be done.

Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing

#12

Post by [deleted] »

spike021 wrote: post #11
sp332 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free things still aren't allowed to cause harm to the people who use them. And the fine print wasn't changed until after the experiment.

Right. Like I said, if it can be proven that their experiment caused harm of some kind, then that's when something should be done.

[deleted]

Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing

#13

Post by gress »

PeterGriffin wrote: post #10
gress wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it seems reasonable. 1. A/B testing is done all the time and has undefined emotional effects on users other than to maximize addiction & ad revenue. Google does this constantly and is worshipped for it's ingenuity. 2. The whole point is that they didn't know whether there would be emotional contagion, which is why they conducted the experiment. And yet similar experiments are happening all the time, so t…

Google is most definitely not "worshipped for their ingenuity" in data mining and profiling their users. Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? People don't trust Google. They've ruined their brand by abusing their users' trust, and Facebook is on the same path. As for what's "reasonable". Apple is operating a large messaging network as well - iMessage. And they also published a paper recently. Howeve…

Woah - slow down. I'm not selling anything.

I think you're right about Google's brand, but I think they can simultaneously be distrusted and worshipped at the same time.

I also think that Apple is showing that compromising privacy is a consequence of Google and Facebook's business models, and not some fundamental rule of the web.

But, I don't think any of this changes my view that this particular study is not unethical in the way people are claiming given that Facebook exists and behaves as it does. If you think that Facebook operates an unethical business, I'd still argue that this doesn't make it worse, and that becoming less ignorant about how they affect people is a good thing.

Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing

#14

Post by jesuslop »

spike021 wrote: post #5

Not really sure why Facebook needs to apologize at all. It's a free service that you agree to use. You should read the fine-print if you care about anything like this. If it can be proven that experiments or anything else worth apologizing for is detrimental in some way, then something needs to be said. But otherwise, I think they're free to do with they want with their data.

They need to apologize if they worry about the PR mess this has become and about their ad prints revenues.

Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing

#15

Post by gress »

jackgavigan wrote: post #9

Apologies begin to sound pretty insincere when the company (or person) making the apology keep on doing the same damned thing that they're apologising for. This particular apology is even worse because they're not apologising for doing the research; they're apologising "for the way the paper described our research and any anxiety it caused." They're not saying "We will never do this again." They're not saying "We wil…

How is this the same as something they've done before?
Post reply on HN