The brief history of Facebook apologizing
boingboing.net
The brief history of Facebook apologizing
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#2Well, you know how it is. They do it once, shame on them. They do it 10 times...shame on you for continuing to use Facebook.
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#3I'm always interested in the wording of the apologies themselves as well. In the most recent one: "My co-authors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described our research and any anxiety it caused."
Specifically "the way the paper described our research". Not for actually doing the experiment, just that it came off wrong to the public...
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#4I'm always interested in the wording of the apologies themselves as well. In the most recent one: "My co-authors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described our research and any anxiety it caused." Specifically "the way the paper described our research". Not for actually doing the experiment, just that it came off wrong to the public...
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 the experiment didn't add to the emotional burden of users - it just uncovered it.
[edit: I'd go further and suggest that maybe it would be unethical for Facebook not to do experiments like this. They need to understand this kind of effect in order to make responsible design decisions.]
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#5Not 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.
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#6I'm always interested in the wording of the apologies themselves as well. In the most recent one: "My co-authors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described our research and any anxiety it caused." Specifically "the way the paper described our research". Not for actually doing the experiment, just that it came off wrong to the public...
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…
[deleted]
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#7Not 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.
Define "free service". It might be free as a beer, but definitely not free as in speech.
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#8Not 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.
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#9Apologies 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 will never do this again without first obtaining ethical approval from an appropriate review board."
They're not saying "We will never change your Facebook newsfeed to affect your emotional state in order to make you more susceptible to adverts for particular products."
They're not saying "We will never accept payment from an advertiser to change your Facebook feed in order to affect your emotional state."
So, what conclusions should we draw here?
Re: The brief history of Facebook apologizing
#10I'm always interested in the wording of the apologies themselves as well. In the most recent one: "My co-authors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described our research and any anxiety it caused." Specifically "the way the paper described our research". Not for actually doing the experiment, just that it came off wrong to the public...
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.
However, their paper was about how their architecture prevents anyone, not just third parties, but in most cases Apple's own employees from reading and manipulating user data. No one at Apple can read a message you send between two iOS devices. Apple aren't saints, but I like their idea of reasonable way more than what you're trying to sell here.