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

Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 162 posts

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#141

Post by threatofrain »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #62
typon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constant derision of journalists in tech circles (especially on HN) is kind of shocking to see. Did you read the article or did you miss that the journalist is relaying fellow researchers' apprehensiveness about Facebook being allowed to conduct an unethical study. This article [1] is linked in the second paragraph. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-...

It's nothing personal against journalists, but the economics of the business mean that they have huge incentives to make things seem more outrageous or nefarious than they actually are. I did read the whole article, and that doesn't excuse the BS clickbait title of "Facebook deliberately made people sad." I find the fact that the article is complaining about emotional manipulation by Facebook, while using a deliberat…

Do journalists even write the titles to their own articles? I'm sure every newsroom has their own distinct culture, but this sounds like an editor's job.

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#142

Post by anoncake »

doublerabbit wrote: post #72
NateEag wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For HN: You should have to give a reason to down votes. To give someone downvote permissions and then allow them to downvote on something they bias, isn't far. Because no one would ever lie or put noise in the "why I downvoted" field.

And In that case they don't get to down vote. Problem solved. See downvoted already, point proven.

You can't detect lies.

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#143

Post by xg15 »

wruza wrote: post #138
xg15 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is not someone experimenting with your unhealthy addiction, it is your unhealthy addiction. Why is it my unhealthy addiction if a multi-billion dollar company uses all tools at their disposal to push me into said addiction?

I mean, it’s not their addiction and not their problem. Everyone tries to push/trick/force you into it, from drug cartels to facebook. You can’t do much with neither of them for a variety of reasons, thus it sounds reasonable to perceive it as something that you should refrain from by yourself. And you can do that even without Quitting Facebook, just bookmark an url that has no feed in it. Personally I’m not using fa…

> FAANG exists as a multi-trillion industry only because pere inert content junkies with a thumb.

Yes, but that's basic biology, not anything that has to do with strength of character or freedom of choice.

"People" are also into heroine. Should we allow to build a multi-trillion dollar industry on that?

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#144

Post by xg15 »

neonological wrote: post #119
xg15 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so clandestine manipulation is freedom of speech. Is that what the founding fathers intended?

No but when you restrict clandestine manipulation you restrict freedom of speech. Giving the government such power gives them the oversight to use the "clandestine manipulation" excuse on other things as well. Like I said, not so clear cut. It's a complex world we live in. But I get why someone would vote me down. It's easier to see everything in terms of black and white. The truth, however, is grey. Take freedom of…

> Giving the government such power gives them the oversight to use the "clandestine manipulation" excuse on other things as well.

Like for example?

> Personally my view is that the cost is worth the benefit, because the alternative is much worse.

A comfortable view if the cost is mainly paid by others.

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#145

Post by xg15 »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #125
xg15 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "consent" is worthless if it is not informed consent. And it's neither expected by, nor in the interest of the user to be emotionally manipulated. By the way, the whole "intelligent" newsfeed is likely not expected either. My guess is, most people sign up to Facebook with the expectation to see the update of all their friends, nit be subject to Facebook's AI games and product research.

But "emotional manipulation" may already be happening by using the website. If the user gave consent to that, I don't see what difference the act of gathering scientific data makes. Your argument seems to be against the current bar of consent that facebook and similar sites are required to get.

The user never consented to "emotional manipulation". If anything, the user consented to usage of an algorithmic newsfeed that ranks posts based on unknown criteria, but always with "relevance" as the overall goal. There is nothing about emotional manipulation in this.

Emotional manipulation is also clearly not in the user's self interest, so there is no reason why they ever should give consent. (As opposed to an AI newsfeed, which could be a useful feature if it worked in the user's interest)

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#146

Post by emodendroket »

tobr wrote: post #136
emodendroket wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you typically go read a synopsis of the entire plot of a film, including any surprise developments, before watching it?

No?

Ok. Then what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#147

Post by luckylion »

seoaeu wrote: post #52
luckylion wrote: post #36

"News media deliberately make people outraged. This ought to be the final straw". I don't have issues with the study in general. You do want to know whether and how you can influence people in a positive or negative way, especially if you want to avoid it. There's really no other way to find out than to study it. They should've gotten clear consent for participation in that study, but that's about it from my point of…

"There was nothing wrong except for the lack of consent" is really rather missing the point... In other contexts that's the difference between acceptable behavior and a felony.

I don't understand the article (and most of the comments) to be about the lack of consent, but about the act itself: deliberately making people sad.

In most medical studies, that's not being done. You might give someone placebos and watch what happens when you don't give them the medication you want to test, but you're not giving people cancer to see what helps best.

I'm not sure consent would've made a fundamental difference to that reaction to it.

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#148

Post by xg15 »

vickychijwani wrote: post #129
xg15 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook's experiment did not directly cause the emotions, the posted content for that. Facebook definitely caused the emotions - by deliberately choosing to show particular content. > This is similar to claiming that traffic experiments which change the flow of cars, in term causing some people to experience more traffic and become unhappy, are unethical. Do you think traffic experiments are unethical? If the obje…

> If the objective of the traffic experiment had been to deliberately get a certain group of cars stuck in a traffic jam, this would absolutely be unethical. A closer analogue would be a traffic experiment designed to gauge the emotional effects of a particular route. That's an important difference. The article itself says the experiment was designed to look for evidence of emotional contagion, which is quite differe…

> The article itself says the experiment was designed to look for evidence of emotional contagion, which is quite different from "it was designed to make people sad".

That was their research goal, yes. Their methodology was this:

> For some, that meant 90% of all "positive" posts were removed from their newsfeed for a week, rendering the social network a pit of despair.

Research can be unethical even if the intention of the research is not.

For the traffic analogy, if part of that traffic experiment would involve a routing change that researchers know will likely cause a traffic jam, then the experiment will be unethical, no matter how warranted the research may be.

That's the reason you cannot use placebos to test life-saving medication (without prior informed consent), even though it would certainly be beneficial for science if you could.

And in Facebook's case, their research goal wasn't even that ethical in the first place. Maye we can have this talk if they try to find a cure for depression through emotional manipulation, but this was literally just about preventing people from leaving Facebook:

> "At the same time, we were concerned that exposure to friends' negativity might lead people to avoid visiting Facebook."

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#149

Post by neonological »

xg15 wrote: post #144
neonological wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but when you restrict clandestine manipulation you restrict freedom of speech. Giving the government such power gives them the oversight to use the "clandestine manipulation" excuse on other things as well. Like I said, not so clear cut. It's a complex world we live in. But I get why someone would vote me down. It's easier to see everything in terms of black and white. The truth, however, is grey. Take freedom of…

> Giving the government such power gives them the oversight to use the "clandestine manipulation" excuse on other things as well. Like for example? > Personally my view is that the cost is worth the benefit, because the alternative is much worse. A comfortable view if the cost is mainly paid by others.

Like for example you’re clandestinely manipulating me right now. Everything you say is manipulation of me towards your opinion.

And you say it’s a cost paid by others? Can you give me an example of how I don’t pay the cost? Right you can’t because you didn’t know that I’m a user of Facebook. Logically it is impossible for you to know whether I “pay” for these costs or not.

Basically without knowing who I am you made up a lie out of thin air. There is no other logic that can explain what you just said as you know nothing about me. Is lying in itself not clandestine manipulation? Are you not lying in attempt to clandestinely manipulate me and others reading this towards your opinion?

You obviously have no skin in the game, you don’t even use Facebook, you’re just harping off about it because you don’t give a shit about freedom of speech at all.

Is the paragraph above true or a manipulative lie? Did lying like that make you angry? What about that garbage lie you made up about me? Is this the same brainless response and fury everyone is reacting to Facebook “experimenting” on us without deeper consideration?

Does me or you being angry about manipulative bullshit give either of us the right to clamp down on our right to say it? Should I have the right to call the police on you for making up shit and lying?

No. And honestly outside of the context of “giving you an example” I suggest you check yourself. The drivel coming out of your mouth is deliberately offensive. “A cost paid by others” is an outright lie made up for the express purpose of manipulation and inciting anger. Emotional manipulation is no less evil then experimental manipulation.

Careful what you do to your own freedom of speech rights... If you succeed, one day your ideas will be muzzling your own manipulative vitriol like a dog.

Perhaps I can call out to dang, have him come over and moderate this thread. No let’s make it so that the government can moderate Facebook, which then in turn means they can moderate you.

What do you think is the justification the CCP gives themselves when they moderate the entire internet in China? It’s the same justification you’ve given me, they seek to moderate clandestine manipulation.

Re: Facebook deliberately made people sad. This ought to be the final straw (2012)

#150

Post by TomSwirly »

graeme wrote: post #63
thatcat wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the definition of an unethical experiment design and would be considered academic misconduct if that were academic work. Regardless of intent, fb probably shouldn't be allowing front end devs to design psychological experiments at mass scale. https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Experimental_ethics

Doesn’t that suggest professional ethics are immoral? They block a temporary, one off experiment which could suggest how to avoid sadness. The alternative is relying on intuition only and possibly making people permanently sadder. Or is there a way to achieve this knowledge consistent with the field of research ethics? We saw this with challenge trials in the pandemic where ethicists fretted people would reject them…

> Doesn’t that suggest professional ethics are immoral? They block a temporary, one off experiment which could suggest how to avoid sadness.

NO, companies should not perform secret psychological experiments on people without their consent because they "could suggest how to avoid sadness."

> challenge trials in the pandemic

You mean the ones people consented to? Why is consent not an issue for you?

Post reply on HN