Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#2Not a single point in that response directly addresses why there was no informed consent in the study. There are reasons why research goes under ethical review before it is conducted, and this is certainly going to be a tough lesson for Facebook.
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#3There's not really any excuse you can give at all, FB. I'm astounded that you didn't apologise without reservation and implement an end use agreement change that specified you wouldn't do it again.
Messing with people's mental health is outrageous.
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#4Not a single point in that response directly addresses why there was no informed consent in the study. There are reasons why research goes under ethical review before it is conducted, and this is certainly going to be a tough lesson for Facebook.
The study was approved by an ethical review board.
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#5I can understand why some people have concerns about it, and my coauthors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety it caused. In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.
Ignoring the classic "I'm sorry you were freaked out" non-apology here, this response completely misses the point, and tries to re-frame the concept of informed consent into an inconsequential piece of red tape that anxious people worry about.
People were made subjects of a scientific experiment without their knowledge or consent. It doesn't matter that Facebook took steps to make the changes as small as possible; it doesn't matter that the effect on the individual subjects may have been minor; it doesn't matter that the results were interesting. It was an ethical breach, and this tone-deaf response is fairly unsettling.
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#6Universities and think tanks have internal review boards for a reason. The fact that Facebook can make use of its users' data in other (business-related) avenues does not excuse them from the most basic of research ethics.
It did pass the muster of Cornell's review board, but that was after the data was actually collected, which amounts to ex post facto approval.
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#7When addressing criticism, it's not great to start "Ok so." (Or "Calm Down. Breathe. We Hear You" [1], to dig farther back in time.)
[1] http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/calm-down-breathe-we-...
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#8Not a single point in that response directly addresses why there was no informed consent in the study. There are reasons why research goes under ethical review before it is conducted, and this is certainly going to be a tough lesson for Facebook.
The study was approved by an ethical review board.
The parent is talking about subject consent, not board approval. These are two vastly different things.
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#9I can understand why some people have concerns about it, and my coauthors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety it caused. In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety. Ignoring the classic "I'm sorry you were freaked out" non-apology here, this response completely misses the point, and tries to re-frame the concept of informed…
Is it an ethical breach if I don't get informed consent from users when I do A/B testing on my website? Or is it only unethical if I publish the results afterwards? Or is it only if I'm actually trying to affect the user's mood specifically?
Re: Facebook emotion manipulation study: an explanation
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The study was approved by an ethical review board.
The parent is talking about subject consent, not board approval. These are two vastly different things.
>There are reasons why research goes under ethical review before it is conducted
Did you miss that line?