Slashdot Mirror


In 2012, Facebook Altered Content To Tweak Readers' Emotions

The Atlantic reports that two years ago, Facebook briefly conducted an experiment on a subset of its users, altering the mix of content shown to them to emphasize content sorted by tone, negative or positive, and observe the results. From the Atlantic article: For one week in January 2012, data scientists skewed what almost 700,000 Facebook users saw when they logged into its service. Some people were shown content with a preponderance of happy and positive words; some were shown content analyzed as sadder than average. And when the week was over, these manipulated users were more likely to post either especially positive or negative words themselves. This tinkering was just revealed as part of a new study, published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Many previous studies have used Facebook data to examine “emotional contagion,” as this one did. This study is different because, while other studies have observed Facebook user data, this one set out to manipulate it. At least they showed their work.

30 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. consent by sribe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are laws governing obtaining informed consent from humans before performing psychological experiments on them. I doubt that a EULA can override them. This should be interesting...

    1. Re:consent by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [citation needed]. Almost every major website does A/B_testing. Is there a law againt this? (That's not a rethorical question. I actually would like to know.)

    2. Re:consent by phrostie · · Score: 2

      Just think of it as the new Facebook beta.

    3. Re:consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think this is about whether Facebook had a legal right to do this, but more on that in a minute. It's more about whether it was ethical on their part. Regardless, I think it clearly was not ethical for the researchers to do this study without getting the approval of the users who took part in the study.

      Getting back to the legal issue, every site or app has a Terms of Services agreement. Does FB's TOS say that you might be randomly placed in a A/B test used for academic research purposes? If they don't, it seems to me that could be a legal issue.

    4. Re:consent by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But surely users are allowed to be put in an A/B test used for *commercial/advertisement* purposes, right? Is doing something for academic purposes somehow worse than for business purposes? Personally, I would rather my online behavior be used for a purpose which nominally increases our knowledge than for a purpose which increases someone's bottom line.

      That said, I do find this whole thing to be a little shady...but I'm not sure it's a particularly rational reaction, given that I rarely care about A/B testing when it's being used to shamelessly make money off of me...

    5. Re:consent by Entrope · · Score: 2

      What specifically does the Data Use Policy say about this? The bit I saw quoted was that users agreed to Facebook's "internal operations", with research being an example of those. Peer-reviewed publication in a journal is clearly not an internal operation.

    6. Re:consent by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      There are laws governing obtaining informed consent from humans before performing psychological experiments on them.

      That only applies to federally funded research (which means almost all colleges and universities). Attempting to apply this to the private sector would raise serious First Amendment questions. What one person calls "psychological experiments", another might call "protected free speech".

    7. Re:consent by Holammer · · Score: 2

      Ethics board must be a bunch of chimps. It's not Little Albert, but then again, it's on such a massive scale with 700k users. What if someone committed suicide because this manipulation?

    8. Re:consent by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      If they don't, it seems to me that could be a legal issue.

      I doubt it. First, there is no "law" requiring informed consent for such an innocuous study, just ethical guidelines. Second, there is no law saying that entities can only do things positively asserted in the TOS. Companies do behavior research all the time. Grocery stores experiment with different product placement, different background music, different lighting. They are not expected to get consent for that. This is no different. I am feeling a distinct lack of outrage about this.

    9. Re:consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The researchers were trying to incite negative emotions in the subjects. That's unethical if the people don't consent. You're playing with people's lives beyond Facebook. Follow ET's rule: Beeee Gooood.

    10. Re:consent by sribe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can do whatever they want, it's their site.

      Did you think about that before you wrote it? If not, take a second and think about it.

      There are many, many, many things they cannot do with their site.

    11. Re:consent by Jmstuckman · · Score: 3, Informative

      From a legal standpoint, for an activity to be considered "research", it must be "designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge". http://www.virginia.edu/vpr/ir...

      When a website uses A/B testing to improve its own internal operations, it's seeking to privately develop limited knowledge on its own operations, rather than general knowledge. This puts it outside the scope of US federal regulations on research, which have been narrowly crafted to avoid regulating commercial activities like these.

      Given these criteria, Facebook was surely engaged in research.

    12. Re:consent by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are laws against assault, bullying, and so on. The positive spin in innocuous but the negative spin is not.

      With 700 000 potential victims, the numbers are against them because when your sample size is that large outliers are the rule and not the exception.

      The risk of copycat suicide for example should have been obvious to those conducting this study.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    13. Re:consent by dbc · · Score: 2

      That's the first thing that popped into my mind. After having spent many hours over the past week helping my daughter do paperwork so that she could submit her extremely benign science fair project to the county science fair's institutional review board, I'm wondering how FB can get way with this? I guess that they can get away with it because no one will call them out on it, unless some victims file a lawsuit.

      That's the modern world -- a 15 year old kid doing something demonstrably harmless has to do hours of paperwork to demonstrate a device to a dozen people, but a multi-national corporation can psychologically manipulate thousands of people with the intention to see if they can alter their mood with no oversight.

    14. Re:consent by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A psychological experiment cannot be called innocuous before the results are in. Who knows, maybe a extremely depressed person is 20 times more likely to commit suicide if they see that the world is 100% perfectly happy and positive.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    15. Re:consent by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes there is laws against this. Anyone who lives in Canada, and is a part of the experiment but did not receive informed consent may contact Health Canada/federal crown about it. It's illegal here.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  2. Why I don't have a Facebook account by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sort of thing is exactly why I have never signed up for an account. The lack of a moral compass at this company is profound.

    1. Re:Why I don't have a Facebook account by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it seems its pretty much the same for every other large US company too.

  3. Ethical Responsibility by forand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is quite interesting research that should never have been done. I am rather surprised that the National Academy published the results of a study which violated multiple ethical guidelines put in place to protect human subjects. Did Facebook track the number of suicides in the 700,000 sample? Was the rate of those given a sadder than average stream have a higher or lower rate? Do the Facebook researchers address the ethical questions posed by performing such an experiment at all?

    1. Re:Ethical Responsibility by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, you're already too late.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Facebook encourages posing. by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see it in my self, on the rare occasions that I actually post, which is roughly 5-10 times a year and I see it with others whenever I go online to browse a little in the posts of the people I'm connected with ... called "Friends" (Fingerquotes!) on FB:

    Facebook and other "social networks" encourage posing. No two ways about it.

    If you get all worked up and batter your self esteem just because somebody posted himself in cool poses or on some event that you "missed out" on ... I get this a lot, since I'm only on FB for my tango dancing connections, a pastime where posing sometimes actually is part of the game. Actually knowing the person behind a neat facade on FB does put things into perspective.

    Bottom line:
    People shouldn't get more attached to these things than it is good for them. If this neat little stund by FB shows them that, then all the better.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  5. As old Stanley Milgram would have said... by angularbanjo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... that's pretty shocking.

  6. Filter bubble by drolli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What actually disturbs me more is: why should they do this? The answer is simple: They want to determine the most effective non-obvious way of creating filter bubbles to make the user feel well and stay longer.

    It is so-to say a "second order filter bubble", i.e. the use of a positive feedback mechanism.

  7. It's called the Common Rule by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's called the Common Rule, although it generally only applies to federally funded research. There is some evidence that this study was in part federally funded. I think there are serious questions about whether a click-through agreement meets the standards of informed consent.

    Although the study was approved by an institutional review board, I'm surprised, and the comment from the Princeton editor makes me wonder how well they understood the research design (or how clearly it was explained to them). This would never have gotten past my IRB.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  8. Re:That's pretty damn vague, son. by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Most of this 'free' software has a "do you accept the terms and conditions" clause that you have to click "I agree" in order to install or run the software.
    Now the enforcability of such agreements may be open to dispute, especcially if it entailled some sacrifice on the users part (you agree to give up your firstborn child to us..) but it usually would cover "we can change the user interface at any time, and don't complain if memory leaks cause your system to crash eventually)

  9. You feel happy ... very happy ... buy our stock by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... our stock is very happy ... buy our stock ... you like using Facebook ... you are happy when you use FaceBook ... buy our stock ...

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  10. The father of propaganda would be proud by nickmalthus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Secret psychological tests on population in a mass? Edward Bernays would have been elated to have this capability in his time.

    In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  11. Future Facebook experiments! by QilessQi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey, Facebook! Can you help me with some experiments of my own? I'd like to see the outcome if...

    1. Right before an election, all posts favoring candidate X or the political views of party X were promoted to the top of everyone's feed and given 20 extra fake "Likes", while posts favoring the opposition are demoted and de-liked.

    2. Phrases in posts favoring candidate X or the political views of party X are subtly "edited" when the appear in everyone else's news feed to be more positive (e.g., "like" to "love", "good" to "great"), while phrases in posts favoring the opposition are given the reverse treatment and sprinkled with misspellings.

    3. FB users with a tendency of opposition to party X have random fake posts/comments from them appear in other's feeds only, in which they insult their friends' baby pictures, make tasteless jokes, and vaguely threaten supporters of party X to "unfriend me if ur so lame u can't take the TRUTH, lol".

    1. Re:Future Facebook experiments! by QilessQi · · Score: 2

      Ok, guys, I swear that there were no misspellings when I typed "when they appear" in #2 above. IT HAS BEGUN.

  12. Re:Army funded by geggo98 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Hm, the last paragraph says:

    Correction: An earlier version of this story reported that the study was funded in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Army Research Office. In fact, the study received no external funding.