Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Fallout, Facts and Frenzy
redletterdave (2493036) writes Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg said the company's experiment designed to purposefully manipulate the emotions of its users was communicated "poorly". Sandberg's public comments, which were the first from any Facebook executive following the discovery of the one-week psychological study, were made while attending a meeting with small businesses in India that advertise on Facebook. "This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was," Sandberg said. "It was poorly communicated. And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you." anavictoriasaavedra points out this article that questions how much of this outrage over an old press release is justified and what's lead to the media frenzy. Sometimes editors at media outlets get a little panicked when there's a big story swirling around and they haven't done anything with it. It all started as a largely ignored paper about the number of positive and negative words people use in Facebook posts. Now it's a major scandal. The New York Times connected the Facebook experiment to suicides. The story was headlined, Should Facebook Manipulate Users, and it rests on the questionable assumption that such manipulation has happened. Stories that ran over the weekend raised serious questions about the lack of informed consent used in the experiment, which was done by researchers at Cornell and Facebook and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. But to say Facebook’s slight alteration of news feeds caused people to suffer depression seems to be unsupported by any kind of data or logic.
Facebook has done us all a favor by waking up the dumb consumer to the consequences of the idea that information wants to be free - and therefore its alright to waive all personal rights on the internet.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
We're sorry.... ...that we got caught.
.
.
.
Just another day in Paradise
Facebook Experiments Had Few Limits"Thousands of Facebook Inc. users received an unsettling message two years ago: They were being locked out of the social network because Facebook believed they were robots or using fake names. To get back in, the users had to prove they were real. In fact, Facebook knew most of the users were legitimate. The message was a test designed to help improve Facebook's antifraud measures...'There's no review process, per se,' said Andrew Ledvina, a Facebook data scientist from February 2012 to July 2013. 'Anyone on that team could run a test," Mr. Ledvina said. "They're always trying to alter peoples' behavior.'...The recent ruckus is 'a glimpse into a wide-ranging practice,' said Kate Crawford, a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Civic Media and a principal researcher at Microsoft Research. Companies 'really do see users as a willing experimental test bed' to be used at the companies' discretion."
Except that the purpose of this experiment was to play with emotions of their users. And upset was one of the expected results.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
This should never have made it through the ethics board.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
"the questionable assumption that such manipulation has happened"
They literally wrote a peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating that they manipulated people's moods to a statistically significant degree, I don't think there's much you can call questionable about it from Facebook's perspective.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Ah... the apology that puts blame on the victim. A hall mark of abusers and sociopath's everywhere.
Now everyone would of notice that they are only apologising for the mis-communication, not the act of physiological experimentation (as if we would be OK with it if they had told us). But it goes deeper...
Notice that they put the action and apology in two difference sentences, followed quickly by a "We never meant to upset you." Putting the emotional blame back on us. As if we were just accidentally bumped bystanders, not the actual targets of the actions.
And never ever use the word "Sorry". Only the big weasel phrase "we appologise". This apology goes right along with the classic phoney apologies...
I'm sorry you that you got upset.
I'm sorry that you feel that way.
I'm sorry that you made me do that.
- Everything you need to know about Facebook's manipulative experiment
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
If you need Facebook toi have a social life, you're the loser
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
My question is why is there particular outrage when they do it as part of a science experiment whereas it is widely acceptable to do the exact same thing in mass media to get revenue.
National and local news programs basically live and breath this sort of thing constantly. They schedule their reporting and editorialize in ways to boost viewership: stirring up anger, soothing with feelgood stories, teasing with ominous advertisements, all according to presumptions about the right way to maximize viewer attention and dedication. 'What everyday item in your house could be killing you right now, find out at 11'.
I don't have a Facebook account precisely because I don't like this sort of thing, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge this dubious manipulative behavior is ubiquitous in our media, not just as science experiments in Facebook.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Facebook's efforts to manipulate the feed are really disappointing. If they'll do it for jollies, then they'll damn sure do it if someone pays them to or if the government orders them to.
Imagine an 'American Spring'. Imagine the government not only spying on Facebook users communicating about it, but requiring that Facebook actively suppress any positive comments about it.
That shit ain't right.
People are controlling your mind all the time. Every time you see an ad, someone is trying to control your mind to try to convince you buy something. Every time you read an article in a paper, someone controls your mind to try to get their point across. Every time you argue with someone she is trying to control your mind by getting her point across. Etc.
Get off your high horse, use your brain.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
"Dear customers. We are really sorry that you're so upset at our great study. We're super glad that we did the study but so very very sorry that you guys were upset by it. When we do it again, let's work together to find a way that you could just not be so upset about it."
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
As has been pointed out many times, Facebook was doing their usual sort of product testing. They actively optimize the user experience to keep people using their product (and, more importantly, clicking ads). The only difference between this time and all the other times was that they published their results. This was a good thing, because it introduced new and interesting scientific knowledge.
Because of this debacle, Facebook (and just about every other company) will never again make the mistake of sharing new knowledge with the scientific community. This is truly a dark day for science.
Ferengi rule of aquisition #285: No good deed ever goes unpunished.
"This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was," Sandberg said. "It was poorly communicated. And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you."
This is identical to saying "I don't know what we did that upset you but whatever it was I apologize". They don't get it. It basically means that they are going to continue treating their users as insects to be experimented upon and lack the moral compass to understand why what they did was wrong. The fact that they ran an experiment is fine in principle but HOW you do it matters. We insist that academic researchers run their psychology experiments by a review board and when necessary get informed consent. It's not a hard thing to do and we do it for very good reasons. Facebook has not presented any plausible reason we should hold them to a different standard.
I'm very glad I do not have a facebook account and at this point I doubt I ever will. This is simply not a company I care to be involved with any closer than I have to be.
Except that the purpose of this experiment was to play with emotions of their users. And upset was one of the expected results.
Worse: The study has military sponsorship, part of ongoing experiments how to manipulate/prevent/encourage spread of ideas (like voting for an unapproved political parties or mute general discontent):
"research was connected to a Department of Defense project called the Minerva Initiative, which funds universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world."
The end game explain in this very long but very insightful analysis: America’s Real Foreign Policy – A Corporate Protection Racket.
The scientists represented to the IRB that the dataset was preexisting, and so the IRB passed on the review. It's not clear that the dataset was preexisting, though, since the study seems to indicate that the scientists were involved in the design of the experiment from the beginning. What's more, the paper itself claims to have obtained informed consent when clear there was none.
Looks like this doesn't apply. Federal funding requirement.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Jokes on you guys - the "leak" was fictional. The real experiment is the public's reaction to this.
Testify! As was said before on /. change your information to nonsense and leave. Afterthought Look up the British journalist whose photo was used for a prostitution service she objected and was told because the advertisers liked her photo they could use it and there was nothing she could do about it.
Facebook's ability to do that is right there in the EULA. Yes, I actually read Facebook's EULA. Anything you post on the site is yours, but they enjoy the right to use it in any way they like while it's there. So this journalist agreed to let them do that when she signed up. She likely didn't know that, because who actually reads EULA's, right? It's one more reason I'm not on Facebook.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
When I see an ad or get into an argument with someone they usually don't have a billion-dollar program of research tracking my own and my friends' behaviour and then covertly adjusting what I see and hear to get their way.
Unless it's election season.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Well, three problems:
1) Their users provide the feed. Facebook just displays it.
2) It isn't 'for free' as Facebook uses the data to advertise to you, and thus earns money on the content you generate.
3) The example I gave was explicitly not bullshit - if it were, why would anyone interfere with it?
I made friends with over thirty people on Facebook and had a vibrant social life for over a year until I found out they were all zombie accounts run by the same person. I was still OK with that until I realized that I had spent over $2,000.00 on wedding gifts and birthday presents for all my "friends". But then again, you can't put a price on friendship, right?
They probably agreed to it when they signed up!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)