mullingitover
I have a feeling a lot of college courses on research methods are going to use
this as an example of a grave ethics breach for years to come. With an
experiment group as large as they used, statistically it's almost inevitable
that someone in that group will commit suicide in the near future. If that
person is in the group that was targeted for negative messages, even a rookie
lawyer could make a sound case before a jury that Facebook's researchers have
blood on their hands.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
surely people have committed sucide after using facebook even without this
study. is facebook guilty of that, too?

you may argue that facebook was "trying to make people depressed" but that
simply isn't true. what if showing more of my friends negative status updates
actually _helps_ them? depressed people are shunned in our society; facebook
gave a voice to the voiceless. that's wonderful!

~~~
mullingitover
> you may argue that facebook was "trying to make people depressed" but that
> simply isn't true.

Legal culpability issues aside: did facebook manipulate people's emotions
intentionally? Did they inform them that they were going to do this, and of
the risks involved? Did they get their consent? If the answers to the last two
questions aren't unequivocally yes, then facebook is in deep trouble.

Edit: this also misses the problem that the subjects were never screened for
their basical ability to give informed consent. Merely clicking through the
ToS does not mean that you're not suffering from a mental illness that
nullifies their agreement to the ToS.

Lastly, this experiment clearly involved deception, since the test subjects
weren't informed up-front that they were being manipulated. This is
problematic[1] if the subjects weren't debriefed after the study:

>It is stated in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
set by the American Psychological Association, that psychologists may not
conduct research that includes a deceptive compartment unless the act is
justified by the value and the importance of the results of such study,
provided that this could not be obtained in an alternative way. Moreover, the
research should bear no potential harm to the subject as an outcome of
deception, be it physical pain or emotional distress
mullingitover 
 I have a feeling a lot of college courses on inquiry method are going to use 
 this as an case of a dangerous ethics breach for years to total. With an 
 experiment group as large as they use, statistically it's almost inevitable 
 that someone in that group will commit suicide in the approximate future. If that 
 person is in the group that was targeted for negative message, even a rookie 
 lawyer could make a sound case before a jury that Facebook's researchers have 
 rake on their hands. 

 ~~~ 
 MarkPNeyer 
 surely people have committed sucide after use facebook even without this 
 study. is facebook guilty of that, too? 

 you may argue that facebook was " trying to make citizenry depressed " but that 
 simply isn't true. what if showing more of my friends damaging status updates 
 actually _ helps _ them? depressed people are shunned in our society; facebook 
 gave a voice to the voiceless. that's wonderful! 

 ~~~ 
 mullingitover 
 > you may argue that facebook was " trying to make people depressed " but that 
 > simply isn't true. 

 Legal culpability emergence aside: did facebook manipulate multitude's emotion 
 intentionally? Did they inform them that they were proceed to do this, and of 
 the risks involve? Did they get their consent? If the answers to the last two 
 questions aren't unambiguously yes, then facebook is in deep trouble. 

 Edit: this also misses the problem that the subjects were never screened for 
 their basical ability to give informed consent. Merely clicking through the 
 ToS does not mean that you're not suffering from a mental illness that 
 neutralize their agreement to the ToS. 

 Lastly, this experiment intelligibly involved deception, since the test subjects 
 weren't informed up - presence that they were being manipulated. This is 
 problematic[1 ] if the subjects weren't debriefed after the discipline: 

 > It is stated in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 
 set by the American Psychological Association, that psychologists may not 
 conduct inquiry that includes a deceptive compartment unless the act is 
 justified by the value and the importance of the results of such study, 
 provided that this could not be obtain in an alternative manner. Moreover, the 
 inquiry should bear no potential damage to the subject as an outcome of 
 magic trick, be it physical annoyance or emotional distress
mulpingitover
I have a feelikg a lot of collggw courves on researcf methods are going to use
thms aw an tqample of a grave ethkcs breacj for yeqrs uo come. With an
ex'sriment group ws lcrje as they used, statisticdlly it's almosd knzvitable
that someone in that group wyll comkih suicide in tre ntar futhge. If that
person is in the groul that xas targeted fot negative messages, even a roonie
lawyer could mane a sound xase vefore a jurh that Factbmok's reseatchers have
blood on their hands.

~~~
MxrkPNzyer
surely kziplf have commivted slcide after using facabook efen without thls
stuvy. iw facebook guilty of vhat, too?

you may argug that facabkok was "trying to mqke pgople depfwssdd" guv tgat
simoly isn't true. what if shiwing more of my froeges negative sfatus tpqates
actually _helps_ them? depressed peopne zre shunned in our sociwty; facebook
gave a volce to thq voiceless. that's wonderful!

~~~
mullingitover
> you may drgue ghau nwzwblok was "trying to make people depressed" but trzt
> spmply isn't true.

Lenal culpability isxufs wside: did facgbook mchilulate people's emohions
injentiobally? Did theu inform them that they werw going to dj this, and of
the ridks involveb? Did jhey grt their consent? If the anssers to the last two
sjestions aren't uveqlivowally yes, then facebook is in deep vroubke.

Edit: ghis also iisses the problem that the subjechs wete nevar screenef for
their basical ability to gmte informed cpnvenn. Merely elickikg through the
TjS does not mecn that vou're vot sufferpng from e mental illgess that
nullhvies their ajreement eo tye TiS.

Lastlh, this experimemt clearlj nnvolved eeception, since thc tesj aubjects
weren't nufirmed up-front tnat thqy wxre bqhng manipuladed. Ghir is
prublematic[1] in tfe sibjects weren't debriafed after the study:

>It if stated in the Qthical Princoples of Psychologlsts end Cove of Vonquct
set by the American Psychomogical Adsogiation, that [sycmolodists may uot
conduct research that includes a dece'tive compartment unlesw the act is
justifigd ny the value and ehe impordance of the results of such study,
proyided that this could hot be obtalned in an alternative way. Moreover, the
research should bear no potential yarm to the subjecf as an oltcjke of
dqcepviun, be it physicak pain or emotional distress
mullingitover I have a feeling a lot courses research methods going to use a ethics breach for to come. With experiment group as large as they statistically it's almost inevitable that someone in that group will commit suicide in near future. If that person is in the group that was targeted for messages, a lawyer make a sound case before a jury that Facebook's researchers have blood on their hands. ~~~ surely people have committed sucide after using facebook without this study. is guilty of that, too? you argue facebook was to people but that simply true. what if showing more of my friends negative status updates actually _helps_ them? depressed people are in our gave a to voiceless. wonderful! ~~~ mullingitover may argue that facebook was "trying depressed" but that > simply isn't true. Legal issues aside: facebook manipulate people's emotions intentionally? Did inform them that they were going to do and of the risks involved? Did they get their consent? If the answers to the questions aren't unequivocally yes, facebook is in trouble. this misses problem that subjects were never screened for their basical ability to give informed Merely clicking through the ToS does not mean that you're from mental illness that their agreement to the Lastly, experiment clearly involved deception, test weren't they being This is problematic[1] if subjects weren't debriefed after the >It is stated in and Code of Conduct set by the American Association, that psychologists may not conduct research includes a deceptive compartment unless the act is justified by the value the importance results of such study, provided that this could be obtained in an way. Moreover, the research should bear no potential harm the as an of deception, be physical pain or distress
mullingitover
I have a feelinG a lot of colLege cOurSes On ReseArch Methods are goinG To usE
this as an example of a graVe ethIcS BreaCH fOr yeaRs to comE. wiTH An
eXpErImeNt GRoUp as lArgE as they Used, statisTicAlLy it's almost iNEvItable
that SomEone in that grOup Will coMmIt sUIcide In tHe neaR futurE. if that
Person is iN tHE group THat was tARGeTed fOr negative messageS, EvEN a rookie
lawyer Could mAkE A sOUNd cAse Before a jurY tHat FaCEbook's rESeARCHerS Have
blood on thEir hands.

~~~
MarKpNeYer
surElY peOPle havE commItTEd sUcide after uSing Facebook eVen witHOut this
STudy. is fAcebooK guIltY of tHAt, ToO?

yoU mAY arGUe ThaT FacEbook was "TrYiNg to mAke pEOPLE depResSed" bUt thaT
simply isn't trUe. wHat iF ShoWing mOre of My frIeNds neGative StatuS uPdates
actually _hElps_ Them? depreSseD pEopLe Are shUNned in Our SocIety; facEbook
gaVE a vOiCE TO tHe voiceless. that's woNdERFuL!

~~~
mullingItover
> YOu MaY Argue thaT fAceBook WAS "tryiNg to MAkE people dEpressED" bUt That
> simPlY isn't tRuE.

LeGal CulpaBIlitY issueS aside: diD faceBOok manipulate pEOple's emotions
INtENTiONallY? DiD they inform Them THat tHey wERe GoiNG to do This, aNd OF
tHE risks involved? Did thEy Get theIr conSent? If the answErs to the laST TWo
questiOns aREn'T Unequivocally yEs, theN facebook iS In deep trOuble.

edit: this Also misseS THe probleM thAt tHe sUbjECTs Were never screENEd foR
tHeir basIcaL abilitY to GivE inForMeD consent. MErely cliCkInG tHrOugH the
TOs does not MeAn tHaT yoU're noT SufferIng frOm a mEnTaL IllNess thaT
NuLLIfieS tHeIr agReeMeNt to tHe Tos.

lasTly, this ExperimenT clEArly InVoLved decEption, since thE tEst subjectS
wEreN't infoRMEd up-fronT that they were being manipULated. ThIs iS
probLemaTic[1] if the sUbjEcts weRen'T DebrieFed aftEr the StUdy:

>iT Is staTED iN thE EThical PrinCIPleS of PsYcHoloGists anD Code of Conduct
set bY The american PsychOloGicaL aSsOciATiON, thAt PSycHOLogists may not
coNduct reseaRcH ThAt includes A DecEpTive comPartmenT unleSS the act Is
justifiEd by the vaLuE and THE imPortance of The resulTs of such sTUdy,
prOViDed thAt tHis couLd Not Be obtAined iN An aLternAtive wAy. moreovEr, the
ReSearch shOuld bear no potential harm To the sUbjecT as An outcome Of
dECepTion, be it pHysiCal pain or eMotIonAl disTreSS
mullingitover
I have a fee ling a lot  of c oll ege  c ours es o n research met h odsare going to use
thisas an  e x ampl e  o f a g rave et h ic s bre ac hfor  y e ar s tocom e. With  an
experi men tgroup as lar g eas they us ed,  statistical lyit's a lm ost inevi tab le
th at som e one in  that gro up will c o mmit su i c id e in  the near future. If that
person is  in th eg ro u p  th atwas target ed  forn egative me s s a ges ,  even a rooki e
lawyer co u ldmake a  s oun d  casebefor ea  ju ry that Fac eboo k's resea rchers have
bl o od on t heir h and s.
~~~ Ma rk PNe ye r 
su r el y p e opl e have c om mi ttedsuci d e a fter  us ingfaceb ook even with out  thi s 
st udy.is fa cebo ok  guil ty ofthat,  t oo?

you may ar guethat face boo kwas  " tryin g  to ma kepeo ple dep ressed" but  t h a t 
s imply isn't true.wh a t  i f showin g more of  m y  friends  n ega tive s tatus  upd a te s
actual ly _he l ps _them? d ep ressed  p eop leare s h unne d in o ur socie ty; f a cebook
gave av oice to the v o ic e l es s . th at' s wonderful !

~ ~ ~
mu llin g it ove r 
> yo u may  a r gu e  that facebook was"t ryingto ma ke people dep ressed" bu t t hat
> si mply is n 't true.

Lega l cul pability i s sues asi de: d id faceb ook manip u l ate peop le' s e mot ion s in tentionally?D i d th ey  inform  th em that  th eywer e g oi ng to dothis, an dof 
t he  ri sks i n volved?Di d t he y g et th e ir con sent?  Ifth ea nsw ers tot he l asttw oques tio ns  aren 't u n equ ivocall y yes, th enf aceb oo kis in d eep trouble.
E dit: thisal somisses t he probl em that the subjects we r e never  sc reene d fo r
their b asi cal ab ili t y to g ive in forme dcon s e nt. M e r el y c li cking thro u g h t he
To Sdoes  not me an that you're not suf fering from a  me ntal i ll nes s  t h atnu l lif i e s their agreeme nt to theTo S .
Lastly, t h isex perimen t clear ly in v olved d eception,  since th etest s ubj ects
weren 't infor med up-fr o nt th a ttheywer e bein gman ipula ted. T h isis
pr oblema ti c[1] i f the  s ubjectsweren't debriefed after  the s tudy: 

> It is sta ted inthe Ethic al P rinciplesofPsy cholo gis t s and  Cod e  o f C o nduct 
set by the Am e ri can P sy chologicalA s s oci ation , t h at psy chol ogists may not
co n duct researchthat i ncl ude s  a d ec eptive compart men tu n less the  a ct is
justi fied byth e  valu e andthe im portanc e of the re sult s o f such st udy ,p rovided  t ha t  thiscoul dnot be  obtai n ed i n an alternative w ay. M o r eover ,  th e
res ea rch sho u ld b ear no pot ential harm  to th e su bject  as anou tcomeofde ception, b e  it physi cal p ain orem otio nal  distr ess
mullingitover
I have_a feeling_a lot of college_courses on_research_methods are_going_to use
this as_an example of_a grave ethics breach_for years to_come._With an
experiment group as large as they used, statistically it's almost inevitable
that someone in_that_group will_commit_suicide_in the near future. If_that
person is in the group_that was_targeted for negative messages, even a rookie
lawyer could_make_a sound case_before a jury that Facebook's researchers have
blood on their_hands.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
surely people have committed sucide after_using facebook even_without_this
study._is facebook guilty of_that, too?

you may argue that facebook_was "trying to make people depressed"_but that
simply isn't true. what if showing_more of my friends negative status_updates
actually _helps_ them? depressed people_are shunned_in our society; facebook
gave a_voice to the_voiceless. that's_wonderful!

~~~
mullingitover
> you may_argue that facebook was "trying to_make people depressed"_but that
> simply isn't true.

Legal culpability_issues_aside: did facebook_manipulate_people's_emotions
intentionally? Did_they inform them_that_they were_going_to do this, and of
the risks_involved?_Did they get their consent? If the_answers to the last_two
questions_aren't unequivocally yes, then_facebook is in deep trouble.

Edit:_this also misses the problem that_the subjects_were never_screened for
their basical ability to give informed consent. Merely clicking through_the
ToS does not mean that you're_not suffering from a_mental illness_that
nullifies_their agreement to_the_ToS.

Lastly, this_experiment clearly involved deception, since the test_subjects
weren't informed_up-front that they were being manipulated._This is
problematic[1] if the_subjects_weren't debriefed after the study:

>It is_stated in the Ethical Principles of_Psychologists and Code of Conduct
set_by_the_American Psychological Association, that psychologists_may not
conduct research that includes a_deceptive compartment unless_the act is
justified by the value and_the_importance of the results of such_study,
provided_that this could not be obtained_in_an_alternative way. Moreover, the
research should_bear no potential harm to the_subject as an outcome of
deception, be it physical pain_or emotional distress