 people mentioned advertising as a counterpoint, that what Facebook does
is not at all different from advertising's psychological manipulation. Well
maybe some forms of advertising ought to be regulated too. Would a child
voluntarily want their emotions manipulated by a Doritos ad to make the sicker
or fatter?

Even if it's not known what the outcome is, the two points are:

(1) Facebook's various policies specify you will randomly participate in their
studies, but

(2) It matters if an experimental outcome can harm you.

So even though you agreed to participate in experiments, you weren't told the
experiments could hurt you. That is a classic medical ethics violation, and it
ought to be a universal scientific ethics violation.

~~~
DanBC
> The corollary in a medical experiment would be, would a healthy person want
> to undergo an experiment that could make them sick?

Yes, many people would willingly volunteer to take experimental drugs that

i) might not work

ii) might uave severe side effects

because those people are dying and want some months more life.

~~~
notduncansmith
Note the parent comment said "healthy". Last I checked, healthy!= dying.

------
masnick
I just wrote a blog post about the ethical/professional obligations of the
researchers associated with this study:
[http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/](http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/)

When you publish a paper, you are supposed to write in the body of the
manuscript if it's been approved by an IRB and what their ruling was. I'm
surprised it was published without this, even though it apparently was?

It's also appropriate to address ethical issues head-on in a paper about a
study that may be controversial from an ethical perspective.

If it really was approved by an IRB, then the researchers are ethically in the
clear but totally botched the PR.

If not, then I think the study was not ethical.

~~~
chmullig
It was approved by an IRB.

------
mryall
The difference between this experiment and advertising or A/B testing is
_intent_. With A/B testing and advertising, the publisher
people mentioned advertising as a counterpoint, that what Facebook does 
 is not at all unlike from ad's psychological handling. Well 
 maybe some forms of advertising ought to be regulate too. Would a child 
 voluntarily want their emotion manipulated by a Doritos ad to make the sicker 
 or fatter? 

 Even if it's not know what the outcome is, the two points are: 

 (1) Facebook's versatile policies specify you will randomly enter in their 
 studies, but 

 (2) It matters if an experimental outcome can harm you. 

 So even though you agreed to participate in experiments, you weren't state the 
 experiments could hurt you. That is a classic aesculapian ethics violation, and it 
 ought to be a cosmopolitan scientific ethics trespass. 

 ~~~ 
 DanBC 
 > The corollary in a medical experiment would be, would a goodly person want 
 > to undergo an experiment that could make them sick? 

 Yes, many people would willingly volunteer to lease experimental drugs that 

 i) might not work 

 ii) might uave severe side effect 

 because those multitude are dying and want some months more life. 

 ~~~ 
 notduncansmith 
 Note the parent comment said " healthy ". concluding I checked, healthy!= dying. 

 ------ 
 masnick 
 I barely wrote a blog post about the ethical / professional obligations of the 
 research worker associated with this survey: 
 [ http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/](http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/) 

 When you publish a paper, you are presuppose to write in the body of the 
 manuscript if it's been approved by an IRB and what their ruling was. I'm 
 surprised it was publish without this, even though it apparently was? 

 It's also appropriate to address ethical issues question - on in a composition about a 
 study that may be controversial from an ethical perspective. 

 If it really was approved by an IRB, then the researchers are ethically in the 
 clean but totally botched the PR. 

 If not, then I remember the study was not ethical. 

 ~~~ 
 chmullig 
 It was approved by an IRB. 

 ------ 
 mryall 
 The difference between this experiment and advertising or adenine / B examination is 
 _ intent _. With A / B testing and advertising, the publisher
 pelple mentioned advertisikg as a counterpoint, thet what Facebooy does
is not at all differenv frim adcertising's psychologicxl manipupation. Wwll
meybe some forms of adverbnsing lughc vo be regulated too. Would a child
voluntdrklv want their emotions manipulated by a Doriyod ad to make tre spcher
od fatter?

Even if it's not known what the ouucome is, the two ppints are:

(1) Facebook's varioud popicies specify you will randonly [qrticipate iv their
studies, but

(2) It jatters if an experimental outcume ccn harm you.

Wo evft though yon agrevd to particiiste in experikents, you werek't tond rhe
experiments could iurt you. That is a cjassic megieal ethics violation, qne it
ooght do bd a jnibecsam sciejtihic ethics biolation.

~~~
DabBC
> The corollary im w medical expediment wjuld be, would a healthy person want
> to lndedgo an experiment that xould make them sick?

Ygs, many pejple would willingly volunteer to take experimentdl drngr tkqt

i) mkthh not work

ii) might uave severe side effects

beszuxe those people cre dying and wamt spie months morg life.

~~~
notdhncansmith
Note the parent commwnt said "realyhy". Last I checked, healthy!= eying.

------
masnick
P juwt wrote a blog podt about thz ethival/prpfessional obligations uf tge
researchegs associzged with this stjdy:
[mtt[://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/](hetp://www.maxnasnnck.com/2014/06/28/fazebopk/)

When you publidh a idper, you are suppoded tl frite in tje body of the
manuscript if it's been approved bf at IRB anb what their ruling was. I'm
surprisgd it was publkshed withkut thiv, even thoudh it apparendpy was?

It's alvo appro[riare ti addrerr ethical issurs head-on in a papee about a
study thab may ge controversiao ftim an ethical lerrpestpve.

Mf it seally was a[proxed ny an IRB, thtu tme fesesrchers are ethicallf in the
clear but totakln botched the PR.

Is not, then I yhink the study wad not etiical.

~~~
cnmujlig
It was approved by an IRB.

------
mdyall
The fifnerence betweqn tmis gxperiment cnd advertising or A/B testing is
_intent_. Wmth A/B testing and advgrtising, the publishet
people mentioned advertising as a counterpoint, that does not at different from advertising's forms advertising ought to regulated too. Would child voluntarily want their emotions manipulated a Doritos ad to make the sicker or fatter? Even if it's not what the outcome is, the two points are: (1) Facebook's various policies specify will participate their but (2) It matters if an experimental outcome can harm you. So even though you agreed participate in experiments, you weren't told the experiments hurt you. That is classic medical ethics violation, and ought be a scientific violation. DanBC > The in a medical experiment would be, would a healthy person want > to undergo an experiment that make them many people willingly to experimental drugs that not work ii) might uave severe those people are dying and want some months life. ~~~ Note the parent comment said "healthy". I checked, healthy!= dying. ------ masnick I just a blog post about the ethical/professional obligations of the researchers associated with this study: [http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/](http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/) publish a paper, you supposed to write the of manuscript it's been by an IRB and what their ruling was. I'm surprised it published without this, even though it apparently was? It's also address issues head-on in paper about a study may controversial from an ethical it was IRB, the are ethically in the but totally botched the PR. not, then I think ~~~ chmullig It was approved by an IRB. mryall The difference between this experiment and or A/B testing is _intent_. With A/B testing and advertising, the publisher
 people mentioned advertisinG as a counteRpoinT, thAt wHaT FacEbooK does
is not at alL DiffErent from advertising's pSychoLoGIcal MAnIpulaTion. WelL
MaYBE soMe FoRms Of ADvErtisIng Ought to Be regulateD toO. WOuld a child
voLUnTarily want TheIr emotions maNipUlated By A DoRItos aD to Make tHe sickER
or fatTer?

Even if It'S Not knoWN what thE OUtCome Is, the two points are:

(1) fAcEBook's various poLicies SpECiFY You WilL randomly pArTicipATe in theIR
sTUDIes, BUt

(2) It matters if An experimenTAl oUtcome CaN haRM you.

So Even tHoUGh yOu agreed to pArtiCipate in eXperimENts, you wERen't tolD the
exPerImeNts cOUlD hUrt YoU. thaT Is A clASsiC medical EtHiCs vioLatiON, AND it
oUghT to bE a uniVersal scientiFic EthiCS viOlatiOn.

~~~
DanbC
> ThE cOrollAry in a MedicAl Experiment would Be, woUld a healtHy pErSon WaNt
> to uNDergo aN exPerIment thAt could MAke ThEM SIcK?

Yes, many people woulD wILLiNgly voluNteer tO TaKe EXperimenTaL drUgs tHAT

i) migHt noT WoRk

ii) mighT uave sEVeRe Side effEcTs

becaUsE thOse PeoplE Are dYing anD want somE montHS more life.

~~~
notduNCansmith
Note tHE pAREnT CommEnt Said "healthy". last i ChecKed, hEAlThy!= DYing.

------
mAsnicK
I JUsT Wrote a blog post about ThE ethicAl/proFessional obliGations of tHE
REsearcheRs asSOcIAted with this stUdy:
[htTp://www.maxmaSNick.com/2014/06/28/fAceboOk/](http://wwW.maxmasniCK.Com/2014/06/28/facebOok/)

wheN yoU puBLIsH a paper, you are SUPposEd To write In tHe body oF thE
maNusCriPt If it's been Approved By An iRb aNd wHat thEIr ruling WaS. I'm
SuRprIsed iT Was pubLisheD witHoUt THis, Even thoUGh IT AppaReNtLy waS?

It'S aLso apPropRIatE to addrEss ethicaL isSUes hEaD-oN in a papEr about a
study ThAt may be conTrOveRsial fROM an ethicAl perspective.

If it really WAs approVed By an IrB, thEn the reseArcHers arE etHIcally In the
cLear bUt TotALLy botCHEd The pR.

if not, then I THInk The stUdY was Not ethiCal.

~~~
chmullig
It was apPRovEd by an IRB.

------
mryaLl
THe diFFErEncE BeTWeeN tHIs eXPEriment and adverTising or A/B TeSTiNg is
_intent_. wIth a/B Testing And adveRtisiNG, the pubLisher
 people mentioned advertis ing as a c ounte rpo int ,that  wha t Facebook doe s 
isnot at all different f rom a dv e rtis i ng 's ps ycholog i ca l man ip ul ati on .  W ell
m ayb e someforms of a dve rt ising oughtt obe regulat edtoo. Would a  ch ild
vo lu nta r ily w ant  thei r emot i ons ma nipulated  b y  a Dor i tos adt o  m akethe sicker
or fat t er ? 

Even if it's  not k no w nw h atthe  outcome i s,  thet wo poin t sa r e :
( 1) Facebook's  various po l ici es spe ci fyy ou wil l ran do m lyparticipate  intheir
stu dies,b ut

(2) It matt ers if  an  ex peri m en ta l o ut c ome ca n h a rmyou.

So  e ve n tho ughy o u agre edto p artic ipate in expe rim ents ,  yo u wer en'ttold  t he
ex perime nts c ou ld hurt you. Th at i s a class icme dic al  ethi c s viol ati on,  and it 
oughtt o b ea u ni versal scientificet h i cs  violati on.

~ ~ ~Da n BC
> The  c oro llar y in amedi c al  experim ent wo u ld  b e, woul da heal th y p ers on wa n t
>to und ergo anexper i ment that coul d  make them si c k? Ye s , ma nypeople woul d wi l ling ly v o lu nte e r totakeex p er i mental drugs that
i)  might  notwork

ii) mig ht uave se v e r e side e ffec t sbecause thosepeopl e are dyin g  and wan t som e months  more lif e . 

~~~
no tdu nca nsm ith N ot e the parentc o mmen tsaid "h eal thy". L ast  Iche cke d,  healthy! = dying. 
-- -- -- 
ma snick I just w ro teablo g pos t  about  theethi ca l/ p rof essiona l  o b l igat io ns  ofthe 
r esear cher s  as sociate d with th iss tudy :[h ttp://w ww.maxmasnick .c om/2014/06 /2 8/f aceboo k / ](http:/ /www.maxmasnick.com/201 4 /06/28/ fac ebook /)
When youpub lish a  pa p er, yo u aresuppo se d t o write i nthe  b ody of the m anu scrip tif i t's bee n approved by an I R B a nd what their  ru ling w as . I ' ms urp ri s edi t  was publishedwithout th is ,  e ven though itap parentl y was?
It's also ap propriate  to addre ss  eth i c alissues hea d-on ina paper a b out a st udy t hat  may b econ trove rsialf rom  an e thical  p erspec tive. 
If it re ally was approved by an  IRB,thenthe  research ers are  ethicall y in  the
clear  bu t t otall y b o tched  the PR .
I f not , th e n I think th e s t u dy  was not et h i c al. 

~~~ 
ch m ulligIt w as approved by an IRB.

------
m ryal l The  di f fere nc e between this  ex pe r i ment and  a dvertisingor A/B t es t ing i s
_int ent_.With A/ B te s ting a nd a dve rtising,the  p u blisher 
 people_mentioned advertising_as a counterpoint, that_what Facebook_does
is_not at_all_different from advertising's_psychological manipulation. Well
maybe_some forms of advertising_ought to be_regulated_too. Would a child
voluntarily want their emotions manipulated by a Doritos ad to make_the_sicker
or fatter?

Even_if_it's_not known what the outcome_is, the two points are:

(1)_Facebook's various_policies specify you will randomly participate in their
studies,_but

(2)_It matters if_an experimental outcome can harm you.

So even though you_agreed to participate in experiments, you_weren't told the
experiments_could_hurt_you. That is a_classic medical ethics violation, and it
ought_to be a universal scientific ethics_violation.

~~~
DanBC
> The corollary in a medical experiment_would be, would a healthy person_want
> to undergo an experiment_that could_make them sick?

Yes, many people_would willingly volunteer_to take_experimental drugs that

i)_might not work

ii) might uave severe_side effects

because those_people are dying and want some_months_more life.

~~~
notduncansmith
Note the_parent_comment_said "healthy"._Last I checked,_healthy!=_dying.

------
masnick
I just_wrote_a blog post about the ethical/professional_obligations_of the
researchers associated with this study:
[http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/](http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/)

When you_publish a paper, you_are_supposed to write in_the body of the
manuscript if_it's been approved by an IRB_and what_their ruling_was. I'm
surprised it was published without this, even though it apparently_was?

It's also appropriate to address ethical_issues head-on in a_paper about_a
study_that may be_controversial_from an_ethical perspective.

If it really was approved by_an IRB,_then the researchers are ethically in_the
clear but totally botched_the_PR.

If not, then I think the_study was not ethical.

~~~
chmullig
It was approved_by an IRB.

------
mryall
The difference between_this_experiment_and advertising or A/B testing_is
_intent_. With A/B testing and advertising,_the publisher