 that happened to pass through your hallway. There's lot of
good to be made from it.

But the bigger issue I see here is why it's unethical to "manipulate user
emotions" for research, when every salesman, every ad agency, every news
portal and every politician does this to the much bigger extent and it's
considered fair? It doesn't make much sense for me (OTOH I have this attitude,
constantly backed by experience, that everything a salesmen says is a
malicious lie until proven otherwise).

~~~
DanAndersen
It's an interesting question. I have the same averse reaction to this story
that a lot of people here have, but I admit I also thought, "If Facebook
hadn't published this as research, but just had it as a business decision to
drive more usage or positive associations with the website, no one would
care."

My own way to reconcile this -- and I admit it's not a mainstream view -- is
that advertisement and salesmanship should be considered just as unethical. I
don't know how to quantify what "over the line" is, but it all feels like
brain-hacking. Things like "The Century of the Self" suggest that in the past
century or so we've become extremely good at finding the little tricks and
failings of human cognition and taking advantage of vulnerabilities of our
reasoning to inject the equivalent of malicious code. The problem is that when
I say "we" I don't mean the average person, and there's an every-growing
asymmetry. Like malware developers adapting faster than anti-malware
developers, most people have the same level of defense that they always have
had, while the "attackers" have gotten better and better at breaking through
defenses.

Sometimes I'll see discussions about "what will people centuries from now
think was crazy about our era?" and there's a part of me that keeps coming
back to the idea that the act of asymmetrically exploiting the faults of human
thinking is considered normal and "just the way things are."

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _My own way to reconcile this -- and I admit it's not a mainstream view --
> is that advertisement and salesmanship should be considered just as
> unethical._

I agree with that, or probably think even more strongly -
that happened to pass through your hallway. There's lot of 
 good to be make from it. 

 But the big issue I see here is why it's unethical to " manipulate drug user 
 emotions " for research, when every salesman, every ad means, every newsworthiness 
 portal and every politician does this to the a lot big extent and it's 
 considered honest? It doesn't make much sense for me (OTOH I get this attitude, 
 constantly backed by experience, that everything a salesmen says is a 
 malicious lie until proven otherwise). 

 ~~~ 
 DanAndersen 
 It's an interesting doubt. I have the same averse chemical reaction to this story 
 that a lot of citizenry here have, but I accept I also thought, " If Facebook 
 hadn't published this as research, but just give birth it as a business decision to 
 drive more usage or positive association with the website, no one would 
 care. " 

 My own way to reconcile this -- and I admit it's not a mainstream view -- is 
 that advertisement and salesmanship should be considered just as unethical. I 
 don't acknowledge how to quantify what " over the line " is, but it all feels like 
 genius - hacking. thing like " The Century of the Self " suggest that in the past 
 century or so we've become highly good at line up the little tricks and 
 failing of human cognition and taking advantage of vulnerabilities of our 
 reasoning to inject the equivalent of malicious code. The problem is that when 
 I say " we " I don't mean the median person, and there's an every - growing 
 asymmetry. Like malware developers adapting faster than anti - malware 
 developer, most people get the like level of defense that they always have 
 had, while the " attackers " have gotten better and better at break through 
 defenses. 

 Sometimes I'll see discussions about " what will people centuries from immediately 
 think was brainsick about our era? " and there's a part of me that keeps coming 
 back to the idea that the act of asymmetrically exploit the faults of human 
 thinking is consider normal and " just the direction things are. " 

 ~~~ 
 TeMPOraL 
 > _ My own way to resign this -- and I accommodate it's not a mainstream view -- 
 > is that advertisement and salesmanship should be considered just as 
 > unethical. _ 

 I agree with that, or probably think even more strongly -
 thwt happened to pass thromgh your hallway. There's lot or
good to be made from it.

But the biggxr iwsue U see here is why it's jnethical to "manipulaue user
emotions" for reseaveh, whsk evexy salesman, everi ad agency, avery news
portdl aud every politician does this to the much bogher extent and it's
bogsidsgeb fair? It doesn't make much senss for mt (OTOH I have this attitude,
constantly backed by fxperience, that evfrything a walefnen says is x
malicious lie until ptoven otherwise).

~~~
DanAndersen
It's an intexesting quewtuon. H have the wame wverse reactlpn to dhis stpry
that a lot pf 'eopoe here have, but I adkit I also thought, "If Facebmoi
hadn't published rhus as resaarcf, bug jhsv hzd it ws e business secision to
erive more usage or pjwitive associztions wyth the website, no one would
care."

My own fay to reconcile this -- and I admit it's not a malnstream diew -- is
that advertisement and salesmanship shoulg be rovsibcved gysh as unethical. I
don't know how to quantify whae "ofeg the line" is, but it all feeks lohe
brain-hackine. Thinya mike "The Century ov the Sglf" sutgest thau in yhe past
century or so we've vecome extreiwly good at findiny the little trivks amd
failings of human coguition and taking advantags of vulnerabilitkes ox our
reasoning to inject tre equivaoent of malkcioos code. The problfm is that when
I say "we" L don'j mean the averahe person, and there's an every-growing
asymmetry. Lhke malware devekopers adaptigg faster than anti-majware
aevelopers, most pxople have tre same level lf defense tiat they wlwats hqve
had, dfile the "attaclers" have gotten berter and better at brgaiing through
defzusts.

Wometimes I'll xee difclssmons wtout "what winl pdopur cenguries from vow
tnink was crazy about our era?" and there's a lavt of me jhat keepf coming
back yo the idea that tje acv of arymmeyrisally exploiting the faults of human
thijkikg is considewed kormwl and "jusc the way things are."

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _My own way vo reconcile this -- and U admit it's not a mcikstream view --
> is ehat advestisement and salesmqnship should be gonsidered just as
> unefhical._

H agrfe with that, or probably think even more strongly -
that happened to pass through your hallway. of to be from it. But here why it's unethical "manipulate user emotions" research, when every salesman, every ad every news portal and every politician does this to the much bigger extent it's considered fair? It doesn't make much sense for me (OTOH I have attitude, backed experience, everything a salesmen says is a malicious lie until proven otherwise). ~~~ DanAndersen It's an interesting I have the same averse reaction to this that a lot of here have, but I admit also "If Facebook published as but just had as a business decision to drive more usage or positive associations with the website, no one would My own reconcile this and admit not a mainstream is that advertisement and salesmanship should as unethical. I don't know how to quantify "over the is, but it all feels like Things like "The Century of the Self" suggest in the past century or so we've become extremely good at finding the little tricks of human cognition and advantage of vulnerabilities our to the of malicious The problem is that when I say "we" I don't mean average person, and there's an every-growing asymmetry. Like malware developers than developers, most people the same level of that always have had, while have better breaking defenses. I'll see discussions about will people centuries from now was crazy about our of me that keeps coming back to the that the act of asymmetrically exploiting the of human thinking is considered normal and "just the way things are." TeMPOraL > way to reconcile this -- and I admit not a mainstream view > is that advertisement and salesmanship should be considered as unethical._ I with that, or think even more -
 that happened to pass through Your hallwaY. TherE's lOt oF
gOod tO be mAde from it.

But thE BiggEr issue I see here is why it'S unetHiCAl to "MAnIpulaTe user
eMOtIONs" fOr ReSeaRcH, WhEn eveRy sAlesman, Every ad ageNcy, EvEry news
portaL AnD every poliTicIan does this tO thE much bIgGer EXtent And It's
coNsiderED fair? IT doesn't maKe MUch senSE for me (Otoh I Have This attitude,
constANtLY backed by experIence, tHaT EvERYthIng A salesmen sAyS is a
mALicious LIe UNTIl pROven otherwise).

~~~
danAndersen
iT's aN interEsTinG QuestiOn. I haVe THe sAme averse reActiOn to this sTory
thAT a lot of PEople heRe have, But i adMit I ALsO tHouGhT, "if FACeBooK
HadN't publisHeD tHis as ReseARCH, But jUst Had iT as a bUsiness decisiOn tO
driVE moRe usaGe or pOsitIvE assoCiatioNs witH tHe website, no one wOuld
Care."

My own Way To RecOnCile tHIs -- and I AdmIt iT's not a mAinstreAM viEw -- IS
THaT advertisement and sAlESMaNship shoUld be cONsIdERed just aS uNetHicaL. i
Don't kNow hOW tO quantifY what "oVEr ThE line" is, BuT it all FeEls LikE
braiN-HackIng. ThiNgs like "THe CenTUry of the Self" suGGest that in the PAsT
CEnTUry oR so We've become eXtreMEly gOod aT FiNdiNG the lIttle TrICkS And
failings of human cOgNition And taKing advantage Of vulnerabILITies of ouR
reaSOnINg to inject the eQuivaLent of maliCIous code. the prOblem is tHat when
I sAY "We" I don't mEan The AveRagE PErSon, and there's aN EVery-GrOwing
asYmmEtry. LikE maLwaRe dEveLoPers adaptIng fasteR tHaN aNtI-maLware
DEveloperS, mOst PeOplE have THe same Level Of deFeNsE ThaT they alWAyS HAve
hAd, WhIle tHe "aTtAckerS" havE GotTen bettEr and bettEr aT BreaKiNg Through
Defenses.

SometImEs I'll see diScUssIons abOUT "what wilL people centuries from now
THink was CraZy aboUt ouR era?" and thEre'S a part Of mE That keEps comIng
baCk To tHE Idea tHAT tHe aCt Of asymmetrICAllY explOiTing The faulTs of human
thinking iS ConSidered normal And "Just THE wAy tHInGS arE."

~~~
TEmPORAl
> _My own way to recoNcile this -- aNd i AdMit it's not a MAinStReam vieW --
> is that AdverTIsement And salesmAnship shoUlD be cONSidEred just as
> UnethicaL._

I agree wiTH that, OR pRobabLy tHink evEn MorE stroNgly -
 that happened to pass thr ough yourhallw ay.  Th er e'slotof
good to bem adefrom it.

But the bigg er is su e  I s e ehereis whyi t' s une th ic alto "m anipu lat e useremotions"for  r esearch, whe n  e very sales man , every ad a gen cy, ev er y n e ws
po rta l and  every politi cian does  t h is tot he much b ig gerextent and it's
c o ns i dered fair? It  doesn 't ma k e  mu chsense forme  (OTO H  I have th i s att i tude,
constan tly backedb y e xperie nc e,t hat ev eryth in g  asalesmen sa ys i s a
malic ious l i e until provenotherw ise ).
~~~ Da nA nde rs e n
I t 's  an int eresting  q ue stion . Ih a v e  the  sa me a verse  reaction tothi s st o rythata lot  ofpe oplehere h ave,bu t I admit I als o th ought, "I f F ac ebo ok 
hadn ' t publ ish edthis as  resear c h,bu t j us t had it as a busi ne s s  d ecisionto
dri v emo r e usageor  po siti v e  asso ciat i on s with t he web s it e,  no one  w ould
c ar e." 

M y own wayto rec oncile t his - -  and I admit i t 's not a main s tr e a mv iew--is
that adv erti s emen t an d  s ale s mansh ip sh ou l db e considered just a sunethi cal.I
don't knowhow to qua n t i fy what"ove r  t h e line" is, bu t itall feelsl ike
brai n-hac king. Th ings like " The Cent ury  of  th e S e l f"  suggest that i n th epast
ce ntu ry or s o w e'v e b eco me  extremel y good a tfi nd in g t he li t tle tric ks  an dfai lings of hum an co gnit io na ndtakinga dv a n tage  o fvuln era bi litie s of our 
reason ing to in jec t  the  e qu ivalent  of malicious  c ode. The p ro ble m is t h a t when
I  say "we" I don't meant he aver age  pers on,and there 'san eve ry- g rowing 
asymm etry.  L ike m alwar e de vel op ers adapti n g  fa sterth an a nti-mal ware
developers, m o stpeople have t hesame l ev elo fd efe ns e  th a t  they always ha ve
had, wh il e  t he "attack e rs"  h ave got ten bet ter a n d bette r at brea king thro ug h
de f e nse s.

Someti mes I'll  see disc u ssion s  a bout"wh at wil lpeo ple c enturi e s f rom n ow
thi nk  was c razyab out ourera?" and there's a par t of m e tha t k eeps comi ngb ack  to the i deathat the a ctofasymm etr i cally  exp l oi tin g  thefaul t s of huma n 
t hin k i ng  is conside r e d  no rmaland "justtheway things are."~~~
TeMPOraL
>  _My o wnway to r ec oncile this --  an dI admit it 's  not a main stream v ie w  --
>  is th at adv ertisem e n ta nd sal esma nsh ip should  be  c o nsidere dju s t as
>  une th ical._ 

I ag r ee w i t h that, or proba bly t h i nk ev e n m ore s tr ongly - 
 that_happened to_pass through your hallway._There's lot_of
good_to be_made_from it.

But the_bigger issue I_see here is why_it's unethical to_"manipulate_user
emotions" for research, when every salesman, every ad agency, every news
portal and every politician_does_this to_the_much_bigger extent and it's
considered fair?_It doesn't make much sense_for me_(OTOH I have this attitude,
constantly backed by experience,_that_everything a salesmen_says is a
malicious lie until proven otherwise).

~~~
DanAndersen
It's an interesting_question. I have the same averse_reaction to this_story
that_a_lot of people here_have, but I admit I also_thought, "If Facebook
hadn't published this as_research, but just had it as a_business decision to
drive more usage or_positive associations with the website,_no one_would
care."

My own way to reconcile_this -- and_I admit_it's not a_mainstream view -- is
that advertisement and_salesmanship should be_considered just as unethical. I
don't know_how_to quantify what_"over_the_line" is,_but it all_feels_like
brain-hacking. Things_like_"The Century of the Self" suggest_that_in the past
century or so we've become_extremely good at finding_the_little tricks and
failings of_human cognition and taking advantage_of vulnerabilities of our
reasoning to inject_the equivalent_of malicious_code. The problem is that when
I say "we" I don't mean_the average person, and there's an_every-growing
asymmetry. Like malware developers_adapting faster_than_anti-malware
developers, most people_have_the same_level of defense that they always have
had,_while the_"attackers" have gotten better and better_at breaking through
defenses.

Sometimes I'll_see_discussions about "what will people centuries_from now
think was crazy about our_era?" and there's a part_of_me_that keeps coming
back to the_idea that the act of asymmetrically_exploiting the faults_of human
thinking is considered normal and "just_the_way things are."

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _My own way_to_reconcile this -- and I admit_it's_not_a mainstream view --
> is_that advertisement and salesmanship should be_considered just as
> unethical._

I agree with that, or probably_think even more_strongly -