------
ajays
I'm puzzled about the outrage.

FB _already_ filters out updates based on some blackbox algorithm. So they
tweaked the parameters of that algorithm to filter out the "happier" updates,
and observed what happens. How is this unethical? The updates were posted by
the users' friends! FB didn't manufacture the news items; they were always
there.

I detest FB as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous.

~~~
LoganCale
They altered people's feeds for a psychological experiment with the specific
intent of manipulating their mood. That is _highly_ unethical.

~~~
TeMPOraL
But why if it's done for science it's unethical, but when done by news
stations, politicians, advertising agencies, motivational speakers, salesmen,
etc. it's suddenly ok?

~~~
scintill76
Users of Facebook see it as a neutral platform for communicating with people
they know. Consumers of the things you listed know it's top-down messaging
coming from people they don't know or necessarily trust.

So, there is a difference. It's still a complex question, though -- is
filtering or prioritizing based on emotional sentiment really different from
what they are already doing with inserting ads and such?

~~~
TeMPOraL
I see it this way: they did a study, so it's fair.

Were they to filter posts by emotional sentiment as a part of their normal
operations, I'd find it unethical, or at least something I might not want. But
I'm totally fine with them subjecting users (including myself) to random
research studies, as those are temporary situations, and with Facebook's data
sets, they can have great benefits for humanity.

Perhaps Facebook should provide an opt-in option to for user to be a subject
of various sociological experiments at unspecified times. I'd happily select
it.

------
TeMPOraL
I strongly hope that they won't care about any of this "outrage" and continue
to do more and more experiments. Maybe even open it up as a platform for
scientists to conduct studies.

Facebook is in the unique position of possessing data that can be orders of
magnitude more useful for social studies than surveys of randomly picked
college students
------ 
 ajays 
 I'm puzzled about the outrage. 

 FB _ already _ filters out updates free-base on some blackbox algorithm. therefore they 
 tweaked the parameters of that algorithm to filter out the " felicitous " updates, 
 and observed what happen. How is this unethical? The update were posted by 
 the users' friends! FB didn't manufacture the news detail; they were always 
 there. 

 I detest FB equally much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous. 

 ~~~ 
 LoganCale 
 They altered people's feeds for a psychological experiment with the specific 
 intent of manipulate their mood. That is _ highly _ unethical. 

 ~~~ 
 TeMPOraL 
 But why if it's done for skill it's unethical, but when done by news 
 station, politicians, ad agencies, motivational loudspeaker, salesmen, 
 etc. it's suddenly ok? 

 ~~~ 
 scintill76 
 Users of Facebook witness it as a neutral platform for communicating with people 
 they know. consumer of the thing you listed know it's top - down messaging 
 coming from people they don't know or necessarily trust. 

 So, there embody a difference. It's still a complex motion, though -- is 
 filtering or prioritizing free-base on emotional sentiment really unlike from 
 what they are already doing with tuck ads and such? 

 ~~~ 
 TeMPOraL 
 I determine it this way: they did a study, so it's fair. 

 Were they to filter posts by aroused sentiment as a part of their normal 
 operations, I'd find it unethical, or at least something I might not want. But 
 I'm totally fine with them subject users (including myself) to random 
 research studies, as those are temporary position, and with Facebook's data 
 sets, they can have great benefits for humanity. 

 Perhaps Facebook should provide an opt - in choice to for user to be a subject 
 of various sociological experiments at unspecified times. I'd happily choose 
 it. 

 ------ 
 TeMPOraL 
 I strongly hope that they won't care about any of this " outrage " and proceed 
 to do more and more experiment. Maybe even open it up as a chopine for 
 scientists to conduct studies. 

 Facebook is in the unique position of possessing data that can be orders of 
 magnitude more useful for social studies than surveys of randomly pick 
 college students
------
ajajs
I'm puzzled about the omtrage.

FB _already_ filterv out hpdates cased on some blackbox algormthm. So tyey
tweaked the parametdrs of thwt algoruthm ro filter out the "mcppied" updctxs,
and observed ehat happets. How is this uvechical? The updates were posted by
the users' grlends! FB didn't manlfwctudv uhe news items; they were always
thsre.

I deuest FB as much as the next guy, but this is gidifulous.

~~~
LoganCale
Thej altered pgkplq'w feeds for x psychological experijent with the specific
intent of mani'ulating thgne mlmd. That is _iighly_ unethical.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Bud why ig it's done for scmencw it's unethical, but wien done by news
statyons, polidieians, advertising agebcues, mmtivdtiovql rpezkxrs, saleslen,
xtc. it's sudsenly ok?

~~~
scibtill76
Users of Facebpoh see it as a heutraj [latform for communicating with people
tvey know. Consumers of the rhings you listed knoa it's top-qown messaging
coming from people they don't know os necxsrarnoy trjwt.

Do, there is a difference. It's still a complex zhextpon, though -- is
filbering or prioritiaijg fased on emotkonal senfiment really difffrent ftom
whar they art alrrady doing with inserting aes and such?

~~~
TvMPOeaL
I see it this wcy: they did c studi, so iy's fair.

Were they to filcer poats by emotlonal senfkment as a part uf nheis normal
operations, I'd find it unethmcal, pr at ldast sometring I migjt nob want. But
I'm totallj fing with them subjfcting users (including myself) to random
researvh stldies, as chose sre temporary situations, anb with Fccebooy's data
seta, they ran have grewt benefits fmt humanity.

Periaps Facefook shoyld proxkde an opt-in oltion to yjr uwer to be a subjecb
of vxdious sociologiecl experiments at unrpesivixd tiias. I'd happilf seuecg
ot.

------
TeMOOraL
I strokglh hole that they won't case agout any of this "oitvage" and xontinue
eo do more anc more experiments. Maybx even open it up as a platform for
scientista to condkct studies.

Facefook is in the uuique position of possessing data that cen be orders of
magnitudw more useful for spgial studies than surveys mf randomly picked
coolege students
------ ajays I'm puzzled about the outrage. filters updates based some blackbox algorithm. of algorithm to filter the "happier" updates, observed what happens. How is this The updates were posted by the users' friends! FB didn't manufacture the news they were always there. I detest FB as much as the next guy, this ridiculous. LoganCale altered people's feeds for a psychological experiment with the specific intent of manipulating their mood. That _highly_ unethical. ~~~ TeMPOraL But why if it's for science it's unethical, when done by news stations, advertising motivational speakers, etc. suddenly ~~~ scintill76 Users Facebook see it as a neutral platform for communicating with people they know. Consumers of the things listed know messaging coming people don't or necessarily trust. is a difference. It's still a -- is filtering or prioritizing based on emotional really different what they are already doing with ads and such? ~~~ TeMPOraL I see it way: they did a study, so it's fair. Were they to filter posts by emotional a part of their operations, I'd find unethical, at something might not But I'm totally fine with them subjecting users (including myself) to research studies, as those are temporary situations, and with Facebook's they have great benefits humanity. Perhaps Facebook should an option to for user a of at times. happily select it. ------ I strongly hope that they care about any of do more and more experiments. Maybe even open up as a platform for scientists to studies. Facebook is in the unique position of possessing data that can orders of useful for social studies than surveys of randomly college students
------
ajays
I'm puzzled about the outRage.

FB _alreAdy_ fiLteRs oUt UpdaTes bAsed on some blacKBox aLgorithm. So they
tweaked tHe parAmETers OF tHat alGorithm TO fILTer OuT tHe "hApPIeR" updaTes,
And obseRved what haPpeNs. how is this uneTHiCal? The updaTes Were posted by
The Users' fRiEndS! fB didN't mAnufaCture tHE news iTems; they wErE Always
THere.

I deTESt fB as Much as the next guy, bUT tHIs is ridiculous.

~~~
loganCAlE
thEY AltEreD people's feEdS for a PSycholoGIcAL EXpeRIment with the sPecific
inteNT of ManipuLaTinG Their mOod. ThAt IS _hiGhly_ unethicAl.

~~~
TemPOraL
But Why if iT'S done foR Science It's uneThiCal, But wHEn DoNe bY nEWs
sTAtIonS, PolIticians, AdVeRtisiNg agENCIEs, moTivAtioNal spEakers, salesmeN,
etC. it's SUddEnly oK?

~~~
scinTill76
usErs of faceboOk see It As a neutral platfOrm fOr communiCatInG wiTh PeoplE
They knOw. COnsUmers of The thinGS yoU lISTEd Know it's top-down messAgING
cOming froM peoplE ThEy DOn't know oR nEceSsarILY trusT.

So, tHErE is a diffErence. iT's StIll a comPlEx quesTiOn, tHouGh -- is
fILterIng or pRioritizIng baSEd on emotional sENtiment really DIfFEReNT froM
whAt they are alReadY DoinG witH InSerTIng adS and sUcH?

~~~
tempOraL
I see it this way: tHeY did a sTudy, sO it's fair.

Were tHey to filteR POSts by emoTionAL sENtiment as a part Of theIr normal
opERations, I'D find It unethiCal, or at leAST somethiNg I MigHt nOt wANT. BUt
I'm totally fiNE With ThEm subjeCtiNg users (IncLudIng MysElF) to random
Research StUdIeS, aS thOse arE TemporarY sItuAtIonS, and wITh FaceBook's Data
SeTs, THey Can have GReAT BeneFiTs For hUmaNiTy.

PerHaps fAceBook shoUld providE an OPt-in OpTiOn to for User to be a subjEcT
of various SoCioLogicaL EXperimenTs at unspecified times. I'd hAPpily seLecT
it.

------
TemPOrAL
I strongLy hOpe thaT thEY won't cAre aboUt any Of ThiS "OUtragE" ANd ConTiNue
to do morE ANd mOre exPeRimeNts. MaybE even open it up as a plATfoRm for
scientisTs tO conDUCt StuDIeS.

facEbOOk iS IN the unique positIon of posseSsINg Data that caN Be oRdErs of
maGnitude More uSEful for Social stuDies than sUrVeys OF RanDomly pickeD
college Students
------
ajays
I'm puzzled a bout the o utrag e.
FB  _ alre ady_  filters out u p date s based on some blackb ox al go r ithm .  S o the y
tweak e dt h e p ar am ete rs of  that  al gorithm  to filter  ou tthe "happier "  u pdates,
an d o bserved what  ha ppens.  H owi s thi s u nethi cal? T h e upda tes werepo s ted by the use r s 'frie nds! FB didn't ma n uf a cture the news  items ;t he y wer e a lways
ther e. 

I d e test FB as m u cha s the next gu y, but this isridicu lo us. 
~~~
L oganC al e 
Th ey alteredpeop le's feed s fora  psycho l ogicalexperi men t w itht he  s pec if i c
i n te nto f m anipulat in gtheir  moo d . T hatis_hig hly_unethical.

~ ~~TeMP O raL 
Butwhy i f it 's  done  for s cienc eit's unethical,  but  when don e b ynew sstati o ns, po lit ici ans, ad vertisi n g a ge n c i es , motivational spe ak e r s,  salesme n,
etc .  i t' s  suddenl yok? 

~~ ~ scint ill7 6 
U sers ofFacebo o kse e it as  a  neutr al  pl atf orm f o r co mmunic ating wi th pe o ple
they know. Consumers oft he t hi n gs y oulisted know  it' s  top -dow n  m ess a gingcomin gf ro m  people they don'tkn ow orneces sarily trust. 

So, ther e i s a diff eren c e. It's still a c omple x question ,  though-- is 
filteri ng or pri o r itizingbas edonemo t i on al sentimentr e ally  d ifferen t f rom
wha t t hey  ar e a lr eady doin g with i ns er ti ng  ad s and such?

~ ~~ 
Te MP Ora L
I s e e it t his w ay:th ey did  a stud y ,s o  it' sfa ir.
We re  they  tof ilt er post s by emot ion a l se nt im ent asa part of the ir  normal
op er ati ons, I ' d  find it  unethical, or at least somethi ngI mig ht n ot want.But 
I'm t ota l ly fin e with  them  s ubj e c tingu s er s ( in cluding my s e lf)  to r an domresearc h studies, as thos e  ar e temporary s itu atio n s ,and wi t h F ac e boo k ' s data
sets, th ey can hav eg re at benefit s  fo rhumanit y.

Per hapsF acebook  should p rovide an  o pt-i n opt ion to for  user to  be a sub j ect
o f  v ariou s s ociolo gi cal  expe riment s  at  unsp ecifie dtimes.  I'dha ppily se lect
it.

------
TeMPOr aL
I s trong lyhope that  th e y w on't care  abo ut any ofthi s " outra ge" and c onti n ue 
to do mo re a n d more ex p er ime n t s.  Maybe even o p enit up  as a plat form  for
scientists t o  conduct studi es.F ace boo k  isin  the unique po sit io n of posse ss ing data th at can b eo rders  of
ma gnitud e moreu s ef u l forsoci alstudies t han  s u rveys o fra n domlypick ed 
colle ge stu d ents 
------
ajays
I'm puzzled_about the_outrage.

FB _already_ filters out_updates based_on_some blackbox_algorithm._So they
tweaked the_parameters of that_algorithm to filter out_the "happier" updates,
and_observed_what happens. How is this unethical? The updates were posted by
the users' friends! FB_didn't_manufacture the_news_items;_they were always
there.

I detest FB_as much as the next_guy, but_this is ridiculous.

~~~
LoganCale
They altered people's feeds for a_psychological_experiment with the_specific
intent of manipulating their mood. That is _highly_ unethical.

~~~
TeMPOraL
But_why if it's done for science_it's unethical, but_when_done_by news
stations, politicians, advertising_agencies, motivational speakers, salesmen,
etc. it's suddenly_ok?

~~~
scintill76
Users of Facebook see it as_a neutral platform for communicating with people
they_know. Consumers of the things you_listed know it's top-down messaging
coming_from people_they don't know or necessarily_trust.

So, there is_a difference._It's still a_complex question, though -- is
filtering or_prioritizing based on_emotional sentiment really different from
what they_are_already doing with_inserting_ads_and such?

~~~
TeMPOraL
I_see it this_way:_they did_a_study, so it's fair.

Were they to_filter_posts by emotional sentiment as a part_of their normal
operations, I'd_find_it unethical, or at_least something I might not_want. But
I'm totally fine with them_subjecting users_(including myself)_to random
research studies, as those are temporary situations, and with Facebook's_data
sets, they can have great benefits_for humanity.

Perhaps Facebook should_provide an_opt-in_option to for_user_to be_a subject
of various sociological experiments at unspecified_times. I'd_happily select
it.

------
TeMPOraL
I strongly hope that they_won't care about any_of_this "outrage" and continue
to do more_and more experiments. Maybe even open_it up as a platform_for
scientists_to_conduct studies.

Facebook is in the_unique position of possessing data that_can be orders_of
magnitude more useful for social studies than_surveys_of randomly picked
college students