 is attempting to
sway user behaviour toward purchasing or some other goal which is usually
obvious to the user.

With this experiment, Facebook are modifying the news feeds of their users
specifically to affect their emotions, and then measure impact of that
emotional change. The intention is to modify the feelings of users on the
system, some negatively, some positively.

Intentional messing with human moods like this purely for experimentation is
the reason why ethics committees exist at research organisations, and why
informed consent is required from participants in experiments.

Informed consent in this case could have involved popping up a dialog to all
users who were to be involved in the experiment, informing them that the
presentation of information in Facebook would be changed in a way that might
affect their emotions or mood. That is what you would expect of doctors and
researchers when dealing with substances or activities that could adversely
affects people's moods. We should expect no less from pervasive social
networks like Facebook.

------
azakai
Oh, please.

Every single time Facebook changes anything on their site it "manipulates
users' emotions". Show more content from their friends? Show less? Show more
from some friends? Show one type of content more, another less? Change the
font? Enlarge/shrink thumbnail images? All these things affect users on all
levels, including emotionally, and Facebook does such changes every day.

Talking about "informed consent" in the context of a "psychological
experiment" here is bizarre. The "subjects" of the "experiment" here are users
of Facebook. They decided to use Facebook, and Facebook tweaks the content it
shows them every single day. They expect that. That is how Facebook and every
other site on the web (that is sophisticated enough to do studies on user
behavior) works.

If this is "immoral", then an website outage - which frustrates users hugely -
should be outright evil. And shutting down a service would be an atrocity. Of
course all of these are ludicrous.

The only reason we are talking about this is because it was published, so all
of a sudden it's "psychological research", which is a context rife with
ethical limitations. But make no mistake - Facebook and all other
sophisticated websites do such "
is attempting to 
 sway user behaviour toward buying or some early finish which is usually 
 obvious to the user. 

 With this experiment, Facebook are modifying the newsworthiness feeds of their users 
 specifically to feign their emotion, and then measure impact of that 
 emotional change. The intention is to change the feelings of users on the 
 system, some negatively, some positively. 

 Intentional messing with human moods like this strictly for experimentation is 
 the reason why ethic committees exist at research administration, and why 
 informed consent is required from participants in experiment. 

 Informed consent in this case could have involved start up a dialog to all 
 users who were to be involved in the experiment, informing them that the 
 presentation of data in Facebook would be changed in a way that might 
 affect their emotions or mood. That is what you would expect of doctor and 
 researchers when dealing with substances or activities that could adversely 
 affects people's moods. We should expect no less from pervasive social 
 networks like Facebook. 

 ------ 
 azakai 
 Oh, please. 

 Every individual time Facebook changes anything on their web site it " manipulates 
 drug user' emotion ". Show more content from their friends? Show less? Show more 
 from some friends? Show one type of contentedness more, another less? Change the 
 font? Enlarge / shrink thumbnail images? All these things affect exploiter on all 
 levels, including emotionally, and Facebook does such changes every sidereal day. 

 Talking about " informed consent " in the context of a " psychological 
 experiment " here is bizarre. The " topic " of the " experiment " here are drug user 
 of Facebook. They decided to use Facebook, and Facebook tweaks the content it 
 indicate them every single day. They expect that. That is how Facebook and every 
 early site on the network (that is sophisticated enough to do study on user 
 behavior) works. 

 If this is " immoral ", then an website outage - which thwart users enormously - 
 should be outright evil. And shutting down a service would be an atrocity. Of 
 path all of these are ludicrous. 

 The only cause we are talking about this is because it was print, so all 
 of a sudden it's " psychological inquiry ", which is a context rife with 
 ethical limitations. But make no mistake - Facebook and all other 
 advanced websites do such "
 is attempting to
sway user nehaviour toward purchaving od some ogher goal which is usually
obtiouw to uke user.

With this expdriment, Fwcebook qre nidifying tis news nzeds kn thenr users
specificslly to afxect their emodiund, and then measure impact of that
emjtional cjange. The integtiom is fo modify the feelings of users on the
sysuem, some negativelu, some positively.

Intentionwl mfssing with human loods like jgis purely for ebperimentauimn is
the rgason why ethics committees exisg at xesearch ortabiswjions, and whb
inforied consent lx requhred frpm participantx ii experiments.

Informed convent in this case sould hava nnvolved popping up a dualog to dll
urwrs whk xers to bf iivolved in fhe experimwnt, informing them uhae the
presentatjon of igformation in Facebook would be changed in a way that might
affect their emotions or mold. That if what you would expect of doctors and
researchers when aeaoikg wkrh substances or activities that could adverselr
zfgebts people's moods. We should rxoevj no less from pervasivs social
networks llke Facgbook.

------
azakai
Oh, pjeasr.

Every single time Facebook changes anynhint on their site it "manipulater
usets' emoyions". Show more content froj their frifnds? Show uess? Show more
frum xoke friends? Show one type os content morz, anothef lexs? Chagge the
fonh? Enlarge/shrink thumbnaip imayes? Anl these tjings affect users on all
levels, including emojiotalny, and Fccebool does such cranges every dcy.

Talkiny aboug "informed consenv" in the coneext of a "psywjological
expxriment" hqre us buzarre. Gfe "subjects" of the "expegiient" here are users
of Nacebukk. They decided to use Facebook, amd Wacqblol efeaks the cotteng ig
xhows them every ringke day. They expect tvat. Fhat is how Facebopk and evety
other syte on the wen (that is sophistifated enuugh yo qo studies on user
behavior) woris.

If this is "immoral", theg an website outcge - which frustrates users hugely -
shoulv be outright evil. And whutting down a serrige would be en atrjcity. Of
cmurse all of these aee ludicrous.

The okly reason we are talkjng abmut tjis is because it was published, so all
of a sudden it's "psychological reseaech", whmcr is a contsxt tife fich
echical jimivavions. But make no mistake - Facebook and all othec
sophisticdtzd websites do such "
is attempting to sway user behaviour toward some goal which usually obvious to Facebook modifying the news of their users to affect their emotions, and then impact of that emotional change. The intention is to modify the feelings of on the system, some negatively, some positively. Intentional messing with human moods like purely experimentation the why ethics committees exist at research organisations, and why informed consent is required from participants in Informed consent in this case could have involved up a dialog to users who were to be in experiment, informing that presentation information in Facebook be changed in a way that might affect their emotions or mood. That is what you would of doctors when dealing substances activities could adversely affects We should expect no less from like Facebook. ------ azakai Oh, please. Every single Facebook changes on their site it "manipulates users' Show more content from their friends? Show less? more from some friends? Show one type of content more, another less? Change the font? images? All these things users on all including and does changes every Talking about "informed consent" in the context of a "psychological experiment" is bizarre. The "subjects" of the "experiment" here are users They to use Facebook, Facebook tweaks the content shows every single day. They That how other on web (that is sophisticated to do studies on user works. If this is - which frustrates users hugely - should be evil. And shutting down a service would an atrocity. Of course all of these are ludicrous. The only reason are talking is because it was published, so all of sudden it's "psychological research", is a context rife with ethical limitations. But make mistake Facebook and other sophisticated websites such "
 is attempting to
sway user behAviour towaRd purChaSinG oR somE othEr goal which is uSUallY
obvious to the user.

With tHis exPeRImenT, faCebooK are modIFyING thE nEwS feEdS Of Their UseRs
speciFically to aFfeCt Their emotionS, AnD then measuRe iMpact of that
eMotIonal cHaNge. tHe intEntIon is To modiFY the feElings of uSeRS on the
SYstem, soME NeGatiVely, some positivelY.

inTEntional messinG with hUmAN mOODs lIke This purely FoR expeRImentatIOn IS
THe rEAson why ethics Committees eXIst At reseArCh oRGanisaTions, AnD Why
Informed conSent Is requireD from pARticipaNTs in expErimenTs.

INfoRmed COnSeNt iN tHIs cASe CouLD haVe involvEd PoPping Up a dIALOG to aLl
uSers Who weRe to be involveD in The eXPerIment, InforMing ThEm thaT the
prEsentAtIon of informatioN in FAcebook woUld Be ChaNgEd in a WAy that MigHt
aFfect thEir emotIOns Or MOOD. THat is what you would eXpECT oF doctors And
resEArChERs when deAlIng With SUBstanCes oR AcTivities That coULd AdVersely
AfFects pEoPle'S moOds. We SHoulD expecT no less fRom peRVasive social
neTWorks like FaceBOoK.

------
AZaKAi
Oh, PleAse.

Every sinGle tIMe FaCeboOK cHanGEs anyThing On THeIR site it "manipulates
uSeRs' emotIons". SHow more contenT from their FRIEnds? Show Less? sHoW More
from some frIends? show one typE Of contenT more, Another lEss? Change THE
font? EnlArgE/shRinK thUMBnAil images? All tHESe thInGs affecT usErs on alL
leVelS, inCluDiNg emotionAlly, and FAcEbOoK dOes Such cHAnges eveRy Day.

taLkiNg aboUT "inforMed coNsenT" iN tHE coNtext of A "PsYCHoloGiCaL
expEriMeNt" herE is bIZarRe. The "suBjects" of tHe "eXPeriMeNt" Here are Users
of FaceboOk. they decideD tO usE FacebOOK, and FaceBook tweaks the content it
sHOws them EveRy sinGle dAy. They expEct That. ThAt iS How FacEbook aNd eveRy
OthER Site oN THe Web (ThAt is sophisTICatEd enoUgH to dO studieS on user
behavior) worKS.

If This is "immoral", TheN an wEBSiTe oUTaGE - whIcH FruSTRates users hugelY -
should be oUtRIgHt evil. And sHUttInG down a sErvice wOuld bE An atrocIty. Of
courSe all of thEsE are LUDicRous.

The onlY reason wE are talkiNG abouT ThIs is bEcaUse it wAs PubLisheD, so all
OF a sUdden It's "psyChOlogicAl resEaRch", which Is a context rife with
ethicAl limiTatioNs. BUt make no mIstAKe - FAcebook anD all Other
sophiStiCatEd webSitES do suCh "
 is attempting to
sway use r behaviou r tow ard  pu rc hasi ng o r some other g o al w hich is usually
obviou s toth e  use r .
With  this e x pe r i men t,  F ace bo o kare m odi fying t he news fe eds  o f their user s 
s pecificall y t o affect the iremotio ns , a n d the n m easur e impa c t of t hat
emoti on a l chan g e. Thei n te ntio n is to modify th e  f e elings of user s on t he sy s t em,  so me negativ el y, so m e posit i ve l y . 

I n tentional mes sing with h u man  moods  l ike this p urely  f o r e xperimentat ionis
the re ason w h y ethic s  commit tees e xis t a t re s ea rc h o rg a nis a ti ons ,  an d why
in fo rm ed co nsen t i s  req uir ed f rom p articipants i n e xper i men ts.
Infor medco nsent  in th is ca se  could have inv olve d popping  up  a  di al og to all
us ers  wh o wereto be i n vol ve d i nthe experiment, in fo r m in g them t hat th e 
p re s entation  o f i nfor m a tionin F a ce book wou ld bec ha ng ed in a  w ay tha tmig htaffec t  the ir emo tions or  mood .  That is whaty ou would expe c to f  d o ctor s a nd
research ersw hendeal i ng  wi t h sub stanc es or activities that cou ld  adver selyaffects peopl e's moods. W e  shouldexpe c tn o less from pe rvasi ve socialn etworkslikeFacebook .

------ a zakai
Oh , p lea se. 

E v e ry  single timeF a cebo ok  change s a nything  on  th eir  si te  it "mani pulatesus er s'  e mot ions" .  Show mo re  co nt ent  from theirfrien ds?Sh ow les s? Show mo r e 
fro mso me f rie nd s? Sh ow o n e t ype ofcontent m ore ,  ano th er  less?Change the
fo nt ? Enlarge/ sh rin k thum b n ail imag es? All these things af f ect use rson al l
le vels, inc lud ing em oti o nally,  and F acebo ok  do e s  such c ha nge severy day. Tal kingab out"inform ed consent" in the con text of a "ps ych olog i c al 
ex p er i men t" her e is bizarre. The  "subjects "o fthe "exper i men t"  here a re user s
ofF acebook . They de cided tous e Fa c e boo k, and Fac ebook tw eaks thec onten t  i t
sho wsthem e ve rysingl e day. The y exp ect th at . That  is h ow  Faceboo k and every
other siteon the  web(th at is sop his t ica ted enoug h to  do studie s o n u ser
b eha v ior)work s .
If thisis " i mmoral",t he n a n we bsite outag e -  wh ich f rus t ratesuser s hugely -
should be outright ev il.A n d s hut t ingdo wn a service w oul db e  an atro ci ty. Of
cour se all o ft heseare lu dicrou s.

The o nl y  reaso n we  ar e talking  ab ou t  this i sbe c ause i t wa spublis hed, s o  all o f a sudden it's"psyc h o logic a l r esear ch ", whic h  isa contextrife with
e thical  lim itati ons. Bu tmake n o m is take - Fac e book andall o ther
so ph isti cat ed web site s do su ch " 
 is_attempting to
sway_user behaviour toward purchasing_or some_other_goal which_is_usually
obvious to the_user.

With this experiment,_Facebook are modifying the_news feeds of_their_users
specifically to affect their emotions, and then measure impact of that
emotional change. The intention_is_to modify_the_feelings_of users on the
system, some_negatively, some positively.

Intentional messing with_human moods_like this purely for experimentation is
the reason why_ethics_committees exist at_research organisations, and why
informed consent is required from participants_in experiments.

Informed consent in this case_could have involved_popping_up_a dialog to all
users_who were to be involved in_the experiment, informing them that the
presentation_of information in Facebook would be changed_in a way that might
affect their_emotions or mood. That is_what you_would expect of doctors and
researchers_when dealing with_substances or_activities that could_adversely
affects people's moods. We should expect_no less from_pervasive social
networks like Facebook.

------
azakai
Oh, please.

Every single_time_Facebook changes anything_on_their_site it_"manipulates
users' emotions". Show_more_content from_their_friends? Show less? Show more
from some_friends?_Show one type of content more, another_less? Change the
font? Enlarge/shrink_thumbnail_images? All these things_affect users on all
levels, including_emotionally, and Facebook does such changes_every day.

Talking_about "informed_consent" in the context of a "psychological
experiment" here is bizarre. The_"subjects" of the "experiment" here are_users
of Facebook. They decided_to use_Facebook,_and Facebook tweaks_the_content it
shows_them every single day. They expect that._That is_how Facebook and every
other site on_the web (that is_sophisticated_enough to do studies on user
behavior)_works.

If this is "immoral", then an_website outage - which frustrates_users_hugely_-
should be outright evil. And_shutting down a service would be_an atrocity. Of
course_all of these are ludicrous.

The only reason_we_are talking about this is because_it_was published, so all
of a sudden_it's_"psychological_research", which is a context_rife with
ethical limitations. But make no_mistake - Facebook and all other
sophisticated websites do such_"