Ethicists say Facebook's experiments not SO creepy The Ethical Research Project has weighed into the argument over the ethics of Facebook's “creepy” social contagion research, doing the unthinkable: actually asking ordinary punters how they feel about being lab rats. Interestingly, the study suggests that users might have not felt too badly about the Facebook work, if anyone …
So, the "ethics boffins" didn't weigh in on the ethics of how this "experiment" was conducted but how people felt it? I gues my definition of ethics is different then theirs. I don't believe it matters how people feel but ethics is about something being done the right way. "Ethics boffins"? Let's try "trick cyclists" maybe.
> So, the "ethics boffins" didn't weigh in on the ethics of how this "experiment" was conducted but how people felt it?
AFAICS 'how a person[*] feels about X' is the core of ethics. Thought experiment: if someone consciously doesn't mind X being done to them, can it be unethical? I'd say no.
Also they aren't 'ethics boffins', their website says (summary extracts) We use the tools of scientific inquiry to the understand the conditions under which research participants, and the public in general, consider research practices such as deception to be justifiable ... We conduct surveys to gauge the public's ethical response to controversial, or potentially controversial, experimental designs. They are essentially survey-takers. Try following the link before putting the boot in.
(none of the above is to defend facebook in any way)
[*] or other sufficiently complex entities
That Stuart Sheitter wrote this and it would appear he's very comfortable with the nature of herr Zuckerbergs online manipulations - See 3.2 of the document. WTF, facef@ck has an IRB? Of course all participants had the right to wihdraw from the study, yeh right.
It's always 'tempting' to assume that people are swayed by the media but the researchers offer the following 'alternate hypothesis' which I feel is likely the more accurate one:
"Yet another alternate hypothesis is that those who are most likely to disapprove of the ethics of the Face-book experiment, or of research studies in general, were more likely to seek out hear about it from friends or see coverage of it in the media."
For example, those in tech circles are more likely to be privacy-oriented and also more likely to read tech blogs and news sites (like this), that will have coverage.
If ith hathn'th got a lighthning rod sthrappeth tho ith!
That being said ethics** ( the biology Boffin variety) , and Ethics ( the trick-cyclists variety) are two different beasts, and the confusion of the two regularly gives rise to this kind of fun.
** The one where option "whack-you-over-the head-if-you displease-me" is a valid, and general purpose option. This is why biologists tend to just Grin at trick cyclists. They can defend the Ook! option, and usually are able to get away with it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
