The study, which was conducted in 2012 was designed to see how people react to positive and negative comments on Facebook. They did this by setting up an algorithm to detect positive, negative, and neutral posts. They then promoted this information to the user's feeds. At the end of the week-long experiment, they examined the user's posts to see if they were more positive or negative.
The study itself found that, positive posts prompted positive reactions from people, while negative posts prompted negative posts from the user. Interestingly enough, neutral posts created no response from the users. They simply went elsewhere. You can find a link to the study here.
That said, this experiment raised a lot of ire from the public. It is now to the point where British MPs have considered launching an investigation. Much of the ire came from the Media Reaction, (which is ironic when you think about it.) But I want to take a close look at Facebook's defense on the subject.
First, any experiment that uses human subjects is required to pass a review board to make sure the ethics of an experiment. Even as a Folklorist, I have to submit, what really amounts to extended journalism, to examine its ethics. A Cornell University IRB did approved the analysis of the data collected, however it was an IRB from Facebook that approved the data collection. This right there should have raised red flags. This is what we call "Conflict of Interest." While the Cornell University would have the Human Subjects in mind, a Facebook IRB could likely be more interested in the monetary value associated with this experiment. Even if they didn't, their jobs could be at stake should they decline the experiment. The first question I would ask is, why did Facebook not seek Cornell, or any other third party IRB to review the data collection? Would it have passed an different Review Board?
Second, what really is "Informed Consent?" In the paper, Mr. Kramer says no Informed Consent was needed because "it was consistent with Facebook’s Data Use Policy, to which all users agree prior to creating an account on Facebook, constituting informed consent for this research."
First, The Department of Health and Human Services is very clear on what is required when it comes to Informed Consent. It even provides a checklist of what should be included in informed consent documents. Facebook says its users agree to such experiments when you agree to its Terms of Services as well as its Data Use Policy. But does this satisfy the requirements from the HHS? Lets look closer at the HHS requirements for Informed Consent and see if the ToS would satisfy this.
| No. Only that data may be collected for research. | A statement that the study involves research |
| No. It makes no mention of the research at hand. | An explanation of the purposes of the research |
| No. Only that termination of the account would terminate the ToS. | The expected duration of the subject's participation |
| No. Does not talk about the experiment at hand. | A description of the procedures to be followed |
| No. Does not talk about the experiment at hand. | Identification of any procedures which are experimental |
| It does discuss privacy issues, but nothing with regards to the experiment in question. | A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject |
| It does not talk about the experiment at hand. | A description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be expected from the research |
| It does not talk about the experiment at hand. | A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject |
| At best, it discuss privacy and general data collection. | A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained |
| Says that you grant Facebook rights to use your intellectual property without compensation. | For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation, and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available, if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained |
| (Not about the research at hand.) Research Qs | An explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and research subjects' rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject |
| (Discusses general rights in its terms of use.) Rights Qs | |
| (that Facebook is not liable for injury resulting from its use.) Injury Qs | |
| Does not indicate if participation in the experiment if voluntary. The only method of withdraw is to delete you Facebook account. However Users were not notified of this experiment until after it was conducted. | A statement that participation is voluntary, refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits, to which the subject is otherwise entitled |
In addition to this, HHS provides possible exceptions to such experimentation.
| This research was conducted by a private company | C: 1.The research or demonstration project is to be conducted by, or subject to the approval of, state or local government officials, and is designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine: (i) public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs; and |
| Does not mention in the paper if this would be the case. | C: 2.The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration. |
| Considering the subject, this would be debatable. | D: 1. The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects; |
| Most users felt this did adversely affect their rights. However, this is also a subject of debate. | D: 2.The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; |
| Again, there is no mention in the journal that this would be the case. | D: 3.The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration; and |
| No mention of the experiment was made until its publication 2 1/2 years after the fact. | D: 4.Whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation. |
Here, we see only two possibilities in which alterations, or exemptions could be granted,. Yet, the journal discusses neither of these exemptions.
The other issue with using a ToS as Informed Consent is with the very phrase Informed Consent. When you sign such a document, you are given all the information above, in as simple language as possible. It should be read by the subject and signed, with a copy for them to retain. Any normal person will tell you that EULAs and ToS are difficult to read. They are clouded in Legaleeze, long, boring, and are often just skipped over with the "I Accept" button on the bottom. This is not informed consent!
Moreover the ToS does say that data may be collected for research, but it is assumed by context that such research would be used by the Facebook to improve technical aspects, not scientific ones. Thus it would not satisfy any definition of informed consent.
In his blog, Tal Yarkoni, a researcher at the University of Texas Department of Psychology, provides a defenses for Facebook.
He starts off by saying that the experiment did not "manipulate any actual posts." It is true that no posts were created or deleted by Facebook, it only changed the algorithm of what the subjects saw on their main page. The article (not the blog) also says that you can go directly to a friends page and see the posting that you would have missed due to the algorithm changes. However, this greatly misses the point. Most users are able to set their own settings as to what they want to see or not see. Thus, there is some control that is being taken away by the researchers. This control is being taken away without the knowledge or consent of the users.
He also argues that it is not clear if any users actually "experienced" the results of the manipulated posts. He goes further by saying that Facebook, as do all corporations and humans, manipulates the user experience all the time, regardless of the experiment. This is also a true statement. But what is different here is the goal. While Google might alter an algorithm to improve the user experience, Facebook simply did it to see what the reaction would be. Worst still, there was no regard for the possible ramifications. Would a user commit suicide because of the overwhelmingly negative posts? Probably not. The more important question is this; was this ever a concern for the IRB or the researchers? We never know how a human will react to an experiment. A researcher knows this. And if there was an informed consent document signed, it would have been place on that document.
His final argument is one I find the most disturbing. That we must weigh the motives of such research. While I don't doubt the researcher had societal interests at heart, the improvement of society does not negate the rights of the subjects. It could be argued that doctors working for Unit 731 had societies interests in mind. Same could be said for the US Public Health Service in the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment. Even results from the Nazi's hypothermia experiments are used to supplement existing data on the subject. (Highly controversially use I might add. Much of the research by the Nazi's were either duplicative, filled with errors, or useless.) But the "ends justify the means" argument should always be a red flag in terms of ethics. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And I think this is the takeaway from this experiment.
People are rightly angry over this experiment. Had ethical standards been applied, this research would have been useful. There is no evidence to suggest that it would have altered the results, even it if meant slight alterations to how it was conducted. It will also be interesting to see how this plays out in courts. (After all it will see a judge at some point.) It will also be interesting to see how users will react to this. Will users make Facebook pay for this infraction? Or will they hold their noses and stick with the platform?
He starts off by saying that the experiment did not "manipulate any actual posts." It is true that no posts were created or deleted by Facebook, it only changed the algorithm of what the subjects saw on their main page. The article (not the blog) also says that you can go directly to a friends page and see the posting that you would have missed due to the algorithm changes. However, this greatly misses the point. Most users are able to set their own settings as to what they want to see or not see. Thus, there is some control that is being taken away by the researchers. This control is being taken away without the knowledge or consent of the users.
He also argues that it is not clear if any users actually "experienced" the results of the manipulated posts. He goes further by saying that Facebook, as do all corporations and humans, manipulates the user experience all the time, regardless of the experiment. This is also a true statement. But what is different here is the goal. While Google might alter an algorithm to improve the user experience, Facebook simply did it to see what the reaction would be. Worst still, there was no regard for the possible ramifications. Would a user commit suicide because of the overwhelmingly negative posts? Probably not. The more important question is this; was this ever a concern for the IRB or the researchers? We never know how a human will react to an experiment. A researcher knows this. And if there was an informed consent document signed, it would have been place on that document.
His final argument is one I find the most disturbing. That we must weigh the motives of such research. While I don't doubt the researcher had societal interests at heart, the improvement of society does not negate the rights of the subjects. It could be argued that doctors working for Unit 731 had societies interests in mind. Same could be said for the US Public Health Service in the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment. Even results from the Nazi's hypothermia experiments are used to supplement existing data on the subject. (Highly controversially use I might add. Much of the research by the Nazi's were either duplicative, filled with errors, or useless.) But the "ends justify the means" argument should always be a red flag in terms of ethics. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And I think this is the takeaway from this experiment.
People are rightly angry over this experiment. Had ethical standards been applied, this research would have been useful. There is no evidence to suggest that it would have altered the results, even it if meant slight alterations to how it was conducted. It will also be interesting to see how this plays out in courts. (After all it will see a judge at some point.) It will also be interesting to see how users will react to this. Will users make Facebook pay for this infraction? Or will they hold their noses and stick with the platform?
