Hacker News Reader

Comment by icambron | Hacker News Reader

So, to demonstrate that, you need to make an argument that:

1. Describes the limits of what experimentation is ethical without consent (i.e. the relevant way in which A/B testing is different than what FB did) in a consistently applicable way.

2. Justify those limits from more basic principles.

Perhaps you can make that argument, and I wouldn't mind be convinced (seriously, I have no horse in this race). But as it stands, the handwaving about "manipulation" and breathless denunciation of an advertising company for being data-driven is pretty weak. You can yell "unethical" as loud as you please and brand people taking the opposite view as "fanboys", but it's not at all convincing.

View on HN

Well, just some thoughts:

1) Facebook is not an advertising company, although they are trying to be (and so far have been unsuccessful).

2) Facebook was not just manipulating adverts, but instead your entire feed, which up until recently, had been largely organic (what your friends posted, you saw... all of it).

3) Facebook never has discussed the possibility of "testing" on users, and the general assumption they do, does not excuse the practice.

4) A/B testing for which color button makes people click more often is far different than only displaying emotionally charged posts/images and seeing how users react. This has reminiscence of psychological warfare tactics employed (and now largely banned) by a Vietnam era CIA.

5) Facebook acknowledged the need for prior consent via TOS implicit agreement... but only after they had already concluded the "experiment" (actually, 4 months after).

6) If another company, say Google, manipulated your inbox without your consent nor knowledge, you would likely feel strongly. Both Gmail and Facebook are operated by companies that can do whatever they wish -- but this does not make it right to do whatever they wish.

1) That is where a significant portion of their revenue comes from.

2) News feed has been around for a long time in a form beyond what's newest. This has been well publicized.

3) Every company with durative engagement tests on users. If they don't, they don't have the interaction with users they desire.

4) Much like how the music in stores example is reminiscent of the CIA used music torture in Guantanamo. Or maybe, just maybe, there is some nuance to discuss?

5) This is the most valid of your points, but it's not uncommon for legal documents to be updated for more general coverage and doesn't necessarily imply the activity is unethical.

6) Gmail does. It's called spam filtering.

Gmail's spam filtering is certainly not run without consent or knowledge, unless you think I should be reviewing each piece of spam individually. It operates with the consent of spammers, but that hardly matters.

Changes to Gmail's spam filtering algorithms, however, do happen without your consent or knowledge. Similar to how changes to the algorithm governing FB's News Feed happen without your consent or knowledge, but you know that it exists. Like your spam folder, you can tab to "Most Recent" to see what you are missing.

> 1) Facebook is not an advertising company, although they are trying to be (and so far have been unsuccessful).

You seem to be accusing Facebook of having no business model. I believe virtually all of their revenue comes from ads, so it's difficult to say what they are if not an advertising company.

Forget Facebook, maybe you might like to describe the limits of what experimentation is ethical without consent for scientific study. That's what I'd like to know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com