Facebook manipulates user's moods

[mordorbund]

For you facebook users out there, the Atlantic has a story about some experiments that the company performed on almost 700,000 of its users. From "Everything we Know about Facebook's Secret Mood Manipulation Experiment" (not linked because they published a tweet with profanity, but this is the actual study):

 

 

For one week in January 2012, data scientists skewed what almost 700,000 Facebook users saw when they logged into its service. Some people were shown content with a preponderance of happy and positive words; some were shown content analyzed as sadder than average.

 

Now, companies have been performing experiments on us for decades. That's how advertising works (tweaking price points, color schemes, wording, etc). What's different here is that rather than making tweaks to affect their bottom line, fb decided to try some research for research's sake. What also marks this from traditional research is that usually study participants are aware that they are part of some experiment (even if they think they're playing a different role), whereas these participants gave their consent by agreeing to a EULA upon signing up for the service.

 

Ethics, science, and business

So do you think it was ethical for researchers (fb or not) to perform an experiment - especially one that involves potential mood-altering - without express consent from the participants?

 

Is it even possible to get reliable data in the social sciences when the subjects know they are being observed?

 

Do you think it is noteworthy or even noble that a company uses its resources for pure research?

 

Philosophy and religion

I've worked in the e-commerce space and seen experiments to alter user behavior. Gamer studies have performed similar research to find the balance between difficulty/reward (that's why every rpg starts with a really simple boss fight and a quick level-up, followed by grinding once you're already invested). Basically, the reality of this world is that I can treat people as a collective herd and get the desired response from them (increased revenues, elections, steering a mosh pit, what-have-you). 

 

Where do you think mass manipulation fits with the principle of agency and free will?

 

Is this one of the things that makes Babylon so evil? or is this among the learnings we're supposed to gain as saints to win over souls?

[Guest]

Mark Zuckerburg IS evil! 

[NeuroTypical]

I can't seem to get upset about this.  

 

Show me a business that advertises, that doesn't attempt to manipulate a desired response out of people.

 

Show me a kid that hasn't at some point in their development, said something "just to see what people would do."

[mordorbund]

I can't seem to get upset about this.  

 

Show me a business that advertises, that doesn't attempt to manipulate a desired response out of people.

 

 

Like I said, I've actually been involved in such manipulations. On the one hand, it's exciting to see that you can turn this dial and push that button and watch the masses respond. On the other hand, it's disconcerting because it reduces them to animals.

 

How do you think Free Will fits into this? Is that a principle only for individuals and not masses? Is this something God uses to get the overall results He wants in key moments of history?

 

 

 

 

Show me a kid that hasn't at some point in their development, said something "just to see what people would do."

 

Yup, kids do that sort of thing. Grownups who do this sort of thing are given some foul names.

[The Folk Prophet]

Where do you think mass manipulation fits with the principle of agency and free will?

 

It fits well in the principle of agency. It does not fit well into free will -- which we plainly do not have in all regards.

[NeuroTypical]

I reconcile free-will issues like this:

 

"Just because I will tend to get sad when looking at sad stuff, just like 89% of everyone else, doesn't mean I don't have agency to choose."

 

Then I sit back and gather folks' opinions to the contrary, and I've yet to find any of them persuasive.

[Urstadt]

Like I said, I've actually been involved in such manipulations. On the one hand, it's exciting to see that you can turn this dial and push that button and watch the masses respond. On the other hand, it's disconcerting because it reduces them to animals.

 

How do you think Free Will fits into this? Is that a principle only for individuals and not masses? Is this something God uses to get the overall results He wants in key moments of history?

Mimetic Theory, by Rene Girard, may shed some light on this. Desire is merely copied, mimicked. It's mimetic in that once a person sees something someone wants (say an iPhone or S5), now that person wants it too. Ontological Hermeneutics (not exactly the same as regular hermeneutics) describes what's referred to as a background and a foreground in our minds. Charles Taylor has written quite a bit about these. When thoughts, emotions, impressions, etc occur in the background, they are typically not articulated enough for us to respond to and think deeply, or authentically, about. This causes us to be acted upon by these inarticulate, background thoughts, emotions, etc. Once we do bring something out of the background, into the foreground, it is articulated and we are more apt to act, rather than be acted upon.

Mimetic theory purports that if our desire is merely mimicked, copied, it is because we do not bring that mimicked desire out of the background, and into the foreground for examination. This is what creates the "herd" mentality that causes us to forfeit, or under utilize our agency.

My overall point is that regardless of what manipulations marketing uses, they are only successful when people fail to bring their mimetic desires out of the background and into the foreground where they can (among other things) think honestly and openly about who they are, what they want, what they need, and how they are using their agency.

[mordorbund]

Ursadt, since you're in the field, what are your thoughts about the ethics of psychologically experimenting on people without explicit consent? So often, the studies I hear about have subjects come in thinking they're getting tested on one things (say, and intelligence test where they answer 10 or 20 questions quickly) and instead they're getting tested on something else entirely (like their mood after they've been primed with 10 or 20 negatively- or positively- skewed questions). I'm aware that it's a necessity to ensure a blind study, but is it morally right?

[The Folk Prophet]

Freedom may be taken away. Whether this is moral or not, I think, is relative. It is, in fact, the moral choice to deny freedom in some cases. Criminals, being the obvious example.

 

Agency, on the other hand, may not be taken away. No matter what we do to another we cannot take away their agency.

 

God denies freedoms. This is inherent in mortality. We are not completely free because we are imperfect, weak, and lacking in a great deal of intelligence. And this is even relative per the situation we are born into. Some are clearly born with more freedoms than others. God allows this. But everyone of us, kings or slaves, maintains agency.

 

It may or may not be moral to manipulate others moods. That is a separate question from agency. To manipulate another's mood does not remove their agency. It cannot. Agency may not be taken away from us by another. Therefore the search for morality or the lack thereof in such things must be rooted in something other than agency as the guiding principle.

[mordorbund]

Freedom may be taken away. Whether this is moral or not, I think, is relative. It is, in fact, the moral choice to deny freedom in some cases. Criminals, being the obvious example.

 

Agency, on the other hand, may not be taken away. No matter what we do to another we cannot take away their agency.

 

God denies freedoms. This is inherent in mortality. We are not completely free because we are imperfect, weak, and lacking in a great deal of intelligence. And this is even relative per the situation we are born into. Some are clearly born with more freedoms than others. God allows this. But everyone of us, kings or slaves, maintains agency.

 

It may or may not be moral to manipulate others moods. That is a separate question from agency. To manipulate another's mood does not remove their agency. It cannot. Agency may not be taken away from us by another. Therefore the search for morality or the lack thereof in such things must be rooted in something other than agency as the guiding principle.

 

The moral question is a separate one - it has to do with leading people to believe you will test them one way and then testing them another way. In dealing with people, any argument that starts with "technically" is already on weak footing.

 

For agency, the reason why I ask is because there is accountability for what we do. For these things that are done "in the background" who's accountable for it? Is it the individual who is now walking out of the room sadder? Or is it the person who decided "in the foreground" to prime the questions? Is it the person who clicked the "buy" button? or is it the web designer who primed her with the right colors and phrasing?

[The Folk Prophet]

For agency, the reason why I ask is because there is accountability for what we do. For these things that are done "in the background" who's accountable for it? Is it the individual who is now walking out of the room sadder? Or is it the person who decided "in the foreground" to prime the questions? Is it the person who clicked the "buy" button? or is it the web designer who primed her with the right colors and phrasing?

 

Which is in some ways the age-old, 'does art mimic life or does life mimic art' question.

[estradling75]

The moral question is a separate one - it has to do with leading people to believe you will test them one way and then testing them another way. In dealing with people, any argument that starts with "technically" is already on weak footing.

 

For agency, the reason why I ask is because there is accountability for what we do. For these things that are done "in the background" who's accountable for it? Is it the individual who is now walking out of the room sadder? Or is it the person who decided "in the foreground" to prime the questions? Is it the person who clicked the "buy" button? or is it the web designer who primed her with the right colors and phrasing?

 

 

Why does accountability have to be binary?   Why "this person OR that person?"  If I click a button I am responsible for that choice.  If I try to manipulate them to do what I want I am responsible for that choice.  If I choose to manipulate some one into clicking a button both me and the button clicker are responsible for our actions.

[The Folk Prophet]

Why does accountability have to be binary?   Why "this person OR that person?"  If I click a button I am responsible for that choice.  If I try to manipulate them to do what I want I am responsible for that choice.  If I choose to manipulate some one into clicking a button both me and the button clicker are responsible for our actions.

 

Right...but I think when it comes to a lot of things it is not that simple. Take, for example, television and movies and the destructive effect they have had on morality over the past 40 years. Take all the folk who are raised in this society and can no longer comprehend morality. How can they? They don't understand it. They have never been taught anything but amorality. Are they accountable?

 

What, I suppose, it comes down to is a question of how strong is the Light of Christ. Can a child raised by gay parents watching gay tv shows with gay friends supported by gay parades and news outlets have a chance at ever understanding there may, actually, be a choice in the matter?

 

Is there, perhaps, a level of manipulation that is binary. It may not exist in a single instance, but as an overall societal paradigm, is is possible that accountability has been diminished because of this manipulation? It's an interesting question.

[estradling75]

Right...but I think when it comes to a lot of things it is not that simple. Take, for example, television and movies and the destructive effect they have had on morality over the past 40 years. Take all the folk who are raised in this society and can no longer comprehend morality. How can they? They don't understand it. They have never been taught anything but amorality. Are they accountable?

 

What, I suppose, it comes down to is a question of how strong is the Light of Christ. Can a child raised by gay parents watching gay tv shows with gay friends supported by gay parades and news outlets have a chance at ever understanding there may, actually, be a choice in the matter?

 

Is there, perhaps, a level of manipulation that is binary. It may not exist in a single instance, but as an overall societal paradigm, is is possible that accountability has been diminished because of this manipulation? It's an interesting question.

 

 

It is because you have moved on to the next step which is judgment.  If someone is not accountable for what happened then there can be no judgment on that action toward that person.  However if a person is accountable then judgment can be made, based on the circumstances.  One can be accountable but judged very lightly.

[The Folk Prophet]

It is because you have moved on to the next step which is judgment.  If someone is not accountable for what happened then there can be no judgment on that action toward that person.  However if a person is accountable then judgment can be made, based on the circumstances.  One can be accountable but judged very lightly.

 

I'm not sure how this plays into my point. Maybe I'm not understanding you well. Aren't morality and God's judgment sort of one and the same? Moreover, you had brought up the non-binary nature of accountability. Accountability requires judgment (as you point out), so isn't it natural to move on to the next step (if that's what I did)?

 

Let's see...so what I'm trying to ask is... At what level do we lose accountability for our views? How far must we be manipulated to no longer be accountable?

 

Certainly, I agree, that in general accountability is not binary. Not in the least. But I do wonder, particularly in the extremes of moral decay in our society, if there may not be a level where people are not accountable for their messed up ideologies. 

[Urstadt]

Ursadt, since you're in the field, what are your thoughts about the ethics of psychologically experimenting on people without explicit consent? ...is it morally right?

My answer has 2 parts:

1) No, is it not morally right, but that isn't so much the issue. The issues are how informed do they need to be? And, when should they be informed of everything? A secondary issue is that being informed is not always the moral precedent of the study whereas harm to the participants is. Take two studies for example. The first, the Stanley Milgram experiements in the 60's about authority. All participants were being told they were shocking an individual. What they didn't know was that the person supposedly being shocked, in fact, wasn't. He was just acting. Participants made their own choice to continue shocking them or not. Many refused to. But, all participants were shown after the study that the person was just acting. There was no real harm here to the participants. The second example is the Phillip Zambardo prison experiments. Half the participants played the role of prison guards while the other half played the role of prisoners. But, all of them had full consent (even though this has been wrongfully contested). Despite their full informed consent the experiment ended horribly with physical and psychological damage to both parties. The guards became physically abusive to the prisoners and the prisoners developed learned helplessness, stockholm syndrome, and severe depression. When you take these two studies, it wasn't the informed consent that was the problem, it was how the studies were conducted from the ground up.

2) What really concerns me are ethics of how research results are presented in the behavioral sciences. They are presented as evidenced-based, empirical studies. So the results are taken as scientific fact. But, this is a questionable assertion at best.

Take Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for example. This is currently the leading therapy in our field. It is also one of the worst ones. But, it is considered evidenced-based and empirically "proven" to be more effective than any other therapy. But, these waters are beyond muddied, which the researchers know that. The truth is, CBT is not empirical supported. All one has to do is look at the research methods, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis to see that.

So, even though those research participants of CBT studies are fully informed, I believe the real immoral precedent here is that counselors, clients, insurance companies and courts, and the general public are misled entirely about the "scientific" basis of CBT, causing them to pursue it, pay money for it, try to live by it, just to find out afterward that they didn't get the results they were led to believe.

Thank you for asking. Does this answer your question?

[andypg]

I can tell you this, before following so many libertarian pages, I was so happy being ignorant on political issues and issues of police brutality that it has made me much more cynical