Facebook experiment

Fluxfan

Has anyone read about Facebooks experiment on users in 2012?

From the Guardian:

"Facebook, the world's biggest social networking site, is facing a storm of protest after it revealed it had discovered how to make users feel happier or sadder with a few computer key strokes.

It has published details of a vast experiment in which it manipulated information posted on 689,000 users' home pages and found it could make people feel more positive or negative through a process of "emotional contagion".

In a study with academics from Cornell and the University of California, Facebook filtered users' news feeds – the flow of comments, videos, pictures and web links posted by other people in their social network. One test reduced users' exposure to their friends' "positive emotional content", resulting in fewer positive posts of their own. Another test reduced exposure to "negative emotional content" and the opposite happened.

The study concluded: "Emotions expressed by friends, via online social networks, influence our own moods, constituting, to our knowledge, the first experimental evidence for massive-scale emotional contagion via social networks."

Freaky stuff. Shows just how powerful they really are.

Have been considering deleting my profile for a while now but this is definitely the push I need!

Wouldnt let me post the link btw

solomafioso

Sure isn't society one big social experiment? *puts on tinfoil hat*

The author also apologised!

http://time.com/2939100/facebook-study-emotions-adam-kramer/

The Author of a Controversial Facebook Study Says He’s ‘Sorry’
Stephanie Burnett @stephy_burnett 2:44 AM ET
But he also defends his research into the transmission of emotional states

One of the authors of a controversial Facebook study into emotional states published this month has apologized for anxiety caused.

Facebook tweaked the News Feeds of nearly 700,000 users by displaying disproportionately positive or negative statuses for one week in January 2012, to help its researchers understand how emotional states are transmitted on social media. More than 3 million posts were analyzed in the experiment.

“My co-authors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety it caused. In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety,” wrote Adam Kramer, one of the three authors, in a Facebook post.

But Kramer also defended the social network’s study. “We felt that it was important to investigate the common worry that seeing friends post positive content leads to people feeling negative or left out,” he wrote.

Controversy swirled around the social media giant’s ethics because users were not explicitly asked or notified that they were part of the experiment. Instead, Facebook relied on its terms of service that all users agree to when signing up and allows them to conduct studies like this.

gctest50

That was just the 2012 study though, the other ones were more fun

moneyman

Self-righteous, "I don't have facebook so I wouldn't know" posts coming in 3, 2, 1...

Sir Arthur Daley

moneyman wrote: »

Self-righteous, "I don't have facebook so I wouldn't know" posts coming in 3, 2, 1...

0

Knex*

moneyman wrote: »

Self-righteous, "I don't have facebook so I wouldn't know" posts coming in 3, 2, 1...

I think the issue here is that nobody knew.

Fluxfan

solomafioso wrote: »

Sure isn't society one big social experiment? *puts on tinfoil hat*

The author also apologised!

Well as long as they said sorry

connundrum

I've clearly missed the newsworthy element to both a) the research conclusions and b) the fact that FB are manipulative.

ScumLord

This shouldn't be too much of a surprise. News media has been depressing the world for years. It's always shocking how easily people can be manipulated in the simplest ways. As soon as you step inside the door of a supermarket you're being manipulated most people are just ignorant of the lengths big companies go to manipulate their mood and purchases.

Awkward Badger

The entire thing is an advertising platform and all your information and habits are being used to best advertise to you personally. It should't be any great shock that they have been experimenting with the platform to determine if and how people are influenced on it.

solomafioso

ScumLord wrote: »

This shouldn't be too much of a surprise. News media has been depressing the world for years. It's always shocking how easily people can be manipulated in the simplest ways. As soon as you step inside the door of a supermarket you're being manipulated most people are just ignorant of the lengths big companies go to manipulate their mood and purchases.

Was always aware of this.

Junk foods and small consumables / deals with catchy labels on them. Putting the healthy options / fruit & veg down the back so you make some "unplanned purchases" along the way. Also stocking certain (sometimes more expensive) products at eye-level.

Even putting stocks of bars / batteries / nuts at the checkouts for that added sale.

Even down to crowd flow. Like escalators herding you back towards shops.

krudler

ScumLord wrote: »

This shouldn't be too much of a surprise. News media has been depressing the world for years. It's always shocking how easily people can be manipulated in the simplest ways. As soon as you step inside the door of a supermarket you're being manipulated most people are just ignorant of the lengths big companies go to manipulate their mood and purchases.

It's bog standard stuff in retail. Ever wonder why supermarkets always have essential stuff like milk and bread way down at the back? so you have to walk past shelves of crap you don't need. Nearly everyone will buy something they didnt plan on in Tesco if they run in for a couple of things. I know I do.

Wasn't there sure some guy who conducted a social experiment starting a queue to nothing on a street? he lined up for nothing and people started joining the queue assuming something was worth lining up for.

smellmepower

They can do whatever they like,you agreed to their rules and policies whenever you joined FB.Only a complete idiot would be upset about this,so naturally there will probably be a record number of complaints!

IvyTheTerrible

It's not surprising to me that FB are involved in it, what is more worrying is that there were actual scientific researchers involved in this. What about research ethics? Informed consent?

Duggy747

Hardly surprising given that Facebook is one of the biggest platforms for advertising so of course they would have social experiments on their user patterns.

Carlos Orange

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

It's not surprising to me that FB are involved in it, what is more worrying is that there were actual scientific researchers involved in this. What about research ethics? Informed consent?

Apparently having a Facebook account counts as informed consent.

snaphook

I don't have facebook so I wouldn't know.





*self righteous*

gctest50

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

It's not surprising to me that FB are involved in it, what is more worrying is that there were actual scientific researchers involved in this. What about research ethics? Informed consent?

If they told everyone they were doing it, the results would be worthless

ScumLord

psinno wrote: »

Apparently having a Facebook account counts as informed consent.

It does, as if you have a facebook account you agreed to the terms and conditions which include allowing Facebook to run experiments on you.

Tardful Slakerly II

ScumLord wrote: »

It does, as if you have a facebook account you agreed to the terms and conditions which include allowing Facebook to run experiments on you.

That's how they're interpreting there own terms and conditions but it's not as if that's stated itself in them, it isn't. They probably had the lawyers run over the wording before starting though, so legally they can bull**** it.

More to the point there should be legislation protecting people from this kind of thing by corporations.

solomafioso

ScumLord wrote: »

It does, as if you have a facebook account you agreed to the terms and conditions which include allowing Facebook to run experiments on you.

I also find it hilarious that they pretty much "own" photos that you have taken and posted. I mean you're uploading personal information to a server in some air conditioned data centre!

Wossack

Tardful Slakerly II wrote: »

That's how they're interpreting there own terms and conditions but it's not as if that's stated itself in them, it isn't. They probably had the lawyers run over the wording before starting though, so legally they can bull**** it.

More to the point there should be legislation protecting people from this kind of thing by corporations.

if there was legislation, people would opt out of it just as quick via the ToS

Carlos Orange

ScumLord wrote: »

It does, as if you have a facebook account you agreed to the terms and conditions which include allowing Facebook to run experiments on you.

Do they? It seems more likely to me that they include clauses that can retrospectively be interpreted to mean that Facebook can run experiments on you.

ScumLord

psinno wrote: »

Do they? It seems more likely to me that they include clauses that can retrospectively be interpreted to mean that Facebook can run experiments on you.

You are not a person to facebook, you are a collection of data and by uploading that data to facebook you've given them permission to do with it almost as they please. We've also encouraged them to moderate that data which gives them the authority to decide what we should and shouldn't see.

They already use the data to target ads at you, it's pretty simple for them to engineer the data you see for just about anything. Instead of trying to sell you soap they could instead try and push ideals or political leanings. There's very little stopping them as it is and this just goes to show how easy it is for them.

House of Blaze

Regardless, they're the ones with a room full of high priced lawyers!

End of the day if you don't like how facebook, or any service for that matter, treat your data / privacy you can get rid of it.

strobe

Is someone somewhere really getting paid something to come up with the conclusion that 'happy things make you happy and sad things make you sad'? I gotta get into this academia game at some point.

RichardoKhan

A longer term experiment has been happening for donkey years......Its called the 'News' & the media

Nemeses

Ah sure, We'll write it off as "Market Research"

Tardful Slakerly II

strobe wrote: »

Is someone somewhere really getting paid something to come up with the conclusion that 'happy things make you happy and sad things make you sad'? I gotta get into this academia game at some point.

Don't be ridiculous. Social media is a new phenomenon and without studies you don't know what the influence or how much or any other of many factors. This study points the way for public manipulation, think about elections for instance. It's a new era of propaganda with no one the wiser for not seeing what gets filtered out, and being positively reinforced for whatever candidate. That's just one danger.

Duggy747

Researcher: Here you go sir, the Thompson report is finally done.

Manager: About goddamn time, can't believe we went over budget again on this one.

Researcher: Well sir, nonsensical data and an unusually high level bias threw our studies off so we were forced to scratch that and start again in a more controlled environment. Couple that with the lab explosion that claimed the lives of 6 of our team during.....

Manager: $16.5 million, the higher ups are gonna have my ass for this one if you guys haven't pulled through. So, what's the data?

Researcher: People like cats doing silly things or having captions above them with bad grammar like "I can haz cheezburger?"

Manager: Lol, silly cat.

Researcher: Lol

strobe

Tardful Slakerly II wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. Social media is a new phenomenon and without studies you don't know what the influence or how much or any other of many factors. This study points the way for public manipulation, think about elections for instance. It's a new era of propaganda with no one the wiser for not seeing what gets filtered out, and being positively reinforced for whatever candidate. That's just one danger.

Bolox says I. The equivalent of a study on whether being called a **** down the phone rather than in person would have an effect on you. Pointless. A question no one should have asked as the answer is as plane amd obvious as the trunk on an elephant. Pointless busywork.

Tardful Slakerly II

strobe wrote: »

Bolox says I. The equivalent of a study on whether being called a **** down the phone rather than in person would have an effect on you. Pointless. A question no one should have asked as the answer is as plane amd obvious as the trunk on an elephant. Pointless busywork.

You're living in a consumer driven world, shaped by marketing, advertising etc. and they come of research. You're a fool to scoff but a fool doesn't know any better.

NotASheeple

moneyman wrote: »

Self-righteous, "I don't have facebook so I wouldn't know" posts coming in 3, 2, 1...

Sorry for the delay. Yes I have a life and I have never had, nor never will have a FB account.

strobe

Tardful Slakerly II wrote: »

You're living in a consumer driven world, shaped by marketing, advertising etc. and they come of research. You're a fool to scoff but a fool doesn't know any better.

Nope. Waste of time and money. Asking a question everyone knew the answer to.

Capt'n Midnight

ppcperson wrote: »

Has anyone read about Facebooks experiment on users in 2012?

Facebook started out as a site phishing for passwords using information illegally taken from university servers.

There's a very simple rule with websites. If you can't figure out what they are selling, it's you.

Wompa1

"I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM LIONEL HUTZ!"

I don't care that Facebook did that, they are a company...if I was upset about the way they treat 'my privacy' I wouldn't use it.

I think the outrage is misplaced. I know there's a lot of Psychology graduates and students on here. I think the outrage should be placed on those Universities involved. It's very unethical BUT as I've come to learn, Ethics are adhered to selectively in Psychology circles.