http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/03/facebook-threatens-to-sue-techcrunch-commenter
cliffs: somebody made a Chrome extension that pissed off Facebook, and by being in a DISCUSSION about the extension somebody gets SUED by Facebook.
yeah.
Every 24 months or so, it gets even worse.
Yet another reason I'm glad I never gave in to The Cult Of FB (http://gigaom.com/2014/03/31/this-is-what-happens-when-facebook-controls-the-signal-and-it-defines-you-as-noise/).
Is this seriously true?
https://twitter.com/rainnwilson/statuses/448522571206893568
If so...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png
Reason #142 why I don't have facebook...
Large-scale emotional-manipulation lab-rat experiments without user consent or even awareness! #andProudOfItApparently
(quote)
http://www.newstatesman.com/internet/2014/06/facebook-can-manipulate-your-mood-it-can-affect-whether-you-vote-when-do-we-start
Nobody has ever had this sort of power before. No dictator in their wildest dreams has been able to subtly manipulate the daily emotions of more than a billion humans so effectively. There are no precedents for what Facebook is doing here. Facebook itself is the precedent. What the company does now will influence how the corporate powers of the future understand and monetise human emotion.
Dr Adam Kramer, the man behind the study and a longtime member of the company?s research team, commented in an excited Q & A that ?Facebook data constitutes the largest field study in the history of the world.? The ethics of this situation have yet to be unpacked.
I put a number of questions to Dr Kramer, over the course of three weeks of phone calls, emails and direct messages. I was repeatedly told that Adam Kramer was too busy to talk to me and would remain too busy for the foreseeable future, although Dr Kramer himself told me that he couldn?t speak to me without the say so of the press team. Facebook were unavailable for comment.
Facebook went to some lengths to be as unavailable as possible for comment without directly telling me where to shove my inquiry. Facebook were unavailable for comment in the way that a man who, on hearing the doorbell, runs out of the back door and over the garden wall is not at home to visitors.
I asked if it was possible for users to find out if their own newsfeeds had been altered. No answer.
I asked if it was possible for users to opt out of any further such studies. No answer, but if I?d got one, I suspect it would have been ?no? ? all users agree implicitly to be experimented upon when they sign up for the service.
I asked if anyone had bothered to check up on all the people in whom negative emotions were apparently induced. No answer.
The one thing Facebook?s representatives would tell me is that yes, they had indeed carried out the study and yes, they had been looking into the effects of emotional contagion for some time...
The ethics of altering people?s experience of the world on this scale, without their consent, for the purposes of research, do not appear to trouble the Facebook research team.
Emotional engineering is, and always has been, Facebook?s business model.
Writing at Medium, Zeynep Tufekci identifies this as ?a Gramscian model of social control: one in which we are effectively micro-nudged into ?desired behaviour? as a means of societal control?. That sort of control was never possible on this scale before.
The studies, taken individually, are creepy quasi-consensual experiments on individuals? most intimate feelings and most important choices. Taken together, there's a terrifying pattern.
Facebook?s service is not free. Facebook?s product is your information, your worldview, your memories and experience, and that is what you pay with every time you log in. That information is power of a quality that is can be traded upon and sold.
More people live a part of their lives on Facebook than live in any single country on earth, apart from China. It is, effectively, a country itself, a country of pure information where the authorities know everything you do and can change everything you see, without even telling you first.
The simple answer would, of course, be that if you don?t want to be spied on, emotionally manipulated and studied, quit Facebook.
(/quote)
How is it spying if you willingly give out the information?
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/02/facebook-changes-guidelines-on-user-experiments/
"Mike Schroepfer, chief technology officer at Facebook, said in a blog post that the public backlash over the emotions experiment caught Facebook off guard..."
R U @%&#ING KIDDING ME?
And these are the moral gatekeepers of your personal data, people? #AnotherReason
What personal data?
The "personal" data you willingly shared with a 3rd party corporation for the sole purpose of sharing it with people?
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 01:50:48 PM
What personal data?
The "personal" data you willingly shared with a 3rd party corporation for the sole purpose of sharing it with people?
Sorry, to clarify, the link I just posted is facebook's recent response to what I posted about a while ago -- where they chose a subset of FB users and modified their feeds in order to see what impact that would have on their activities on FB. It's about non-consensual manipulation of the users themselves, not about using the data of the users in whatever profit-based ways they want. And my post today is highlighting the whole "we did not expect the backlash" tone. These are the people guiding the FB ship.
No, they're not the moral gatekeepers. They have never claimed they have any morals. They have claimed that they can make money by giving away free access to their website, which means they need to find another way to make that money.
The real story here is that people think that content facilitators like Facebook have moral obligations.
You'd think people should have moral obligations.
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 02:17:43 PM
You'd think people should have moral obligations.
Mandating morality requires defining it
Good luck with that one! :)
"Do unto others?" not always good enough.. but usually?
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 02:21:03 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 02:17:43 PM
You'd think people should have moral obligations.
Mandating morality requires defining it
Good luck with that one! :)
Definining, mandating... ARGH!
Let me try again. What I actually meant was to focus on this:
The recent shareholder-friendly public response was (in my opinion) another clear demonstration display of the morals (or slight lack thereof) that are guiding the folks who are responsible for maintaining the security of FB users's private/personal data ... they were surprised by a backlash in response to a nonconsensual manipulation of the user base -- so whatever sociopathic block caused that blind spot can make you wonder what else in the future they will be morally fine with that most people would consider obviously immoral etc. That's all I meant.
Damn often-unclear English language! (especially at the end of an exhausting week)
For some reason reminds me about this I recently saw:
http://www.frivolity.com/teatime/Songs_and_Poems/english_is_tough_stuff.html
and also this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=eye+have+a+spelling+checker
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 02:45:56 PM
"Do unto others?" not always good enough.. but usually?
Well, to put it specifically, here's an example
Some people consider dancing to be morally objectionable, is it Facebook's job to censor images, video, text, etc of that activity?
If it is not covered by law or by their own moral ideals then they will not interfere with content other people share because it is costly
and contentious.
So back on point (sorry Darren!) the point of contention was that Facebook decided to filter content for some users and try to measure statuses to see if the filtering had an effect. I can perfectly understand how someone would feel about having their emotions tinkered with, y'know, for "science". Especially if they are a heavy user of Facebook. To a degree I can understand Facebook's motivation, they want a happy whitewashed community that presents a fun and happy world that promotes nothing but Fun Timez for all. (In fact one of the reasons I don't usually go on FB very much is most people are on there complaining about something or posting generally negative pop-sci clickbait article garbage, but that's beside the point)
Complaining to Facebook about what they did with users content feeds is an appropriate response, leaving Facebook because of it is even more appropriate.
Implying that Facebook collects private information or have a moral obligation to the public good is factually wrong.
The level of actual surprise that they were "caught off guard" by their "users reaction" is debatable, having seen how some managers think in large organizations I kind of think that yes, someone could be that cartoonishly thick.
Is Facebook Evil? Yes, but only for certain values of evil
(The same way 1+1=3 for large values of 1)
You know though, usually you need to get explicit permission from someone to perform experiments on them :o
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 03:21:51 PM
You know though, usually you need to get explicit permission from someone to perform experiments on them :o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology#Ethics
They debriefed (hence the outrage), no actual harm done, etc...
Yah. They claim no harm done. but the psyche is a complex beast. You start making a depressed person's feed lonely and depressing, @%&#'s gonna happen.
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 03:37:28 PM
Yah. They claim no harm done. but the psyche is a complex beast. You start making a depressed person's feed lonely and depressing, @%&#'s gonna happen.
If someone can prove that damage was done in a court of law then Facebook would have to take responsibility for that action, but I'm going to guess that the risk of that is extremely low. Particularly since they are claiming ignorance for a non-criminal act.
Just because it can't be proven legally, doesn't mean you should do it ::)
Actions and concequences. If DEATH is ok to you as a result of a silly experiment, maybe you should take a step back.
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 03:51:43 PM
Just because it can't be proven legally, doesn't mean you should do it ::)
That's true, then again, if you are doing something that can't be proven harmful it doesn't mean you shouldn't
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 03:51:43 PMActions and concequences. If DEATH is ok to you as a result of a silly experiment, maybe you should take a step back.
If death occurs and liability is proven in a court of law then yeah, I think they should.
But the reality is if someone say, commits suicide over the experiment, the following civil case would be an extremely difficult and lengthy (expensive!) one to prove by the Prosecution. Things that would call the Prosecution's case into question such as the medical history of the deceased prior to the incident, how prone to suicide they were, etc, would be ample fodder for the Defence.
:shrug:
I really don't care and don't think the enforceability should have anything to do with it. Just because it isn't a risk for them, doesn't mean they shouldn't consider the consequences.
Too many people in big corporate cultures forget their humanity. They are insulated by the company, because most times, there are no real consequences. I think that is bad.
This is just one of those cases. They thought it was a cool idea, and thats about as far they thought through it.
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 03:37:28 PM
Yah. They claim no harm done. but the psyche is a complex beast. You start making a depressed person's feed lonely and depressing, @%&#'s gonna happen.
Heck even just from the perspective of shareholders and profit impact, the damage to the TRUST of the public at large vis. Facebook, that's a pretty serious faux pas. Not even thinking about the possible harm of emotionally vulnerable kids who mighta been part of the experiment or others like it (or heck some might even THINK they were part of it, amplifying their paranoia, social anxiety, etc. who knows...) "With Great Power..."
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 04:35:03 PM
Just because it isn't a risk for them, doesn't mean they shouldn't consider the consequences.
Too many people in big corporate cultures forget their humanity. They are insulated by the company, because most times, there are no real consequences.
Exactly.
It's not always so clear though, imagine running a business and having someone come out of (apparently) nowhere saying that you did them harm. You can either settle with them directly if you agree or take it to court.
The legal side of business is why I didn't jump on the app-writing bandwagon a lot of my friends did back when the MacBook Pro came out, the legal side of it is terrifying. Some nut could claim you caused them harm from something that you weren't even aware was a thing (because we're not all walking medical / legal encyclopedias) and not only ruin your business but your life. No thanks. As much as it stinks there are laws about this kind of stuff that work for both sides.
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Of course it isnt. But it does insulate people from thinking as a rational human being.
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Of course it isnt. But it does insulate people from thinking as a rational human being.
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Of course it isnt. But it does insulate people from thinking as a rational human being.
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Totally. And a big corporation can influence a lot of people.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
...makes me think of this paradoxical truth...
(http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/75c/af6/c32/resized/randallhate-meme-generator-you-hate-people-but-i-love-gatherings-isn-t-it-ironic-8001ef.jpg)
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Of course it isnt. But it does insulate people from thinking as a rational human being.
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Totally. And a big corporation can influence a lot of people.
... a big corporation is MADE of people!
(http://i.imgur.com/PNECioL.jpg)
:)
Quote from: Darren Dirt on October 03, 2014, 05:01:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
...makes me think of this paradoxical truth...
(http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/75c/af6/c32/resized/randallhate-meme-generator-you-hate-people-but-i-love-gatherings-isn-t-it-ironic-8001ef.jpg)
So tru haha
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Of course it isnt. But it does insulate people from thinking as a rational human being.
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Totally. And a big corporation can influence a lot of people.
... a big corporation is MADE of people!
Maybe, maybe not. It acts more like a monolithic entity of its own, and in the US, it IS A PERSON! OMG!
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:07:23 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Of course it isnt. But it does insulate people from thinking as a rational human being.
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Totally. And a big corporation can influence a lot of people.
... a big corporation is MADE of people!
Maybe, maybe not. It acts more like a monolithic entity of its own, and in the US, it IS A PERSON! OMG!
I'm confused now because the legal fiction of treating corporations as "persons" is what allows people to sue corporations in the United States.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 05:16:45 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:07:23 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 03, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
But the Big Corporate Entity is Always Wrong and Always to Blame ::)
Of course it isnt. But it does insulate people from thinking as a rational human being.
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Totally. And a big corporation can influence a lot of people.
... a big corporation is MADE of people!
Maybe, maybe not. It acts more like a monolithic entity of its own, and in the US, it IS A PERSON! OMG!
I'm confused now because the legal fiction of treating corporations as "persons" is what allows people to sue corporations in the United States.
It also now allows them to spend infinitely on political campaigns cause its "free speech".
That insulation is actually a big part of why people become desensitized to humanity. There are no real consequences, and they are stuck inside an echo chamber.
Any large group of similarly aligned individuals becomes a giant echo chamber
But yeah, the 14th Amendment is a tricky one to amend... mostly because of the working in the areas of equal protection under the law
somewhat tangent, but i don't think corporations should have "free speech" they are not actually people. I also think the people making decisions should get less protection than they do now. not none, of course. but less.
Corporations just shouldn't get the same exact protections that individuals do, due to not actually being people. imo.
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:34:06 PM
somewhat tangent, but i don't think corporations should have "free speech" they are not actually people. I also think the people making decisions should get less protection than they do now. not none, of course. but less.
Corporations just shouldn't get the same exact protections that individuals do, due to not actually being people. imo.
Like I say, in the US you'd have to change the wording in the Fourteenth Amendment, good luck getting that through the dysfunctional organism known as Congress (thinking of the Agent K quote again)
Actually, all it took was some dumb ass republican judges to interpret it that way. all they have to do is interpret it the way it was interpreted before.
Quote from: Tom on October 03, 2014, 05:34:06 PM
somewhat tangent, but i don't think corporations should have "free speech" they are not actually people. I also think the people making decisions should get less protection than they do now. not none, of course. but less.
Corporations just shouldn't get the same exact protections that individuals do, due to not actually being people. imo.
JEEPERS! I swear there is an Abstract Goose comic for almost every damn thing we are ever talking about:
http://abstrusegoose.com/239