For my second blog post for this section, I wanted to explore Big Data a little further. From initial readings, I came to an understanding that Big Data is powerful, though much of the control aspects are frustrating to users who seem to have little control over what happens to information and data after they put it out in the world.   I found this really great talk (included below) by Professor and Computer Scientist Jennifer Golbeck who discusses some intricacies of what our data says about us, and what can be done to put power back into the hands of the user.

Golbeck uses a couple of examples to show how data can affect us. The first of which is the example of the company Target finding out about a teenage pregnancy before the teenager’s parents. Golbeck reveals that Target is able to track purchase histories for thousands of their customers and use that data to direct specific marketing towards that customer. This particular example of a pregnant teenager might have made purchases of prenatal vitamins, or a purse that was able to contain more baby items. Golbeck notes that Target’s system gives customers a rank that can predict what the woman’s due date is! Golbeck’s aim in telling us about this is that even though there are small bits of information (or purchases) we make that we don’t think reveal very much, in fact reveal a lot.

Golbeck notes that in her lab, she can accurately predict many things, among which are political preferences, religion, age, intelligence and social networks; all of this coming from small bits of information users might not think is too revealing or obvious. Golbeck is obviously concerned with the power that this type of data has, and how this can affect users. She also notes that even though users know how much it affects them, there’s seemingly little they can do about it.

Enter computer scientists. How does Golbeck propose to solve this power struggle? She proposes that though changing corporate policies in user privacy would be affective and modifying laws protecting privacy would also be valuable, the rate of change in our society is quite slow and perhaps might not be the most productive immediate route.  Golbeck advocates for greater research (not from a corporate perspective), but purely for users’ benefit. Research to improve users’ experience online (taking one route of data encryption options that allow for information and data to be shared with only those who they are meant to be shared with).

So how does this affect can this be seen from a library perspective? Golbeck encourages user-controlled data. This is an incredibly important aspect to furthering services, making the product less manipulative and more transparent.   Should libraries be able to use big data to increase user services, they should be made aware of what information is being collection, the repercussions of giving that information, and what it will be eventually used for. Library services on online privacy protection or quick online tutorials I think would also be valuable in library services. Education in privacy seems essential, and as Golbeck (2013) stresses, having an empowered user base is the ideal way to move forward.

References

Golbeck, J. (2013). The curly fry conundrum: why social media “likes” say more than you might think. TED. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_golbeck_the_curly_fry_conundrum_why_social_media_likes_say_more_than_you_might_think/transcript?language=en

After reading Schroeder’s (2014) article on Facebook’s “Emotional Contagion Study” I found myself seeking more information on the topic. The most thought provoking aspects of the study, and from summaries of other’s readings are the ethical considerations of Big Data and Social Media research. Understandably the study garnered more negative than positive publicity. After doing a little bit of research into reactions to the study online, I discovered a post from Tal Yarkoni, Research Associate at the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas who wrote “In Defence of Facebook.” I found Yarkoni’s defence unusual.

Yarkoni (2014) argues that many of the concerns regarding the study are misplaced. One of the concerns many concentrate on is the idea that the study “manipulated users emotions.” Yarkoni finds this misplaced and argues that Facebook only removed content rather than adding content. I take issue with this as I find it holds the same moral weight as ‘withholding the truth’ versus lying. If you knowing withhold information from someone that you know could effect decisions they make, it could be argued it’s as good as lying—and regardless manipulative.

Yarkoni points out that corporate companies are always conducting some type of research on user behaviour in order to sway audiences in one way or another. He also states that “it’s worth keeping in mind that there’s nothing intrinsically evil about the idea that large corporations might be trying to manipulate your experience and behavior.” And though I think this is true and unavoidable that corporations are doing user studies (and have been for quite some time), what seemed to be the biggest issue for many was that Facebook did this research without informed consent.

Yarkoni concludes that our concerns are counterproductive to the greater good of research, and that with such backlash companies will be more reluctant to release such information for analysis. As Schroder highlights in his article, there are clear ethical issues that this study presented, and the backlash was due to the disregard for these ethical boundaries. So I would disagree with Yarkoni that such backlash was not counterproductive, but what can be taken from it is that clearer ethical guidelines and reviews in such studies should be carefully considered.

If people were made aware, would it have made a difference? I came to think about advertising in the US when it came to informed consent and advertising. I noticed on the happy meal type boxes at fast food establishments started printing “this is advertising” on the sides of the children’s food boxes (often riddled with marketing of popular cartoons such as Strawberry Shortcake and the Transformers). I thought this act of transparency (although probably somehow legally necessary) was so commendable. Very young children are often unable to distinguish advertising from reality/facts. And not that we are all young children being unable to distinguish between fact and fiction, to an extent, we can be. Being transparent seems essential to minimizing manipulation in all cases.

In thinking more about the importance of big data research, I would advocate for the same transparency. I have no doubt that big data research could lead to greater user experiences, though I do think users should be able to maintain freewill in their online actions throughout such research.

References

Schroeder, R. (2014). Big Data and the brave new world of social media research. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 2053951714563194.

Yarkoni, T. (2014 June, 28). In defence of Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2014/06/28/in-defense-of-facebook/