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/