Jun 27, 2014 3:30 PM
Scientists at Facebook have published a paper showing that they manipulated the content seen by more than 600,000 users in an attempt to determine whether this would affect their emotional state. The paper, “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks,” was published in The Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences. It shows how Facebook data scientists tweaked the algorithm that determines which posts appear on users’ news feeds—specifically, researchers skewed the number of positive or negative terms seen by randomly selected users. Facebook then analyzed the future postings of those users over the course of a week to see if people responded with increased positivity or negativity of their own, thus answering the question of whether emotional states can be transmitted across a social network. Result: They can! Which is great news for Facebook data scientists hoping to prove a point about modern psychology. It’s less great for the people having their emotions secretly manipulated.
In order to sign up for Facebook, users must click a box saying they agree to the Facebook Data Use Policy, giving the company the right to access and use the information posted on the site. The policy lists a variety of potential uses for your data, most of them related to advertising, but there’s also a bit about “internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.” In the study, the authors point out that they stayed within the data policy’s liberal constraints by using machine analysis to pick out positive and negative posts, meaning no user data containing personal information was actually viewed by human researchers. And there was no need to ask study “participants” for consent, as they’d already given it by agreeing to Facebook’s terms of service in the first place.
Facebook data scientist Adam Kramer is listed as the study’s lead author. In an interview the company released a few years ago, Kramer is quoted as saying he joined Facebook because “Facebook data constitutes the largest field study in the history of the world.” It’s a charming reminder that Facebook isn’t just the place you go to see pictures of your friends’ kids or your racist uncle’s latest rant against the government—it’s also an exciting research lab, with all of us as potential test subjects.
In terms of hyperlinks, I tried to go for relevance and importance. I included links to the actual article as well as to the facebook data policy. Those are the main topics in this article and if people wanted to find out more directly they could.
There was actually a lot of people who wrote about this topic on the internet. They all bear approximately the same bias and same diction. I think the focus is more on spreading this piece of “news” and not analysis. There wasn’t much for me that I wanted to change, the article got out it’s intended message effectively.
I tried to spice up the article with images that bore some relevance to the topic but had a factor of amusement. They are more of inside jokes for me more than anything else. It was hard to find images that were not too disturbing to put up. The images in my opinion appeal more to the current generation; those that know their memes.
I thought the experiment was a fun way to add links in our own way. I thought the passage was a bit short to find too many relevant links to what was said but I also linked up the paper itself. I also found a few images I thought were amusing as well as made sense to the point the passage was saying
The article we were given was short and didn’t go into a lot of detail, so I liked your links you added to give more insight. I used the same ones too. The pictures added to it, especially the terms of service: didn’t read one. I don’t know anyone who actually reads those million page contracts.
I think in the realm of south park references the Human-centipad episode with where Stan kept not hitting accept without reading would of a been more relevant lol. Also i agree with there not being much analysis, honestly it seemed to me like the author just went “o hey facebook and research this is good right ” without realy thinking of the consequences of what he was reporting on.
The article isn’t in depth enough — I agree. So I thought if you did some research to find links, you’d feel compelled to add more to the article — to “revise” it (even though that wasn’t the assignment). I am hoping you see that an article that reports only can be enriched by adding hyperlinks.
I think the original was too short and your articles helped support it. Also I agree with you that their were a lot of articles on this topic and they too shared the same bias.