Difference between revisions of "Data Mining and Manipulation"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Facebook was in hot waters for a recent controversy involving data mining and manipulation. A team of Facebook data scientists, led by Adam Kramer, sought to know if displaying all "negative" or "positive" statuses, pictures, news, and comments were to alter the behavior in the same way a user was influenced. For users flooded with inspirational quotes, ideas, pictures, and upbeat statuses, were they more likely to conform to the behavior of the environment and even adopt the same mindset? Thus, this team of data scientists set out on a research project in collaboration with PNAS that altered the News Feeds of 689,003 users. Facebook did not need the consent from these "guinea pigs" as they had agreed to the terms and conditions outlined in the Facebook's data use policy. It explicitly states that user information will be used "for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement". | Facebook was in hot waters for a recent controversy involving data mining and manipulation. A team of Facebook data scientists, led by Adam Kramer, sought to know if displaying all "negative" or "positive" statuses, pictures, news, and comments were to alter the behavior in the same way a user was influenced. For users flooded with inspirational quotes, ideas, pictures, and upbeat statuses, were they more likely to conform to the behavior of the environment and even adopt the same mindset? Thus, this team of data scientists set out on a research project in collaboration with PNAS that altered the News Feeds of 689,003 users. Facebook did not need the consent from these "guinea pigs" as they had agreed to the terms and conditions outlined in the Facebook's data use policy. It explicitly states that user information will be used "for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement". | ||
| − | This experiment was conducted between January 11th-18th, 2012. Over the course of the week, data mining technologies filtered forward either strictly "positive" or "negative" feeds. | + | The experiment that was carried out involved the secret Facebook algorithm that generates what users see in the News Feed. Developers modified the architecture to help these researchers with their study. |
| + | This experiment was conducted between January 11th-18th, 2012. Over the course of the week, data mining technologies and algorithms filtered forward either strictly "positive" or "negative" feeds. The result, according to Adam Kramer, was contagious, "When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred." Facebook concluded that the emotions exhibited by a user's community directly influences his/her own behavior on the social network site. | ||
| + | Public perception of this research study initially caused widespread anger and terror. The rhetoric wasn't about Facebook researching how News Feeds' algorithms change users' perception and behavior on the site, but rather how Facebook has become a moral agent in emotionally manipulating its users. | ||
| − | + | When universities conduct studies on people, they have to run them by an ethics board first to get approval — ethics boards that were created because scientists were getting too creepy in their experiments, getting subjects to think they were shocking someone to death in order to study obedience and letting men live with syphilis for study purposes. A 2012 profile of the Facebook data team noted, “Unlike academic social scientists, Facebook’s employees have a short path from an idea to an experiment on hundreds of millions of people.” (Update 6/30/14): Cornell University released a statement Monday morning saying its ethics board — which is supposed to approve any research on human subjects — passed on reviewing the study because the part involving actual humans was done by Facebook not by the Cornell researcher involved in the study. Though the academic researchers did help design the study — as noted when it was published — so this seems a bit disingenuous. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
In its initial response to the controversy around the study — a statement sent to me late Saturday night — Facebook doesn’t seem to really get what people are upset about, focusing on privacy and data use rather than the ethics of emotional manipulation and whether Facebook’s TOS lives up to the definition of “informed consent” usually required for academic studies like this. “This research was conducted for a single week in 2012 and none of the data used was associated with a specific person’s Facebook account,” says a Facebook spokesperson. “We do research to improve our services and to make the content people see on Facebook as relevant and engaging as possible. A big part of this is understanding how people respond to different types of content, whether it’s positive or negative in tone, news from friends, or information from pages they follow. We carefully consider what research we do and have a strong internal review process. There is no unnecessary collection of people’s data in connection with these research initiatives and all data is stored securely.” | In its initial response to the controversy around the study — a statement sent to me late Saturday night — Facebook doesn’t seem to really get what people are upset about, focusing on privacy and data use rather than the ethics of emotional manipulation and whether Facebook’s TOS lives up to the definition of “informed consent” usually required for academic studies like this. “This research was conducted for a single week in 2012 and none of the data used was associated with a specific person’s Facebook account,” says a Facebook spokesperson. “We do research to improve our services and to make the content people see on Facebook as relevant and engaging as possible. A big part of this is understanding how people respond to different types of content, whether it’s positive or negative in tone, news from friends, or information from pages they follow. We carefully consider what research we do and have a strong internal review process. There is no unnecessary collection of people’s data in connection with these research initiatives and all data is stored securely.” | ||
| Line 28: | Line 20: | ||
Ideally, Facebook would have a consent process for willing study participants: a box to check somewhere saying you’re okay with being subjected to the occasional random psychological experiment that Facebook’s data team cooks up in the name of science. As opposed to the commonplace psychological manipulation cooked up by advertisers trying to sell you stuff. | Ideally, Facebook would have a consent process for willing study participants: a box to check somewhere saying you’re okay with being subjected to the occasional random psychological experiment that Facebook’s data team cooks up in the name of science. As opposed to the commonplace psychological manipulation cooked up by advertisers trying to sell you stuff. | ||
| − | + | ||
== Ethical Concerns == | == Ethical Concerns == | ||
=== 2010 Case === | === 2010 Case === | ||
| − | + | ||
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||
Revision as of 04:24, 18 February 2016
Data mining refers to the processes involved in analyzing data to extract key themes, ideas, and models which then can be applied to benefit the system as a whole. It concerns a variety of disciplines ranging from mathematics, statistics, political science, and economics. Data mining tools such as powerful computers as well as computer software can analyze "big data" trends that can be applied to generate more revenue, cut costs, and improve user experiences. New technologies in data mining revolved around algorithms and machine learning that can automatically detect anomalies and trends by itself.
Data mining is a field emphasized in the field of consumerism where the user is centric to functionality. Financial companies have long used data mining to determine portfolio investments, predict stock change, and inform clients of possible future decisions. However, Facebook has recently pioneered the data mining industry over the past decades just by collecting data from its 1.23 billion active users. It has especially pioneered machine learning algorithms to analyze the online behavior of user's status updates, comments, likes, and groups. By effectively drawing patterns from the sustained usage of millions of users, Facebook designers and developers are able to get feedback on design changes and functionalities. This in turn helps Facebook create a more user-friendlier social networking site that attracts and retains more users.
The very nature of data mining has a very fine boundary concerning ethics and morality. While It is very easy to use analytical software that provides real-time feedback to help design a better user-interface. data mining can also be used as a weapon, to unintentionally inflict harm to millions of clients, as in the 2010 case when Facebook manipulated its users' emotions.
Contents
2010 Case of Data Manipulation
Overview
Facebook was in hot waters for a recent controversy involving data mining and manipulation. A team of Facebook data scientists, led by Adam Kramer, sought to know if displaying all "negative" or "positive" statuses, pictures, news, and comments were to alter the behavior in the same way a user was influenced. For users flooded with inspirational quotes, ideas, pictures, and upbeat statuses, were they more likely to conform to the behavior of the environment and even adopt the same mindset? Thus, this team of data scientists set out on a research project in collaboration with PNAS that altered the News Feeds of 689,003 users. Facebook did not need the consent from these "guinea pigs" as they had agreed to the terms and conditions outlined in the Facebook's data use policy. It explicitly states that user information will be used "for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement".
The experiment that was carried out involved the secret Facebook algorithm that generates what users see in the News Feed. Developers modified the architecture to help these researchers with their study. This experiment was conducted between January 11th-18th, 2012. Over the course of the week, data mining technologies and algorithms filtered forward either strictly "positive" or "negative" feeds. The result, according to Adam Kramer, was contagious, "When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred." Facebook concluded that the emotions exhibited by a user's community directly influences his/her own behavior on the social network site.
Public perception of this research study initially caused widespread anger and terror. The rhetoric wasn't about Facebook researching how News Feeds' algorithms change users' perception and behavior on the site, but rather how Facebook has become a moral agent in emotionally manipulating its users.
When universities conduct studies on people, they have to run them by an ethics board first to get approval — ethics boards that were created because scientists were getting too creepy in their experiments, getting subjects to think they were shocking someone to death in order to study obedience and letting men live with syphilis for study purposes. A 2012 profile of the Facebook data team noted, “Unlike academic social scientists, Facebook’s employees have a short path from an idea to an experiment on hundreds of millions of people.” (Update 6/30/14): Cornell University released a statement Monday morning saying its ethics board — which is supposed to approve any research on human subjects — passed on reviewing the study because the part involving actual humans was done by Facebook not by the Cornell researcher involved in the study. Though the academic researchers did help design the study — as noted when it was published — so this seems a bit disingenuous.
In its initial response to the controversy around the study — a statement sent to me late Saturday night — Facebook doesn’t seem to really get what people are upset about, focusing on privacy and data use rather than the ethics of emotional manipulation and whether Facebook’s TOS lives up to the definition of “informed consent” usually required for academic studies like this. “This research was conducted for a single week in 2012 and none of the data used was associated with a specific person’s Facebook account,” says a Facebook spokesperson. “We do research to improve our services and to make the content people see on Facebook as relevant and engaging as possible. A big part of this is understanding how people respond to different types of content, whether it’s positive or negative in tone, news from friends, or information from pages they follow. We carefully consider what research we do and have a strong internal review process. There is no unnecessary collection of people’s data in connection with these research initiatives and all data is stored securely.”
Ideally, Facebook would have a consent process for willing study participants: a box to check somewhere saying you’re okay with being subjected to the occasional random psychological experiment that Facebook’s data team cooks up in the name of science. As opposed to the commonplace psychological manipulation cooked up by advertisers trying to sell you stuff.
Ethical Concerns
2010 Case
See Also
References
