The recently conducted psychological experiment on Facebook users without their consent has sparked a lot of outrage. However, one needs to remember that before signing up to Facebook, every user is required to accept the terms and conditions and this in some ways, can be regarded as giving consent. This is the same as users clicking ‘ok’ when a website is asking them to store cookies but instead stores their information in order to send them targeted ads. The user agreed, hence, their details and search history were noted and targeted ads were tailored and sent to them. Should this also be seen as a violation of privacy? Most will argue that since users are asked beforehand then no, even though you don’t have to agree to each specific ad, just a one-off request to store cookies. This case is similar as to what happened with Facebook. Users agreed to terms and conditions, which are a broad set of rules, and the experiment was conducted. I do not think that there is a need for stricter privacy laws as it doesn’t apply with this experiment in the sense that none of the users’ photos or data was saved or distributed in the name of the experiment. Users personal information was kept private, and all it did was to alter the news feed in order to see how it would affect the behaviour of the user. So, all data which the user chose to keep private in their settings, stayed that way. Therefore, this is in no way a privacy issue. Instead, one can argue that the terms and conditions to the site in question should be altered in order to be more clear and concise about the possibility of such studies.
From Ms Hadeel AlJazzaf
Kuwaiti medical student based in Dublin, Ireland
I definitely feel that there is a need for stricter laws to protect online users from becoming test subjects as even though it may not have directly affected anyone, it is a riskful experiment which can end badly. The fact that people’s news feed were manipulated in order to study the change in behaviour is in itself a very unethical thing to do as there are various personalities out there who may not be able to cope with such things. Surely, users agreed to the terms and conditions, but that does not mean that they agreed to become test subjects in the name of science. When it comes to cases dealing with people’s health, it is vital to ask for consent before conducting such experiments. I am completely against this experiment and i definitely think that the terms and conditions need to be changed in order to make people aware of the possibilities of such experiments. Now Facebook may claim that it did not affect any of their users, but then they aren’t aware of the medical condition of all their users either, so how can they be so sure of that? What if the person behind the screen suffers from a psychological condition which makes him or her unstable and in turn, seeing negativity influenced his or her behaviour on that specific day which resulted in him or her acting differently in a certain situation. All these factors should have been taken into consideration, which clearly it didn’t and therefore, the experiment on 700k users without their consent cannot be justified.
From Mr Omar Al Awadi
Emirati medical graduate based in Dublin Ireland
This basis of this experiment was unethical on many levels but at the end of the day, as an online user, we often agree to the terms and conditions without even reading through it and now we are claiming that it should have been clearly stated in order to protect us. How is social networking sites clearly stating their aims on their terms and conditions going to save us from becoming their test subjects when we do not even bother to read through it? I agree that it was unethical but at the same time, if it didn’t harm anyone then it doesn’t make a difference, right? The fact that this experiment took place in 2012, and only received attention two years later shows how insignificant it was and the fact that people are still using the site shows how powerful social media has become. We get mad and try to blame our lack of attention on someone else but the fact is that if every single one of us were bothered to read before agreeing to sign up for something, maybe such experiments wont be able to go unnoticed. The experiment didn’t affect me nor anyone I know and essentially safety is all that matters in the world wide web.
From Mr Hamad Al Marzouqi
Emirati business management graduate based in Dubai
With regards to the Facebook strategy, I do not see anything wrong with the strategy used, however, it was implemented in a wrong way. Essentially, users are seen as customers and with that in mind, the company in question do have a right to survey their customers, there is no issue with that. But the importance of this is that the company needs to ask its customers for their consent and this is were this experiment failed. There is a need to highlight this type of activity and it is vital to empasise on this and let users know that the possibility for such experiments are there. In this case, Facebook forced the experiment down the throats of the users - there was no choice. Personally, I stopped using Facebook since they changed their user mechanisms such as how ads are targeted depending on my newsfeed and this is wrong. The need for privacy laws is vital to protect people from being used on the Internet. It is not only the case of becoming test subjects for surveys but also in terms of exploiting valuable information and using it against us as this can be dangerous for the security of individuals as well as countries. As social media has taken over society, the need for respect and protection is vital as society has advanced and individuals cannot be forced to participating in anything without their consent. It is important to let people know that they have a choice and this will in turn make users gain trust in the site that they are using. Although the experiment did not affect anyone directly, the possibility was still there and the fact that this was not taken into consideration is wrong and selfish. There is also the case with those who have set their accounts to private for obvious reasons, but that was not even taken into consideration. I can understand if only public accounts were targeted, however, this has not been made clear. In case, private accounts were part of this experiment, Facebook obviously violated their own policies as well and that would indicate a two-faced strategy.
From Mr Ahmad Al Suwaidi
Emirati human resource business graduate based in Dubai
The recent Facebook experiment took the world by storm as users were irked with the tampering and playing of emotions. Using 700,000 users without their consent and playing with their delicate emotions is not a very pleasant act. I delved a little deeper into the story and realized that Facebook did actually clearly spell out its conditions for the news feed whenever a new user signs it. Under these circumstances, I feel that we need to be more vigilant in reading the finer print before drawing accusations. On a different tangent, we see advertisements, boards and placards displayed across the city. This is to influence the viewer, reader, listener to accept the company’s point of view or at least consider it. We find people influencing others and yet others falling prey to such influence. We do have our grey cells to assist in making that decision and so we need to read the fine print and in order to draw conclusions. I am not in favour of conducting such acts to stir and irk emotions, however, on a larger platform, if we can get influenced by advertisements, then this is just another mind-influencing medium. As we signed up for Facebook, we agreed to the terms and conditions, and that should be an eye opener.
From Ms Shalini Menezes
Indian accounts executive based in Dubai
-Compiled by Donia Jenabzadeh/Community Web Editor