
Self-Censorship on Facebook (2013) [pdf] - okket
https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM13/paper/viewFile/6093/6350
======
ideonexus
This paper is spreading like wildfire in the science online community--not
because of it's results--but because of how this data was obtained. It reveals
that Facebook is monitoring everything you do on the platform. When you start
to write a post, maybe in a moment of anger, think better of it, and delete
that post to write something more moderate, Facebook has recorded everything
you wrote and deleted.

This isn't a new revelation to HN. I've seen posts here before analyzing the
javascript behind Facebook and showing how it's recording your every
keystroke. According to the academics I follow, this paper is the evidence
that the company is sharing that data with third parties.

~~~
asteli
Facebook didn't have to write this paper. They could have done the research
and held onto it. They could have not bothered to do research at all. To me,
this says that they're willing to do sociological research regarding the
implications of their platform, and to share it publicly.

It might be an unpopular opinion, but I think this shows transparency, a
certain sense of social responsibility, and at the top level some semblance of
understanding of the scope of the effect they have on society.

~~~
659087
They're also willing to perform mass psychological experiments on hundreds of
thousands of people without consent. I suppose we should be thanking them for
that as well?

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Face...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Facebook-
conducted-secret-psychology-experiment-on-users-emotions.html)

~~~
asteli
Every big website you use performs psychological experiments on millions of
users without explicit consent. That's basic A/B testing. The difference here
is that instead of A/B testing to see whether they can get you to click a
button more, they tested to see how their platform, which has dramatically
altered how people live and socialize, alters users emotional states.

It's off-putting because people enjoy the illusion of unmolested free will,
and don't understand the degree to which they're already being experimented
on.

That being said, the social and emotional health implications are too huge to
leave things like this unresearched.

------
badrabbit
Average people don't know about this. Even if they did,they don't understand
the implications.

This is truly concerning,as in I have serious doubts about this society's
short term survival. I don't mean as in democracy or cultural survival but
wars,civil unrest and all the other nasty horrors humans cause on each other.
It seems only a matter of time until those things happen,except this time the
masses are controlled and their behavior analyzed and influenced ever so more
efficiently.

The west hasn't seen the type of surveillance that goes on under terrible
regimes,where they use your friends and family to monitor you,and when you
fall out of line you get "disappeared". I think people here in the west just
assume that type of stuff only happens in north korea and other 3rd world
countries. Maybe Germans who lived in east Germany can relate.

Anyways, the common man's ability to stop tyranny or even help victims of
tyranny goes away when the common man can't hide his
views,inclinations,associations and activities even if he/she wanted to.

Think of all the great wars,movements and struggles in history and all the
heroic acts that shaped the present. Could any of them succed if everyone was
using facebook and google and the "bad side" controlled these companies?

I can't decide whether it is overconfidence in democracy and western
governments or reckless ignorance of history that has made the existence of
these companies in their current form tolerable.

I think we're nearing(or have passed) the "point of no return". Maybe we are
living in one of those "prelude" years before an era of unthinkable chaos and
worlds turning upside down begins. The risks,potential casualties and how much
it would take for peace to return all seem exponentially higher.

I think some sober thinking is needed. Facebook,google,amazon and friends can
all operate well(even better) while eliminating most of their capacity they
have to monitor user activity and without mining and analyzying user behavior.
Really,they have the money and the technology exists to allow that to happen.
What lacks is the will.

------
greggarious
I'm curious whether the Carnegie Mellon IRB approved this study, if so how
they addressed the issue of informed consent? CTRL-Fing for "IRB" and
"Instutional" and "informed consent" all produce zero results.

While Facebook has a wide latitude as a private company, there are certain
legal requirements once you bring someone affiliated with a university which
receives federal grants into the mix

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board#Uni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board#United_States_mandate_for_IRBs)

------
macawfish
I disagree with their interpretation of users having "a greater number of
distinct friend communities" as signifying something as simple as "diversity"
(see hypothesis #7). While it's related to diversity, it's more of a measure
of how cliquey and/or segregated the user's different community groups are,
and might even be thought of as a measure of segregation in the user's social
environment.

Funny that the word "diversity" would be used for this.

------
partycoder
Most people don't have the time to maintain friends lists, because the UI in
that regard makes it sort of unproductive to manage different friend lists,
compared to let's say, Google+.

As a consequence of that, what you publish on Facebook usually appeals to the
lowest common denominator of all your friends lists (in my case: acquintances
and coworkers).

~~~
asteli
There was a time when you could look at your whole friend list and sort people
into sublists via dropdowns. The feature disappeared roughly a couple years
ago IIRC. I wonder if they removed it because people started using the site in
a way they didn't like.

------
djabatt
If you're typing into a web app assume it is being stored and used for profit.
Sadly, my original post I was going to write was deleted because I self-censor
and edit myself heavily.

------
Dowwie
How you interpret this research depends on your frame of mind. If you have an
adversarial frame, you may see this as a negative with a bright red flag, but
for a moment consider an optimistic frame:

Whether you're studying human behavior for its own sake or trying to improve a
product, you're going to measure that which is required for experiments. The
scientific method requires measurement. Tracking is measuring.

If Facebook shares anonymous, aggregated information relevant to academic
research, it is sharing in the noble academic pursuit of "light" in knowledge.

------
perebor_
I suppose subsequent research will have to somehow consider self censorship of
users that don't trust unsent form input now.

------
jocoda
Not a FB fanboy but I have to consider this paper horseshit. They equate
censorship with an article not being posted within 10 min of its creation.
Confession - did not read more once I found that but for me that's the core
and invalid.

I don't know about you but for me converting thoughts into a post usually
clarifies things and usually needs revision and takes time. Often way too much
time.

Here the quite normal process of editing is being called self censorship and
that's enough for the pitchfork mob to saddle up...

