Read the following article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/30/326929138/facebook-manipulates-our-moods-for-science-and-commerce-a-roundup
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. Explain what "emotional contagion" is.
2. How did Facebook try to test emotional contagion by altering its homepage?
3. Were Facebook's actions legal or illegal? Explain.
4. What does Laurie Penny say is the "point" about this whole situation?
5. Explain why each side of the debate believes that it is right. In other words, why do some people believe that Facebook's experiment was outrageous, and why do some believe that the experiment wasn't that "big of a deal"?
6. What are your thoughts on the issue? Is Facebook's experiment worth the debate? Explain.
Baylie Smithson 5th pd
ReplyDelete1. Emotions can be contagious.
2. Changing feeds to reflect either positive or negative statuses.
3. Everyone that creates an account on Facebook or any social media site has to agree with the terms of data use therefore making it legal for them to do the experimentation.
4. That Facebook did it.
5. Some say that Facebook doesn't understand they didn't do the experiment because they wanted to but because they could, and are afraid that this will persuade other powers of the future. Others like Linda Holmes stated, "If this kind of experimentation is really OK, if it's really something they believe is within their everyday operations and their existing consent, all they have to do is clarify it. Give people a chance to say yes or no to research that is psychological or sociological in nature that involves not the anonymized use of their data after the fact but the placing of users in control and experimental groups. Just get 'em to say yes or no. If it's really not a big deal, they'll say yes, right? It really seems like a pretty reasonable request."
6. I think Facebook should have asked the users what they specifically wanted to do but I can also see why they didn't because if the users were aware of the experiment Facebook probably wouldn't be getting honest accurate answers. I can see why some would want to debate on it because they don't want Facebook thinking they can do things like this without the users permission all the time now.
Joy Chou
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is when someone’s emotions are influenced by those of others.
2. The news feeds were changed to show more positive or negative posts in order to find the correlation between a post’s tone and the user’s mood.
3. Facebook’s actions were legal because the check-box-agreement acted as consent for this kind of experiment.
4. The research proved the potential Facebook has for conducting more experiments that involve using someone’s personal information.
5. Those that oppose Facebook’s experiment believe that Facebook has too much power over the personal information of its many users. Others believe that the experiment wasn’t anything to be too worried about because none of the data used was associated with the user and all the data was stored securely.
6. I can understand why some people might be upset, what with having your emotions being unknowingly manipulated. It also puts into perspective how much power a company has over your personal information. However, I think that it really isn’t that big of an issue, as long as there isn’t an unnecessary collection of data and it’s secure.
Ben Hall
ReplyDelete1. Emotional Contagion is when your mood develops from the thoughts and moods of others.
2. Facebook tested Emotional Contagion by altering 700,000 users post to either a negative or positive mood.
3. Facebook's actions were legal, the policy is in their privacy agreement that was approved when making your account.
4. Laurie Penny states that, Facebook doing this is what infuriates people, and that is what she says is "the point."
5. Different people believed that Facebook's allegations were outrageous because nobody would expect a large company to do such a thing. People think that it was okay because Facebook user's did comply to this testing when agreeing to the terms of agreement and the privacy policy.
6. My thought on the issue is that it really doesn't matter, and that it doesn't make sense for people to be so enraged. When signing up for Facebook, it clearly states in the terms and conditions that, they have the right to do an emotional contagion experiment truly anytime they feel the need to.
Kelsi Hobson
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is taking on the mood and attitude of those around you.
2. The feeds of the users we altered to reflect "positive" or "negative" content.
3. Facebook's actions were legal because when people signed up for it and checked yes saying they agree to the terms and conditions, they gave Facebook the right to do anything it said in the terms and conditons.
4. The "point" is that Facebook conducted the study.
5. The people who believe that Facebook's experiment was outrageous believe that they should have at least been asked if they would like to have participated in the experiment before just being randomly chosen. The people who think it was not that "big of a deal" believe that because users agreed to the terms and condtions of Facebook when they signed up.
6. Although in the terms and conditions it may have said that they could conduct an experiment like this, I believe they should have asked the users whether or not they would have liked to have participated in the experiment. I do not think it is worth the debate because the experiment has already been conducted and there is nothing that can be done about it now.
Crystal Bolden
ReplyDelete1.The change peoples emotional behavior.
2. To reflect more positive or negative content to determine if seeing more sad messages makes a person sadder.
3. Legal , because they are testing a social experiment that believe it or not is a real problem in this social media world.
4.The point is that facebook did that is the point.
5.Some believe that it was outrageous because of the fact that it was an invasion of privacy and that America has been through enough already in 2015, to undergo such of a problem. But some believe that it wasn’t that big of a deal because some don’t even log onto Facebook any more. So the affect doesn’t get to them as much as people that are still logging in.
6.yes and No, Yes because it can see the emotional change in peoples behavior but no because most people don’t even log on to or think about Facebook anymore like they do Instagram and Snapchat in their everyday lives.
Liam Andrus
ReplyDelete1. when someone or something else's emotions influences your's.
2. they made some people's newsfeed contain more positive posts and some people's newsfeed contain more negative posts.
3. Facebook's actions were completely legal because users of Facebook agreed to the terms and conditions, which include them using your data.
4. That Facebook did the experiment
5. People who think that the experiment was wrong believes that it was an ethical violation and people who think it wasn't that big of a deal believe that as long as it didn't hurt anyone than its not that big of a deal and that we wouldnt know how people responded to different positive/negative ratios in their newsfeed.
6. Seeing as people agreed to this experimentation, I think that it wasn't a crime for Facebook to conduct this experiment. Although it may influence other people's emotions, how would Facebook know how to improve its satisfaction of the users? It wouldn't.
Jon Oue
ReplyDelete1. Emotional Contagion means to feel and express emotions similar to and influenced by those of others.
2. They changed the language that they used.
3. It was legal because when you agreed to the terms and agreements it mention this.
4. Laurie Penny says that the point is that they know what they can do but not know what they are doing and how the companies will influence the powers of peoples future understanding of emotions.
5. One group thinks it is right because Facebook clarified the issue in their terms and agreements. The other group thinks that they are wrong because they don’t think Facebook knows what it is doing.
6. I believe that what Facebook is doing is okay because the clarified the issue in the terms and agreements.
Jon Oue
ReplyDelete1. Emotional Contagion means to feel and express emotions similar to and influenced by those of others.
2. They changed the language that they used.
3. It was legal because when you agreed to the terms and agreements it mention this.
4. Laurie Penny says that the point is that they know what they can do but not know what they are doing and how the companies will influence the powers of peoples future understanding of emotions.
5. One group thinks it is right because Facebook clarified the issue in their terms and agreements. The other group thinks that they are wrong because they don’t think Facebook knows what it is doing.
6. I believe that what Facebook is doing is okay because the clarified the issue in the terms and agreements.
Kenna Eldridge
ReplyDelete1. The tendency to feel and express emotions similar to and influenced by those of others
2. Feeds were changed to reflect more "positive" or "negative" content, to determine if seeing more sad messages makes a person sadder.
3. Legal, the check-box agreement gave permission for this kind of psychological experimentation.
4. Laurie Penny explains that the study's findings are not the point — that Facebook did this is the point — and argues the potential for more is why the research feels so wrong.
5. Some people think they were toying with everyone's emotions, others thought that it wasn't that serious it didn't affect them that much.
6. I think that what Facebook did was completely okay. When you got Facebook you agreed to these kind of experiments when you checked the box, whether or not you read it is your own fault. So the people that are mad about the experiment are mad at a choice they made.
Rachel Walker
ReplyDelete1. Emotional Contagion is basically emotions being expressed to others that ends up influencing them.
2. They changed what others would see on their news feed, such as happy or sad content.
3. I don't think Facebook's actions were legal because some people might not have wanted to take part in an experiment. Also, the people had no idea that they were being used as a psychological experiment, they could have been asked to take part.
4. How Facebook did their experiment and why they did.
5. Some people believe that the experiment was wrong because they have access to personal information and that manipulating what they saw and responding to the content without them knowing was outrageous. On the other hand, some people thought the experiment was not a big deal because their personal information was secured and all Facebook was doing was simply seeing how people responded to emotional content.
6. I think that what Facebook did was not exactly wrong because people that took their time to respond to the content and didn't like it could have simply logged off. If they signed up for Facebook, without knowing that Facebook is in control of the network, then I don't see why they took their time to create an account. Also, personal information was being secured. In contrast, I do believe that Facebook could have asked whether or not the people wanted to partake in the experiment or not.
Marley Hobbs-
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is the spread of a certain emotion through coming in contact with or hearing something.
2. Facebook altered their homepage by adding many more negative or positive feeds.
3. The test that Facebook did is legal because when you create an account you agree to something that lets all your posts belong to Facebook. They can therefore do what they want with it.
4. Laurie Penny believes that the point is that Facebook actually did this test.
5. I think that some people are getting so upset over the test because they feel like their privacy is being invaded, and the others that are not upset just believe it’s not that big of a problem. The article also says the information was not connected to individual users.
6. I don’t believe that Facebook’s test is worth the debate because nobody was harmed in any way and the people agreed to let Facebook have their post when they created their accounts.
abby holmes
ReplyDelete1. is if sadder messages or happier messages can change a persons emotion
2. it changed some status to sadder messages and some to more positive messages
3.legal because people agreed to the terms and conditions.
4. the whole point is that facebook did it
5.some people fell like they are being tested on freely and that it is to controlling but others dont view it as a big deal but as a way to better the service you are getting fro facebook
6. i think their isn't a reason to debate if the terms and conditions clearly state what facebook is doing then you have agreed and thats on you you cant get mad at facebook for something that you agreed to even though know one reads those ridiculously long things.
Keyanna Stokes
ReplyDelete1.If someone reads a sad text someone else posted and that text made them sadder than that person than that is an emotional contagion.
2.Feeds were changed to reflect more "positive" or "negative" content, to determine if seeing more sad messages makes a person sadder.
3.It was legal because it is not against the law to do an experiment on the internet for people to just read a simple text and see whether or not they get happy or sad.
4.The experiment itself was the point
5.Some people think it is outrageous because they think it is creepy for people to monitor whether or not they will have a positive or negative affect on something. Some people believe its not that big of a deal because all they were doing where monitoring emotional concept of a person.
6.Facebook's experiment is both ways because people should have the right to say if they want to be researched on their physiological and sociological emotions.They will either say yes if they want to or no if they think it makes them feel uncomfortable
Caitlyn Lewis
ReplyDelete1. It's basically if you see or hear something happy/sad you will become happy/sad as well.
2. They changed over 700000 peoples news feed to show more happy or sad things and tracked their emotional state.
3.I believe it is legal since they agreed to a terms and conditions and they may have not read it but all the stuff they did was probably in the massive amount of text.
4. This huge social media website can control 1.25 billion people by just changing their news feed up. It not what they did do it is what they can do.
5. People who thought it was outrageous and thought it was an invasion of their rights. The others thought it had great potential and had nothing to hide.
6.I think it is pretty cool the way they can do so many things with so many people. Yes, it's it kind if worrying but the future is near.
Erica Ramsey
ReplyDelete-When 2 individuals emotionally converge
-It changed their feed to either a lot of positive or negative content to see if it would change their moods.
-Technically they were Legal because when a user signs up they agree to all
The terms and conditions and if somewhere in the terms and conditions it says that they can experiment with you then it is legal
-Some believe it is outrageous because they don't think that Facebook should be experimenting with them with the users consent. Others believe it is no big deal because their was no real harm to the users some were just sadder or happier depending on which feed Facebook gave them.
-I do not think it is worth the big debate it is getting. I understand how people would and should be concerned but I don't think it should have manifested into this big ordeal because it's a simple issue and it could be resolved in a way that no one else has to really be involved. I understand where the others are coming from and why they think it's bad but it's over with already and as long as Facebook asks their users next time if they want to participate I don't see the problem.
Reagan Ray
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is when how someone else acts affects how you act or sometimes how you feel.
2. Facebook altered users homepages to show more positive or negative posts to see how users reacted.
3. By agreeing to the social giants general terms of data use, users made it legal for Facebook to conduct this experiment.
4. Penny says the point of the situation is the fact that Facebook conducted this experiment.
5. Some users believe that it is Facebook's right to conduct this experiment because it is their site. Other people believe that if Facebook was doing this experiment for its users benefit, then they should have openly told users what they were agreeing to.
6. I believe that this experiment is okay for Facebook to conduct; however, they should have directly told users what they were agreeing to. this situation is over so I do not think that it is worth a debate.
Abbey Ray,
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is when someone's mood around you affects your mood.
2. Facebook changed the newsfeed to where users would either see "positive" or "negative" posts which would test if the user became saddened by reading something sad.
3. Facebook's actions were legal because when the user checked the terms and agreement box, they gave Facebook permission to do this.
4. Laurie Penny says that the "point" is Facebook doing this.
5. Some people think the experiment is "outrageous" because in a study the feed has actually made some users sadder. Linda Holmes also makes a good point by saying that if Facebook can do this, then why wouldn't they go ahead and ask the users if they want to a part of the experiment or not. Others think that the experiment isn't that "big of a deal" because users have to check the terms and agreement box anyway, allowing Facebook to do these things.
6. I think that Facebook's experiment is fine because users have to check the terms and agreement box when making a Facebook account, therefore giving Facebook permission to do the experiment. I do not think that Facebook's experiment is worth the debate because like I said, users have to check the terms and agreement box when creating a Facebook account which allows Facebook to do the experiment.
LAUREN BECK
ReplyDelete1) Emotional contagion is when individuals converge emotionally.
2) They were checking to see if what the user reads will affect their mood by news from friends or news from the pages they follow.
3) There is only so far you can go to "experiment" the affect of posts for users. It is one thing to take a pole about the affect, but to use actual data without permission or the user knowing, is way out of line. If you are going to do this because it is said to be in the agreement, you should at least let the user know. It should be considered borderline illegal.
4) That Facebook actually used user's data for their little "experiment."
5) Some people think that this experiment is outrageous because it was an invasion of privacy and it was proving the organization wrong with their privacy settings. Some people say that it does not matter because, either they do not care what info of theirs is posted or they knew what they were signing up for when they read the privacy settings.
6) I believe that yes, it was wrong for Facebook to to use data without users knowing, but if it was in the agreement/ policy, then I dont see why everyone is so surprised. If you read the policy like you should have when setting up an account, then you should have know about and should have made your choice then. If youre posting stuff that you dont want EVERYONE to see, then that is a personal problem.
Amy Ingle
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is how people feel based on if others feel positive or negative.
2. They put some peoples newsfeed positive and some people's negative to see how others peoples emotions make others feel.
3.Facebooks actions were legal because they agreed to when they checked the box when they signed up.
4.that facebook did it
5. Some people are outraged because they think that it wasn't right for facebook to do that without permission. Some people don't think the issue is worth debating over.
6. I do think that they should have asked for permission but if when people signed up they agreed to it then it is not all Facebooks fault. They technically had the rights to do it.
Jared Snyder
ReplyDelete1. Tendency for two individuals to emotionally converge.
2. Feeds were changed to reflect more "positive" & "negative" content, to determine if seeing more sad messages makes a user sadder
3. I think it is legal because if it is not appropriate or needed for the website than they have a right to take it off. It's there website.
4. Facebook did this is the point.
5. People hated it because they didn't want someone going in and changing and deleting things.
Others didn't care because they did nothing wrong with it in the first place.
6. I don't think its really an issue. Its pretty obvious if you do something bad or inappropriate they have a right to take it off. Especially since its their website. It could be worth the debate, but it would just be about if you want someone taking your bio off.
Lacey Martin
ReplyDelete1. In the case of Facebook's experiment, "emotional contagion" is when someone sees a sad or happy post or video, it will slightly affect their mood or emotions towards that sad or happy content.
2. They would change a user's news feed leaning towards a more negative vibe and then see from their later posts if anything indicated that their negative feed had a negative affect on them.
3. It is technically legal because we all accepted the terms and conditions when we joined Facebook and apparently theres something making that ok in the terms and conditions.
4.The fact that Facebook actually did this without telling its users.
5. Some people believe its not a big deal because technically we all agreed to it and it wasn't targeting any specific users. People believe it is a big deal because Facebook never said it was going to conduct a study or experiment when we agreed to the terms and it was something psychological that affected moods, they could end up controling us without us knowing.
6. I think there's definitely something creepy about Facebook doing this experiment. Maybe had it been a different experiment my opinion would have been a little different, but this isn't something small and inconsequential they're messing with, this is human emotions, and they didn't know these people they experimented on or their current situation or mental state so why should they have a right to try to change how they feel? Unfortunately though I do think that since people did agree to the terms and conditions they shouldn't be insisting this is illegal , because if this is such a big deal to them now maybe they should have paid more attention and read then.
Chris Perkins
ReplyDelete1. emotional contagion is the habit of two individuals to emotionally converge or have a conversation.
2. Facebook looked at 700,000 posts to see if when something sad was posted and read by the user how they expressed emotions in messages shortly after.
3. What Facebook did was legal, because everyone who joins checks the little box at the bottom of the page, that agrees to their terms of use and gives them the right to conduct this experiment.
4. Laurie Penny says that the research isn't what people are mad about, but the point is what more could they do that could be really serious.
5. People have the right to argue, because they feel that checking a box shouldn't give away all of their privacy and they think that Facebook should respect them more and not abuse their powers to do something like stalking them. Some people are okay with it though, because you shouldn't post something that your'e not okay with others seeing and they did check the box, saying it was okay.
6. I think that legally it was okay for Facebook to do it and people should know what they're getting into, but I do think they violated ethics code stalking without people knowing and abusing their power for a dumb study that could be tested on other scales/ already has been tested.
Sam Webb
ReplyDelete1. It is when your emotions react to the environment.
2. It put up more negative content.
3. No because the users accepted the terms of data use.
4. The potential.
5. The people say yes because it is a psychology experiment and people said no because Facebook is messing with people's emotions.
6. I think that because we agreed to their terms that it is okay.
Sam Webb
ReplyDelete1. It is when your emotions react to the environment.
2. It put up more negative content.
3. No because the users accepted the terms of data use.
4. The potential.
5. The people say yes because it is a psychology experiment and people said no because Facebook is messing with people's emotions.
6. I think that because we agreed to their terms that it is okay.
Griffin Eldridge
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is when your own emotions merge or become like the emotions of someone or something around you that influences you.
2. It put more sad or happy things on peoples feed to see if it made the person happier or sadder than they already were.
3. Legal because everyone that got a Facebook account agreed to a terms and policy statement that had research in it as acceptable.
4. That Facebook actually did the study on real people.
5. People believe it is outrageous because they did the research on real peoples feeds without them knowing it, but people believe it was not a big deal because people agreed to the type of research when they signed up and because it did not really harm anyone.
6. The experiment is not worth the debate because people had already agreed to undergo the research whether they read the terms and policies or not, and the research did not hurt anyone they only did it to help out society by finding out new information about social media.
Maxine Ball, 6th period
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is basically when two differently people share the same emotion. It is when one feels or expresses a certain emotion because they are influenced by those of others.
2. The feeds were changed to reflect more positive or negative content, to determine if seeing more sad messages makes a person sadder.
3. I believe they were legal because when you sign up for a social media sight, such as Facebook, you are basically giving them permission to view your personal information. If they want to study your mood changes and alter your news feed, then they should be able to, though they shouldn’t put something too “triggering”, as it could cause problems.
4. That Facebook did this.
5. Some people may think that this situation was outrageous because, after all, Facebook is altering something (your news feed) that only you should choose what is featured on there, it’s almost like an invasion of privacy. Though others may believe the situation wasn’t that big of a deal, mainly because it wasn’t like they were posting things on people’s profiles without their permission, or taking their personal data.
6. I believe that Facebook should’ve at least asked people’s permission before altering their newsfeed, as something very triggering could’ve appeared and made the person very angry or upset, which could be dangerous.
Jake Hammonds
ReplyDelete1. The tendency for two individuals to emotionally converge
2. Feeds were changed to reflect more "positive" and "negative" content to determine if seeing seening more sad messages makes a person sadder
3. Facebook's actions were legal because people agreed to the terms and use of data part on Facebook which stated they could do this
4. that Facebook did this experiment in the first place
5. Some people think that this is wrong because they think that Facebook shouldn't be able to mess with their emotion in that way. The other people feel that well they don't really care because they either don't have a Facebook account or think that if they put it in the agreement and you agreed to it, why should you care?
6. I think that Facebook doesn't have a rite to test people and if they were to do it make it more clear that they were going to.
1. study of emotion
ReplyDelete2 puting sad stuff on feed
3. bad but legal becouse of expearament
4. facebook
5 bad becouse they were fakeing the whole time that something bad was up and those people who saw it probably prayed for those people and hoped that thaey were ok. so they are sad and when or if they found out this was a big scam their day would be kind of ruined becouse of a scam good becouse of science
6. badbecouse they were fakeing the whole time that something bad was up and those people who saw it probably prayed for those people and hoped that thaey were ok. so they are sad and when or if they found out this was a big scam their day would be kind of ruined becouse of a scam and its palying with peoples emotins
luke swag monsta hinton
1. study of emotion
ReplyDelete2 puting sad stuff on feed
3. bad but legal becouse of expearament
4. facebook
5 bad becouse they were fakeing the whole time that something bad was up and those people who saw it probably prayed for those people and hoped that thaey were ok. so they are sad and when or if they found out this was a big scam their day would be kind of ruined becouse of a scam good becouse of science
6. badbecouse they were fakeing the whole time that something bad was up and those people who saw it probably prayed for those people and hoped that thaey were ok. so they are sad and when or if they found out this was a big scam their day would be kind of ruined becouse of a scam and its palying with peoples emotins
luke swag monsta hinton
Katherine Pham
ReplyDelete1. The changed to reflect more "positive" or "negative" content, to determine if seeing more sad messages makes a person sadder.
2. test subjects by judging any subsequent changes in their use of language.
3. Its legal but its wrong, its legal because it doesn't affect anyone physically but emotionally
4. argues the potential for more Is why the research feels wrong
5. it's not a big deal because it only effects some people emotions
6. Facebook has every right to research, but it only effects emotions.
Holly McDonough
ReplyDelete1.Emotional contagion is how your emotions are contagious and spread to others.
2. They changed the feed to be more positive for some and more negative for others and saw how it affected the mood by seeing the uses of language.
3. Legal, they had all agreed to the terms and conditions.
4. ''that Facebook did this is the point —''
5. Facebook believes it is right because they don't just do this randomly without permission and the people that are outraged probably never read it before they agreed to it and also don't like that they are being tested on like lab rats.
6. This doesn't affect me at all considering I have no social media and am not at risk of having my feed tested by Facebook stalkers. I honestly don't care that some person could possibly see it and determine if I was mad because my feed was mad at me. If you were tested on you were one of 700,000 so it is not like yours will be remembered.
India Kasteler
ReplyDelete1. The tendency to feel and express emotions similar to and influenced by those of others.
2. Feeds changed to reflect more positive or negative content.
3. They were legal because Facebook users agreed to be a part of these types of experiments.
4. The fact that Facebook did this.
5. People that agree with it say these studies will help us understand how people respond to different types of content. People that disagree say they are scared of what this research will lead to in the future.
6. I think that if they checked off the box that allowed Facebook to do these kinds of experiments, then there's nothing wrong with it.
Payton Brown
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is to feel/express emotions influenced by others.
2. It altered its homepage to contain negative content to see if it would make viewers sadder.
3. Facebook’s actions are legal because users agreed to the experimentation when signing up.
4. Penny says the point is that Facebook did this and its actions will influence future corporations.
5. Some people think it’s outrageous because they don’t believe you should experiment with human emotion and think Facebook should have clarified the experiment. Others think it’s “not a big deal” because it’s simply a psychology experiment and didn’t involve users’ private information.
6. Although Facebook’s actions were legal, they should have clarified the experiment. The users most likely skipped over reading the terms and conditions and were ignorant to the fact their emotions were being tested.
Elaine Doyle
ReplyDelete1 when someones emotions mimic someone elses
2 showed more positive posts or more negative
3 legal because people agreed to it
4 was that facebook did it
5 believe it is outrageous because facebook messed with peoples emotions
the other people say that they didn't associate the information to a user
6 what they did was morally wrong but because facebook users agreed to it when they signed up it was their own fault it happened to them
Brianna Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1.) It is when two or more people emotionally combine
2.) They changed Facebook users home page to mainly negative or positive comments. To see how or if it affected them emotionally.
3.) They we're legal. When you create an account you agree to the terms of service and in the terms of service it states every right they have and you click agree, so therefore you're allowing them to do what they want.
4.) She claims the point is actually why or that Facebook did this, not the results to what they are doing.
5.) Some people think this was a big idea because they believe that they shouldn't have the right to alter somebody's page. They think that they shouldn't be allowed to because that's not technically their property. Some people think that the experiment wasn't that big of a deal because they said it didn't harm anybody, so why is it such a big deal? They think that as long as they aren't hurting any one, then they are allowed to do whatever they want because the user agreed to the terms of service.
6.) I believe that Facebook should not have done what they did. Some people on Facebook want to keep up with everyone and everything.. Not just the bad things or the good things. Some people have emotional problems and can't deal with all the negative and it could possibly out them in a state of depression or just a bad mental state I'm general. No, Facebook's experiment is not worth the debate, there are plenty of other ways to discover the results other than possibly harming people.
ReplyDeleteNia Hodges
1.Emotional contagion is when emotions are contagious. One sad person can affect more people and they can also become sad just by association.
2.Feeds were changed to reflect either positive or negative content and they tracked the responses of the subjects by judging the changes in the use of their language.
3.Technically, Facebook worked within their rights. Members of facebook had to first agree to the terms and condition. While most don’t take the time to read it, Facebook legally has access to their information.
4.She feels that the point is that Facebook did this in the first place.
5.Some people might feel that Facebook was wrong because they are entitled to their privacy and do not want their emotions to unknowingly be changed for an experiment that they did not agree to. Others might not see the problem with the experiment since no one was harmed and people couldn’t even tell they were apart of it during that time.
6.I feel like there was no harm done by Facebook during this experiment. If people have a problem with Facebook doing things like this, then they should probably get off every other social network too because there is no such thing as privacy when it come to the internet. Whether it’s the Facebook team or a creepy, tech guy down the street, anyone can access your information. If people are angry about Facebook looking at their information for experimental reasons, then don’t post anything you wouldn’t want the world to know. No one is forcing you to be on social media. This is not worth a debate because none of your rights are being taken away seeing that you agreed to the website’s terms and conditions.
1. When a person’s emotions are influenced by other people’s emotions.
ReplyDelete2. They put posts that might affect a user in a happy or sad way on their newsfeed.
3. They were legal, because Facebook users have to check a box to “Agree with the Terms of Service” if they want to make an account.
4. Penny believes that since Facebook did this, they have the potential to do more stuff that invades users’ privacy, and they can also take advantage of the control they have over everyone’s personal information.
5. The people who believe it is outrageous feel like they are a part of an experiment they didn’t sign up for, and if this experimentation continues, Facebook will become too in control over information that some don’t want shared. Facebook thinks that they’re only helping their users be engaged in the content on their newsfeed, and that they must create these “emotional” posts to see how people respond. They also say that data will not be released.
6. Facebook was wrong for changing people’s newsfeeds. It should be up to the user what they want to see in their dash, not Facebook. They should have let people voluntarily do the experiment instead of randomly picking users. However, as soon as we check that box, it gives Facebook all the rights to do whatever is said in the Terms of Service. It may not be right under moral standards, but once we’ve agreed to it, it’s legal. I personally don’t feel like it’s worth the debate because although it’s unfair, so is life. Read the terms of service!!
Avery Thomas
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is when the information you take in on a site makes your mood change because of how positive or nrgative it is.
2. It altered what was on a person’s hompage, making it either positive or negative, and then observed their responses.
3. Illegal, because they experimented on agroup of people without their consent.
4. Her point is that it is ridiculous that they couldn’t just ask permission before they held these studies, if it is as small of a deal as they say it was.
5. Some people think it is ridiculous because there was no consent and it broke one of our basic rights to choose what information from our behavior is confidential and what information isnt. However, the other side says that it really isn’t that big of a deal because the data was being kept only to improve the website, not to use it for anything “bad.”
6. I think that it is worth the debate because we never know what they will do to the information, and there are laws in place that require consent, and they broke them. We should get to choose what information about us is gathered and make our own guidelines for our privacy.
Lizzie Shaw 5th
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is basically the domino effect of emotion through a certain group.
2. It altered homepages to be more positive or negative and recorded if the people who viewed the homepage had a change in emotion because of it.
3. Not technically illegal. All facebook users are required to sign a terms of use agreement before being able to make a profile, in the terms it gives them the legal right to do this type of experiment.
4. That Facebook did this experiment despite the obvious privacy violation, whether it was illegal or not.
5. For the affirmative: It was not illegal, and did not cause serious harm. It was just another social experiment and it was within Facebook's rights.
For the negative: It was an obvious privacy violation, despite its legality. While nothing serious happened, someone with severe mood swings or someone suffering from depression could have suffered a very serious reaction to a negative feed. This was dangerous and shouldn't have been done.
6. I think its the people's own fault, and the morality of the experiment is not the issue. People were so outraged about the experiment, they ignored the fact that they agreed to the statement that made this type of experiment legal for them to conduct. Us as a technology centered generation need to pay closer attention to the privacy agreements and terms of use we so often agree with without actually reading them.
Jessica Elwood
ReplyDelete1. The tendency to feel and express emotions similar to and influenced by those of others.
2. Feeds were changed to reflect more positive or negative content.
3. Legal because the users already agreed to be part of anything of experiments on the agreement policies.
4.That Facebook did this
5.Some people thought it was horrible because it's creepy and it feels wrong doing it. People that agree say it will help them understand human emotionns
6. People using Facebook usually just click the little box saying they agree to the policies because they want a Facebook page. By checking that box they gave Facebook and users to see/use any information that person post. The owners of Facebook can use anything from Facebook you post delete etc. Users can see what you post when you accept friend request, but they can see some info that little info can be just enough though. When using Facebook you gave them the right to do that with that little box. You should just be more careful. No it's not right but they gave them the right to do it.
Jesslyin Edwards
ReplyDelete1. The tendency for two individuals to emotionally emerge.
2. They had altered the news feed for a lot of peoples pages and they had reacted in a positive and negatives ways towards that. The news feed is the place where you can receive updates from your friends on Facebook, so by doing that it probably through a lot of people off from their daily performance that they usually would do.
3. Illegal, because the users of Facebook had agreed on a privacy policy in which that no one can access their private stuff without the users permission. They also violated that right they had of privacy, and they should not toy with people's emotions like that.
4. That Facebook did this whole situation.
5. Some people believe that what Facebook did was outrageous,because they believe that Facebook doesn't know what it's doing and should stop it. The other side think it's right because companies do it all the time to learn how to improve on their product and to make it better for their users to use it more.
6. I think it was wrong for Facebook to do what it had did to those people without warning at all, because it would of turned out differently if they had warned the people about what was to come then it wouldn't be as wrong as it was. It is worth the debate, because that's an invasion of privacy that they did and shouldn't do it again without telling those people before they did it. It might be their company, but that still doesn't give them the right to do what they had did to them people, because if it was me I would be so mad at them.
1. The change of mood within a user seeing a post or message of that certain mood.
ReplyDelete2. It moves messages of certain emotions in different places on the main page
3. Legal because it's their app and they can monitor it as much as they want
4. That facebook did it
5. Some people might care because they don't want somebody stalking their digital footprint and might be cautious about someone taking there personal information. Some others might care to be surveyed secretly by facebook because they want facebook to be better , knowing that it causes such problems and affects people and their life's in such a large way.
6. My thoughts are that facebook should secretly survey people so that it can be better and more positive. This should be a debate! Even though my thoughts are that it is right some people are affected by this in a different way. Facebook is a powerful social media app that has caused people to lose control and even commit suicide.
Chris Thomas
ReplyDelete1)The tendency for for two people to emotionally converge.
2)By showing people more sad or happy content
3)It's legal because users agreed to their terms and services
4)That Facebook did this
5)People say it's ok because it is just research. Others say it's not because it's not ethical
6)I think it is fine because websites collect statistics all the time and if you didn't want to be involved you shouldn't have joined Facebook
Christian Taylor
ReplyDelete5th
1.the tendency for two individuals to emotionally converge.
2. tracked emotional responses of test subjects by judging any subsequent changes in their use of language.
3.Facebook's actions were legal because it is fine to test the American people. unless Facebook was doing something hurtful to the users.
4.that Facebook did this
5.Because Facebook didn't anything to harm anyone. People believe it was outrageous because it was all of the sudden, people didn't get any warning.
6. i think it is perfectly fine. I don't find it harmful are dangerous in any kind of way. As long as they are not breaking the law, it is perfectly okay. Even though I do feel it was a little outrageous, i mean they could have given us a warning, but as long as they don't break the law I'm fine with it.
Natalie Neubert 5th period
ReplyDelete1. When one person has emotional feelings that are the same as another person.
2. They altered the news feeds of users to reflect positive or negative content.
3. Legal because of the terms and conditions that were in it.
4. The point was that Facebook did this.
5. This is right because this can explain peoples emotions and how you attitude should be towards them. This is not right because some people to do not want everyone to know about how they feel and what their emotions are.
6. I think that you should be allowed to post whatever you want on social media as long as it isn't harming anyone, I also think you should be allowed to post what you want on social media except you should make wise choices on you post and say.
Madeline King
ReplyDelete1.) when two peoples emotions converge into one and become one
2.) they altered the users news feeds to reflect positive or negative conflict
3.) its legal because they agreed with the general terms about facebook use
4.) the point was that facebook did it
5.) some people believe it was outrageous because it was overwhelming, some said it wasn`t a big deal and said it was a pretty responsible request
6.) I dont think it is because the people may not want their page changed without asked
KaRon Coleman Jr.
ReplyDelete1. When someone tries to do something to see if the person will feel sad or happy.
2. Facebook feeds were changed to reflect more positive or negative, content, to see if more sad messages made a person sadder.
3. It was legal because the facebook users agreed to it.
4. The POTENTIAL for the study's findings is the point, not the study's findings.
5. Some people think that the experiment is outrageous because they think that the experimenters know what they're doing. People don't think it's a big deal because it isn't affecting the facebook users in a bad way.
6. I don't think it's a big deal because they are just finding out what emotional contagion is and they are trying it online. There doesn't need to be a debate about it. It's done and debating won't change anything.
Arianna Taylor 5th
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is the ability between to individuals to emotionally bond.
2. Facebook tried to test emotional contagion by altering its homepage changing the feeds to present more positive or negative messages.
3. In my opinion, Facebook's actions were legal because it overall is their choice to change their homepage if they would like.
4. Laurie Penny says that "the point" about this whole situation is that the Facebook team knows what its doing.
5. Some people could believe that Facebook's experiment is outrageous because they didn't give users the ability to "vote" or confirm this experiment, they just came out of the closet with it. On the other hand, some people could also believe that the experiment wasn't that big of a deal because after all the information and content is protected.
6. In my opinion, Facebook's experiment isn't worth the debate because it doesn't completely express an important thought. I believe that this is all just nonsense because people feel as if the Facebook team is committing a murder or something. The Facebook team has the right to do whatever they want to their website, test or not.
Zoie Pritchett
ReplyDelete1. Changing feeds to reflect positive or negative content, to see if seeing more sad messages makes people even more sad.
2. News feeds were tweaked without warning because Facebook users agreed to the social giant's general terms of data use, and researchers tracked emotional responses of test subjects by judging any subsequent changes in their use of language.
3. I don't think it was necessarily illegal because by joining Facebook, we did agree to their terms of use, but that doesn't mean that tweaking someone elses comments for an experiment, doesn't mean it's okay.
4. That Facebooks doing this is the point.
5. Facebook changing and hacking into someones account for their own personal use can be considered outrageous because it's their personal things, but the other side of it is that they were just tweaking it and not completely changing it. The experiment could be for good use.
6. I think that it's wrong for them to change someone elses personal status for their own use because its our status and our words. I don't want my words twisted around just for some experiment on "mood changing." Their experiment is debatable because it's a topic that people have many opinions on and hacking into peoples statuses is something to put thought into.
Burton Drawhorn 6th
ReplyDelete1. Emotion Contagion is basically being pressured into feeling a certain way that you disagree with.
2.By changing over 70,000 new feeds on peoples home screens.
3. Technically they were legal because when people made their own accounts they agreed to the terms of use. Somewhere inside the terms of use you gave Facebook access to your information so when they did do this it was legal.
4. " that Facebook did this is the point"
5. Some people believe that this is outrageous because it is an invasion of their privacy and also because they were experimented on. They were put into an uncomfortable situation on purpose and they want a reasonable explanation. On the other hand people could say this is a way to prevent things like cyber bullying and things of that nature. By researching how people react to pressure Facebook could then in the future take actions to make sure people have fun on their website and that less people are hurt by cyber bullying.
6. Honestly in my own opinion I couldn't care less what people do. It would not bother me much because my opinions about things are going to stay the same regardless and very few people I know will make me think otherwise. However I think that it is a little silly to be conducting this in the first place? Whats the point and why are they doing this? it doesn't make sense to me to be doing this in the first place.
Hallie Grace Hamner
ReplyDelete1. When two people emotionally converge.
2. The experiment took people's Facebook feeds and changed them to reflect either positive or negative things to see if moods changed.
3. It was legal because people agreed to it in the terms and conditions.
4. Some people don't like this because they think that it's unfair to hide something like this in subtext, and some people are fine with it because the effects weren't catastrophic, it just changed people's moods.
5. Honestly, I don't think this is a huge deal. You agreed to it in terms and conditions, and by arguing that you didn't read it you're saying that you didn't follow the rules of the website. Plus, the world doesn't revolve around you. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter if you got a little sadder or happier.
Wynn
ReplyDelete1. It is when emotions spread throughout a community, A.K.A. high school.
2. By altering what is shown on someones timeline, to inflict trigger select emotions.
3. Legal, because something as major as this must be listed in the terms and conditions (which no one reads).
4. "... that Facebook did this is the point."
5. Some people a very protective of their private life, while others don't mind because it is something in the terms and conditions.
6. I believe that people are making a huge deal out of a little social experiment, this is not news.
Tyra Dunn
ReplyDelete1: to see if more sad messages make people sadder.
2: feeds were changed to reflect more positive or negative content.
3: legal because you agreed to terms and conditions.
4: the potential that the research could turn bad on them.
5: People think its okay because they are testing a theory. people think its not okay because they are invading privacy.
6: It's is not worth the debate because people knew what they were getting into before they signed up.
Tyler Frederick
ReplyDelete1. Emotional contagion is making people feel your emotions from what you do.
2. They changed people's news feeds to see how it affected the people reading them.
3. Legal because the users agreed to the terms and conditions
4. She says the point is that Facebook did this.
5. Some people believe it was outrageous because they were using people for expirements. Others believe it wasn't a big deal because it didn't affect them.
6. I think it is worth the debate because they shouldn't be able to use people as expirements
Elle Allen
ReplyDelete1. Emotional Contagion is when two individuals come together emotionally.
2. They altered the News Feeds to reflect more positive or negative things to determine if seeing sad things makes a person more sad.
3. They were legal, but they should have asked the people first.
4. "Laurie Penny explains that the study's findings are not the point — that Facebook did this is the point — and argues the potential for more is why the research feels so wrong."
5. Some people feel like it's invading someone's privacy, and that that is wrong. Others feel like it's not a big deal because it didn't harm anyone or do anything bad.
6. I don't think it's that big of a deal. It didn't hurt anyone or do anything bad or really invade anyone's privacy, it was just testing things to see if someone was happier, or sad, based on what they saw.
1. Emotional Contagion is how individuals interact and converge.
ReplyDelete2. By changing the feed to make it a sad effect.
3. I think it was illegal because it was without proper warning and very secretive.
4. The big point is that they did the experiment and not the findings in the study.
5. Some people think it is outrageous because it took away privacy and was very secretive but others believe it was okay because all it was is an experiment.
6. I think they should be punished for "scamming' their own customers and i think it is worth the debate because more people need to hear about it.
Brent Smith
ReplyDelete1.the tendency for two individuals to emotionally converge
2.by putting sad stories and videos on the news feed
3.legal because you agreed in the terms and conditions
4.infurrieates people
5. some may say that it is "outrageous" because it was sort of a invasion of privacy but others may think of it as you kinda signed up for it and its not a big deal.
6.I believe it was perfectly fine the downloader agreed to the terms and conditions, they may have not read them but they agreed.