• Dan posted a new activity comment 3 years, 6 months ago

    Don’t forget the Otherkin.

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 3 years, 6 months ago

    The vocal fry segment drove me nuts as they waited until nearly the end to acknowledge that Ira Glass is basically the living embodiment of vocal fry (which has always seemed to me a part of the NPR aesthetic, like the unnecessary 5 second music clips between sections).

    And they could have made a little more of the fact that no one has…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 3 years, 6 months ago

    GNDR 322: “Female Trouble”

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 3 years, 7 months ago

    Freedom of speech really isn’t about whether it’s speech you like. That’s pretty much the point.

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 3 years, 9 months ago

    1000%

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 3 years, 9 months ago

    Weird things indeed. Mine goes nuts for sushi nori, to the point where I can’t cook with it unless I put him in another room. It’s all I use for treats, pretty much.

    Speaking of hydration, I noticed he drinks much more with one of those plug-in deals that cycles the water with a pump (probably because it stays aerated and tastes fresher), but…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 3 years, 11 months ago

    Yes, it’s usually me. You’re welcome!

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years ago

    Omg yes x 1000

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    Sure. But there’s a difference between saying “everything Facebook did in this case was totally perfect and immune to any criticism” (which by the way I am not saying, however cavalier one might read me as being) and saying that this case shows that there is actually a real issue here that allows for a certain range of interpretations.

    Clearly…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    sigh

    I’m just really curious why you are so willing to go with not informing people when they’re participating in research.

    I am willing to think about what it means to participate in research in situations where users already understand that their data is collected and analyzed and have consented to such. I am willing to consider where lines can…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    It’s still there; I’m doing it right now…dissertation be damned

    • Yes… I definitely didn’t spend any time on that site while I was supposed to be writing mine…

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    Thanks, I hadn’t run across that one yet.

    • There used to be another one on that site called “Philosophical Zombie Hunter,” where your goal was to read short sentences and decide whether their subjects were philosophical zombies, which seriously cracked me up. Sadly I don’t see it there any more, so I’m guessing the study ran its course.

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    So my responses to those issues would be:

    What is to stop researchers from claiming blanket consent agreements in other arenas?

    By clearly delineating the kinds of experimentation that are permitted on users of opt-in services with anonymized data aggregation, and continuing to subject them to IRB oversight. Any change to the status quo is not…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    It is still possible to raise the question of how such guidelines should be handled, or whether there are certain kinds of exceptions to be made in cases like large-scale data mining of opt-in systems. After all, we already have exceptions to informed consent in cases where the knowledge of the experimental protocol would screw up the results…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    Oh there are lots of problems with it, including a kind of dubious premise so far as word choice correlating to actual mental state goes. Also, how do you control for something like people deciding, say, not to post good news (or to understate their excitement) out of consideration for all their friends who seem to be having a bad time of it…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    Binge-watching is also not purely a business practice question. I chose it as an example precisely because it could have an effect on users’ emotional states.

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    Or it could be that I read and understand what you said, but disagree that situations like this call for the same degree of informed consent as participants in other kinds of studies.

    Given that no parallel is absolutely perfect, what precisely makes the situation I described so different from what Facebook did (regardless of the fact we…[Read more]

    • It is not about a “degree” of informed consent, Dan. There was no informed consent. It’s been explained now by both me and biogeo why that’s a problem for this particular study.

      And biogeo’s reply right above yours explains why your parallel does not work. But I’ll be more specific: it would depend on the goal of the research. If Netflix did…[Read more]

      • It is still possible to raise the question of how such guidelines should be handled, or whether there are certain kinds of exceptions to be made in cases like large-scale data mining of opt-in systems. After all, we already have exceptions to informed consent in cases where the knowledge of the experimental protocol would screw up the results…[Read more]

      • After all, we already have exceptions to informed consent in cases where the knowledge of the experimental protocol would screw up the results (i.e. when subjects think they are being tested on one thing but are instead being tested on something unrelated or unconscious).

        In that case, people still know they are participating in experimental…[Read more]

      • “It could be that norms will eventually shift to allow for limited kinds of experimentation on users of such systems with only blanket consent as part of the agreement.”

        I suspect this is probably true, and if managed properly this could be done in a manner that would be consonant with our current ethical standards of informed consent.…[Read more]

      • @biogeo: Eh, I would still be uncomfortable with that, but I can see how, like you said, if it was done properly and had the proper oversight, it could probably work out okay. But that’s probably based on knowing how blanket user agreements are treated now.

      • So my responses to those issues would be:

        What is to stop researchers from claiming blanket consent agreements in other arenas?

        By clearly delineating the kinds of experimentation that are permitted on users of opt-in services with anonymized data aggregation, and continuing to subject them to IRB oversight. Any change to the status quo is not…[Read more]

      • By clearly delineating the kinds of experimentation that are permitted on users of opt-in services with anonymized data aggregation, and continuing to subject them to IRB oversight.

        Why go to all that trouble when the IRB is already set up to handle such studies in a way that minimizes harm to participants? It’s creating more bureacracy where…[Read more]

      • And besides, Dan, all that is kind of irrelevant to the situation at hand. Such a system does not exist, so let me bring it back to the point. The people who conducted this study should have obtained informed consent from each participant, not through some vague blanket user agreement that references research twice. The fact that it is so damned…[Read more]

      • sigh

        I’m just really curious why you are so willing to go with not informing people when they’re participating in research.

        I am willing to think about what it means to participate in research in situations where users already understand that their data is collected and analyzed and have consented to such. I am willing to consider where lines can…[Read more]

      • Dan, when you say this: “I am willing to think about what it means to participate in research in situations where users already understand that their data is collected and analyzed and have consented to such,” it sounds to me like you’re talking about broadening access to user data for the purpose of observational study. I’m with you there –…[Read more]

      • I had a whole response written up, but I am really tired of arguing over this, and biogeo said pretty much exactly what I wanted to say in fewer words.

      • Sure. But there’s a difference between saying “everything Facebook did in this case was totally perfect and immune to any criticism” (which by the way I am not saying, however cavalier one might read me as being) and saying that this case shows that there is actually a real issue here that allows for a certain range of interpretations.

        Clearly…[Read more]

  • Dan posted a new activity comment 4 years, 1 month ago

    I guess to me it just seems too much like common knowledge that:

    a) facebook collects data on your behaviour and you explicitly agree to that (and a lot more) by signing up

    b) they use algorithms to determine what appears in your feed, and these algorithms can change for various reasons. Which you also explicitly agree to when signing…[Read more]

    • It’s almost as if you didn’t read the post where I specifically outlined what constitutes informed consent before replying…

      First of all, “common knowledge” is not sufficient to constitute informed consent. It doesn’t matter if people “should” or do know that FB is generally collecting data while they use the site. That does not constitute inf…[Read more]

      • “Second, they were not testing this for internal use for their interface, it was an experiment conducted to publish in a science journal, which is why it is required to meet a higher threshold of ethical standards.”

        Seconded. A company like Facebook can do experiments to improve its business practices; that’s fine, and obviously it would be…[Read more]

        • Binge-watching is also not purely a business practice question. I chose it as an example precisely because it could have an effect on users’ emotional states.

      • Or it could be that I read and understand what you said, but disagree that situations like this call for the same degree of informed consent as participants in other kinds of studies.

        Given that no parallel is absolutely perfect, what precisely makes the situation I described so different from what Facebook did (regardless of the fact we…[Read more]

        • It is not about a “degree” of informed consent, Dan. There was no informed consent. It’s been explained now by both me and biogeo why that’s a problem for this particular study.

          And biogeo’s reply right above yours explains why your parallel does not work. But I’ll be more specific: it would depend on the goal of the research. If Netflix did…[Read more]

          • It is still possible to raise the question of how such guidelines should be handled, or whether there are certain kinds of exceptions to be made in cases like large-scale data mining of opt-in systems. After all, we already have exceptions to informed consent in cases where the knowledge of the experimental protocol would screw up the results…[Read more]

          • After all, we already have exceptions to informed consent in cases where the knowledge of the experimental protocol would screw up the results (i.e. when subjects think they are being tested on one thing but are instead being tested on something unrelated or unconscious).

            In that case, people still know they are participating in experimental…[Read more]

          • “It could be that norms will eventually shift to allow for limited kinds of experimentation on users of such systems with only blanket consent as part of the agreement.”

            I suspect this is probably true, and if managed properly this could be done in a manner that would be consonant with our current ethical standards of informed consent.…[Read more]

          • @biogeo: Eh, I would still be uncomfortable with that, but I can see how, like you said, if it was done properly and had the proper oversight, it could probably work out okay. But that’s probably based on knowing how blanket user agreements are treated now.

          • So my responses to those issues would be:

            What is to stop researchers from claiming blanket consent agreements in other arenas?

            By clearly delineating the kinds of experimentation that are permitted on users of opt-in services with anonymized data aggregation, and continuing to subject them to IRB oversight. Any change to the status quo is not…[Read more]

          • By clearly delineating the kinds of experimentation that are permitted on users of opt-in services with anonymized data aggregation, and continuing to subject them to IRB oversight.

            Why go to all that trouble when the IRB is already set up to handle such studies in a way that minimizes harm to participants? It’s creating more bureacracy where…[Read more]

          • And besides, Dan, all that is kind of irrelevant to the situation at hand. Such a system does not exist, so let me bring it back to the point. The people who conducted this study should have obtained informed consent from each participant, not through some vague blanket user agreement that references research twice. The fact that it is so damned…[Read more]

          • sigh

            I’m just really curious why you are so willing to go with not informing people when they’re participating in research.

            I am willing to think about what it means to participate in research in situations where users already understand that their data is collected and analyzed and have consented to such. I am willing to consider where lines can…[Read more]

          • Dan, when you say this: “I am willing to think about what it means to participate in research in situations where users already understand that their data is collected and analyzed and have consented to such,” it sounds to me like you’re talking about broadening access to user data for the purpose of observational study. I’m with you there –…[Read more]

          • I had a whole response written up, but I am really tired of arguing over this, and biogeo said pretty much exactly what I wanted to say in fewer words.

          • Sure. But there’s a difference between saying “everything Facebook did in this case was totally perfect and immune to any criticism” (which by the way I am not saying, however cavalier one might read me as being) and saying that this case shows that there is actually a real issue here that allows for a certain range of interpretations.

            Clearly…[Read more]

  • I guess the tags don’t do anything? Also I am curious if Reply is supposed to do anything other than just add a new post to the thread. It would be really nice if it added something like “Re: Dan #150

  • DOZEEEEEEENNNNNSSSS

  • Load More