1390: Research Ethics - Revision history

162.158.74.14: /* Explanation */ Was ungrammatical. This seemed like the quickest fix to make it (awkwardly) grammatical according to my best understanding of the original intent.

2025-03-02T20:55:12Z

‎Explanation: Was ungrammatical. This seemed like the quickest fix to make it (awkwardly) grammatical according to my best understanding of the original intent.

FaviFake: added Category:Comics edited after their publication using HotCat

2025-03-02T11:57:58Z

added Category:Comics edited after their publication using HotCat

FaviFake at 11:57, 2 March 2025

2025-03-02T11:57:48Z

172.69.151.85: Having Facebook spy on you is not at all like a neighbor spying. You can't really choose your neighbors, but you can easily choose not to use Facebook.

2024-11-13T21:59:20Z

Having Facebook spy on you is not at all like a neighbor spying. You can't really choose your neighbors, but you can easily choose not to use Facebook.

Theusaf: Reverted edits by Donald Trump (talk) to last revision by CRLF

2022-05-26T19:57:32Z

Reverted edits by Donald Trump (talk) to last revision by CRLF

Show changes

Donald Trump: Reverted edit by anti-crap user

2022-05-26T19:04:37Z

Reverted edit by anti-crap user

Show changes

CRLF: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

2022-05-26T17:49:58Z

Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Show changes

Donald Trump: Reverted edit by anti-crap user

2022-05-26T17:24:22Z

Reverted edit by anti-crap user

Show changes

CRLF: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

2022-05-23T18:19:38Z

Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Show changes

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: haha your js cant stop my js

2022-05-23T18:18:31Z

haha your js cant stop my js

Show changes

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Here, [[Megan]] is commenting on the fact that, while the media is calling this control over what content the user sees "{{w|unethical}}," Facebook, and other companies like {{w|Google}}, must, one way or another, control what content the user sees, whether to present users with a limited selection of all postings, or to tailor ads to particular users; even if the regular algorithms are not set up for psychological experiments, they are still "manipulating" what posts users see or don't see. As Megan points out, no one really knows what the "normal" constraints are of the algorithm which chooses which posts are shown on news feeds. This comic is parodying the strong reaction to what is basically already a common practice.
-Accumulation, control and analysis of user-generated information can be a part of the {{w|terms of service}}/{{w|end-user license agreement}} of a Website or software. In such a scenario, the user has effectively signed his/her consent to being part of such research. Unfortunately, most users don't read the terms before clicking the "I agree" option, so it can come as a shock when the service uses the data in a way the user hadn't anticipated. In the comic [[743: Infrastructures]] the same issues with Facebook and open source. And in [[1150: Instagram]] the subject is again about how users feel used by social networks, this time by {{w|Instagram}}, which is now owned by Facebook.
+Accumulation, control and analysis of user-generated information can be a part of the {{w|terms of service}}/{{w|end-user license agreement}} of a Website or software. In such a scenario, the user has effectively signed his/her consent to being part of such research. Unfortunately, most users don't read the terms before clicking the "I agree" option, so it can come as a shock when the service uses the data in a way the user hadn't anticipated. In the comic [[743: Infrastructures]] are the same issues with Facebook and open source. And in [[1150: Instagram]] the subject is again about how users feel used by social networks, this time by {{w|Instagram}}, which is now owned by Facebook.
 The title text ironically/sarcastically accepts that Facebook has access to all of its users thoughts through posts and photos, and they can read them for research or other purposes, but contrasts this with a suggestion which likely mirrors how Facebook would respond to such a request that Facebook's code is private and can not be revealed to us. The title text basically appears to be musing that this is backwards, and our personal data should be considered MORE private than Facebook's programming code, which may be proprietary, but is not personal private data. It can be argued though that no one is forcing people to hand all their personal data to Facebook. If someone feels, maybe justified, that the situation is unfair, they are free not to use Facebook. It is as if someone you invited into your house was spying on you, but you felt it to be inappropriate to find out what he knew about you because that's his business. Asking for the source code might be equivalent to asking that person for the specifications of the binoculars they used for spying.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:57, 2 March 2025
Line 32:		Line 32:
	[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]		[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
	[[Category:Social networking]]		[[Category:Social networking]]
		+	[[Category:Comics edited after their publication]]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Here, [[Megan]] is commenting on the fact that, while the media is calling this control over what content the user sees "{{w|unethical}}," Facebook, and other companies like {{w|Google}}, must, one way or another, control what content the user sees, whether to present users with a limited selection of all postings, or to tailor ads to particular users; even if the regular algorithms are not set up for psychological experiments, they are still "manipulating" what posts users see or don't see. As Megan points out, no one really knows what the "normal" constraints are of the algorithm which chooses which posts are shown on news feeds. This comic is parodying the strong reaction to what is basically already a common practice.
-Accumulation, control and analysis of user-generated information can be a part of the {{w|terms of service}}/{{w|end-user license agreement}} of a Website or software. In such a scenario, the user has effectively signed his/her consent to being part of such research. Unfortunately, most users don't read the terms before clicking the "I agree" option, so it can come as a shock when the service uses the data in a way the user hadn't anticipated.
+Accumulation, control and analysis of user-generated information can be a part of the {{w|terms of service}}/{{w|end-user license agreement}} of a Website or software. In such a scenario, the user has effectively signed his/her consent to being part of such research. Unfortunately, most users don't read the terms before clicking the "I agree" option, so it can come as a shock when the service uses the data in a way the user hadn't anticipated. In the comic [[743: Infrastructures]] the same issues with Facebook and open source. And in [[1150: Instagram]] the subject is again about how users feel used by social networks, this time by {{w|Instagram}}, which is now owned by Facebook.
-The title text ironically/sarcastically accepts that Facebook has access to all of its users thoughts through posts and photos, and they can read them for research or other purposes, but contrasts this with a suggestion which likely mirrors how Facebook would respond to such a request that Facebook's code is private and can not be revealed to us. The title text basically appears to be musing that this is backwards, and our personal data should be considered MORE private than Facebook's programming code, which may be proprietary, but is not personal private data. It can be argued though that no one is forcing people to hand all their personal data to Facebook. If someone feels, maybe justified, that the situation is unfair, they are free not to use Facebook.
+The title text ironically/sarcastically accepts that Facebook has access to all of its users thoughts through posts and photos, and they can read them for research or other purposes, but contrasts this with a suggestion which likely mirrors how Facebook would respond to such a request that Facebook's code is private and can not be revealed to us. The title text basically appears to be musing that this is backwards, and our personal data should be considered MORE private than Facebook's programming code, which may be proprietary, but is not personal private data. It can be argued though that no one is forcing people to hand all their personal data to Facebook. If someone feels, maybe justified, that the situation is unfair, they are free not to use Facebook. It is as if someone you invited into your house was spying on you, but you felt it to be inappropriate to find out what he knew about you because that's his business. Asking for the source code might be equivalent to asking that person for the specifications of the binoculars they used for spying.
 ==Transcript==
@@ Line 29: / Line 24: @@
 ==Trivia==
-*The [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/a/a3/20140704163127!research_ethics.png original comic image] had a typing mistake. [[Randall]] wrote ''what'' twice in a row - first at the end of the first line and then again at the start of the second line. This is a classic optical illusion - but he got caught in it by himself, because he obviously did not do it on purpose, since he quickly corrected the error and loaded the current version up on xkcd.
+In the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/a/a3/20140704163127!research_ethics.png original version of the comic], [[Randall]] accidentally wrote "what" twice in a row, first at the end of the first line and then again at the start of the second line. This is a classic optical illusion. Since he didn't do it on purpose, he quickly corrected the error and loaded the current version up on xkcd.
 {{comic discussion}}
 [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
 [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
 [[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
 [[Category:Social networking]]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Accumulation, control and analysis of user-generated information can be a part of the {{w|terms of service}}/{{w|end-user license agreement}} of a Website or software. In such a scenario, the user has effectively signed his/her consent to being part of such research. Unfortunately, most users don't read the terms before clicking the "I agree" option, so it can come as a shock when the service uses the data in a way the user hadn't anticipated.
-The title text ironically/sarcastically accepts that Facebook has access to all of its users thoughts through posts and photos, and they can read them for research or other purposes, but contrasts this with a suggestion which likely mirrors how Facebook would respond to such a request that Facebook's code is private and can not be revealed to us. The title text basically appears to be musing that this is backwards, and our personal data should be considered MORE private than Facebook's programming code, which may be proprietary, but is not personal private data.
+The title text ironically/sarcastically accepts that Facebook has access to all of its users thoughts through posts and photos, and they can read them for research or other purposes, but contrasts this with a suggestion which likely mirrors how Facebook would respond to such a request that Facebook's code is private and can not be revealed to us. The title text basically appears to be musing that this is backwards, and our personal data should be considered MORE private than Facebook's programming code, which may be proprietary, but is not personal private data. It can be argued though that no one is forcing people to hand all their personal data to Facebook. If someone feels, maybe justified, that the situation is unfair, they are free not to use Facebook.
-It is as if your neighbor was spying on you while you left all your shades open, but you felt it to be inappropriate to find out what he knew about you because that's his business. Asking for the source code might similarly be equivalent to asking for the specifications of the binoculars your neighbor used for spying.
+It is as if someone you invited into your house was spying on you, but you felt it to be inappropriate to find out what he knew about you because that's his business. Asking for the source code might be equivalent to asking that person for the specifications of the binoculars they used for spying.
 *In the comic [[743: Infrastructures]] the same issues with Facebook and open source.