John Foreman on Facebook's data mining and manipulation

by
in science on (#3Q1)
Yes, everyone is angry that Facebook manipulated 700,000 users' timelines to see if they could help researchers prove emotions are contagious. But John Foreman isn't just annoyed about it. As a data scientist, he's thought deeply about where this is headed, and it's not good. He brings up the Kuleshov Effect first described by a Russian scientist, that images matter less than the sequence in which they are stitched together. And he concludes:
In this particular study in PNAS, we can see that the promise of data modeling at Facebook is not to "let humans be more human." It's not to "free their minds."

All of that machine reasoning isn't trying to make us more human so much as it is trying to make us more sad and predictable. And just wait until deep learning applied to image recognition can recognize and stream my selfie at Krispie Kreme next to a tagged photo of me and my love handles at the beach. Data-driven inferiority complexes for all!

The promise of data modeling at Facebook is to place us in chains made from the juxtaposition of our own content. We'll be driven into pens made of a few profitable emotional states where marketing content waits for us like a cattle gun to the skull.
This is an interesting read. Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless. Time to ditch Facebook and spend more time on Twitter? He's got thoughts about that too.
Reply 6 comments

And? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-07-07 00:02 (#2C0)

Am I the only one who approves of what they did? Of COURSE their users are fodder for whatever data experiment Facebook deems fit. What the devil did people think the arrangement was about when they were stupid enough to record their real names, relationships, and activities on somebody else's web site? It's GOOD that FB is trying to be intelligent about how they milk the base. Do you want your keepers to be stupid?

FB owes its users nothing, and good for the users if they ever manage to figure that out. Their accounts exist for only one purpose, to make money for Zuck and shareholders. Schmucks.

Re: And? (Score: 2, Insightful)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-07-07 09:16 (#2C2)

You've got a good point, sort of. You mean they didn't put all this hardware and software on line for my benefit only, so I could share pictures of my kid vomiting with friends and family?

There's a good XKCD about it: http://xkcd.org/1390/ "Research Ethics"

Re: And? (Score: 1)

by skarjak@pipedot.org on 2014-07-07 13:15 (#2C4)

We have plenty of laws in place to protect people from their own idiocy. It's not always such a bad thing because while you may not feel empathy for them, it's probably best not to reward companies for exploiting others. Because you might end up being their next target.

Re: And? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-07-07 16:11 (#2C6)

Again, Facebook did nothing wrong legally, morally, technically, or contractually. If people want to introduce legislation on how companies mine their own data, let them do so. For now, simply exposing FB as an evil festering pile of dung us sufficient.

my favorite part (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-07-09 18:33 (#2D8)

That said, where else am I going to share photos of my kids with old friends? Can't do that on Twitter...I only use Twitter to express faux indignation and convenient morality concerning trending causes. Looks like I'm stuck with Zuck.
Awesome stuff. I see where Twitter is useful, but I think he's right about this one.

Pump.io (Score: 1)

by mrkaos@pipedot.org on 2014-07-11 05:02 (#2EW)

All of these social media engines are already obsolete because they don't interact with each other. I'm questioning if this can continue and when social media, now that people can see its benefits, is set to change to a more standardised model. The day when I can share public keys with the people I (really) want to see my activities, and all others are excluded using engines such as Pump.io, is the only time when social media is controlled by the user as opposed to the advertiser.

I know it seems a long way away now, however things have changed quickly in IT before.