Linkspam is the mind-killer (1 July 2014)

Facebook’s emotion study and research ethics:

  • Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users’ Emotions For Science | Kashmir Hill at Forbes (June 28): “Facebook’s data scientists manipulated the News Feeds of 689,003 users, removing either all of the positive posts or all of the negative posts to see how it affected their moods. If there was a week in January 2012 where you were only seeing photos of dead dogs or incredibly cute babies, you may have been part of the study. Now that the experiment is public, people’s mood about the study itself would best be described as ‘disturbed.'”
  • Facebook unethical experiment : It made news feeds happier or sadder to manipulate people’s emotions. | Katy Waldman at Slate (June 28): “Facebook’s methodology raises serious ethical questions… ‘If you are exposing people to something that causes changes in psychological status, that’s experimentation,’ says James Grimmelmann, a professor of technology and the law at the University of Maryland. ‘This is the kind of thing that would require informed consent.'”
  • Facebook and Engineering the Public | Zeynep Tufecki at Medium (June 29): “I’m struck by how this kind of power can be seen as no big deal. Large corporations exist to sell us things, and to impose their interests, and I don’t understand why we as the research/academic community should just think that’s totally fine, or resign to it as ‘the world we live in’. That is the key strength of independent academia: we can speak up in spite of corporate or government interests.”
  • Did Facebook and PNAS violate human research protections in an unethical experiment? | David Gorski at Science-Based Medicine (June 30): “As tempting of a resource as Facebook’s huge amounts of data might be to social scientists interested in studying online social networks, social scientists need to remember that Facebook’s primary goal is to sell advertising, and therefore any collaboration they strike up with Facebook information scientists will be designed to help Facebook accomplish that goal. That might make it legal for Facebook to dodge human subjects protection guidelines, but it certainly doesn’t make it ethical.”

Spammy spam:

We link to a variety of sources, some of which are personal blogs.  If you visit other sites linked herein, we ask that you respect the commenting policy and individual culture of those sites.

You can suggest links for future linkspams in comments here, or by using the “geekfeminism” tag on Pinboard, Delicious or Diigo; or the “#geekfeminism” tag on Twitter. Please note that we tend to stick to publishing recent links (from the last month or so).

Thanks to everyone who suggested links.

4 thoughts on “Linkspam is the mind-killer (1 July 2014)

  1. Anonymouse

    I have a few recommendations for an upcoming linkspam. On June 13 The Mary Sue has merged with a site called Geekosystem, which is the typical dudebro-focused ‘general’ geek site. Not only is TMS’s new editor, Glen Tickle, a rabid misogynist, but they have also removed all references to TMS being for geek women. They say it’s to be more ‘inclusive’ but Tickle’s response to TMS’s core audience telling them that this change makes them feel excluded has been to respond to the complaints with misogynist tweets. The majority of their content also now seems to be exactly what you would expect a bunch of men who think it’s a feminist act to uncritically pat other ‘allies’ on the back would write. (Note: I give full permission to anyone who wishes to use the above summary in part or full, as long as a link back to this comment is given.)

    So this is the associate editor for the new The Mary Sue. Awesome. (tumblr thread started by emchelle)

    The Gary Stu, or Why I’m Not Reading ‘The Mary Sue’ Anymore by Laura Koroski on Feminspire.

    Will The Mary Sue Become a Mary Sue? by Karen Ballum on BlogHer.

    What Happened to The Mary Sue? by Leah on The Lobster Dance.

  2. Pingback: food for thought: women documenting harassment | Amiable Archivists' Salon

Comments are closed.