Tag: Facebook

Collective Intelligence

I enjoy photographing wildlife and I sometimes make use of trail cams as part of this hobby. Trail cams are probably most commonly used by hunters to determine if the wildlife they seek are in a particular area. I don’t hunt, but trail cams offer a different way to see what animals inhabit the land we own.

Some years ago Cindy found a birdcam at a sale. This variant of a trail cam is intended for taking motion activated photos at close distances. The version she bought came with a mount allowing the camera to be precisely positioned to collect images of birds coming to a feeder. The camera was probably expensive when first sold – it has a provision for video or photos and settings for the distance to the target to allow better quality images. It is probably 8-10 years old now so the megapixels of data it collects is not close to what we now expect.

I recently joined a Facebook group – Grow with KARE – hosted by a local television station. The group is gardening/yard oriented and I had just found an interesting photo on my birdcam I shared with the group.

The image shows a male cardinal feeding seed to what I thought was a juvenile. Cardinals are frequent visitors to the feeder, but this feeding behavior seemed unusual. I had not witnessed it outside of a nest before. I just thought it was unusual and interesting. The photo generated a great deal of interest (at least in my experience posting to Facebook). Female cardinals are far less colorful and I had assumed that this was possibly an immature female being raised and acquainted with the feeder by the male.

Several of those responding to my post informed me that this looked like an immature cowbird. The species lays eggs in the nests of other birds and the other birds then raise the babies when they hatch. I checked out cowbird and this seems to be the case. This is likely an immature female.

I explore photography as an educational opportunity and I have definitely learned something from the group process I experienced.

Just for the record, here are photos taken by the birdcam of male and female cardinals.

Loading

Facebook Research and Human Research Ethics

Facebook has again attracted attention for deceptive practices. In this case, Facebook conducted a research study to determine whether the emotional content of the newsfeed influenced the behavior of Facebook users. The content was purposefully manipulated (an experiment) rather than naturally occurring (a correlational study).

There seem two parts to this story. First, there is the behavior of Facebook. Second, there is the behavior of university faculty members who helped design the study and then reported the results without clearing the study with the University Human Subjects Review Committee.

I am in a better position to comment on university research expectations than business practices. This was essentially a social psychology experiment. Social psychologists frequently manipulate subject mood using methods involving deception. If you inform research subjects that they are involved in a study that will involve manipulation of their mood, the outcome of the research is suspect. Deception can be employed. HOWEVER, a review committee evaluates the methodology to consider the potential impact of the manipulation and the potential benefit of the research, participants know they are participating in a research study, and after completing the study students are debriefed to help them understand the nature of the research and to suggest possible assistance participants might seek should they have negative consequences as a result of the research. While deception can be involved, participants are informed they can withdraw from research without malice. Deception during an experiment should not continue once the participants has completed the study.

Psychologists are familiarized with ethical research practices. Even students in introductory psychology courses, perhaps because they frequently serve as research participants, would be introduced to the guidelines I have described here. In my opinion, the researchers have violated ethical guidelines.

I follow this analysis with several references offering different opinions. I do not buy the argument that researchers were operating independently of their institutions and hence not bound by Human Subjects requirements. The academics list their university affiliation in the publication that results from the study.

 danah boyd analysis

VentureBeat

“Because the research was conducted independently by Facebook and Professor Hancock had access only to results— and not to any data at any time—Cornell University’s Institutional Review Board concluded that he was not directly engaged in human research and that no review by the Cornell Human Research Protection Program was required,” the statement said.

BBC

Loading

THINKING about privacy within Facebook

I do have a Facebook account. I guess I have this account because people I know make heavy use of Facebook and having an account connects me with them. I spend very little time in Facebook, but I send excerpts from the content I generate elsewhere to Facebook so “Facebook only” acquaintances see this content.

Facebook initially annoyed me because of a personal bias. The phrase “digital native” and the unique qualities ascribed to those who happen to fall within this group by function of their birth date seemed elitist and simply wrong. Perhaps I was jealous of an attribution that was beyond my control. To me, Facebook became the face of the digital native. Facebook as a place where many spend great amounts of time often doing things that seemed frivolous. I did not argue the generational difference in the time spent, but I did contest the value of spending this amount of time.

I have been following issues related to user privacy on Facebook for some time. The problem of control has long been an issue with naive users failing to appreciate the longevity of inappropriate content shared online. After listening and reading about recent developments, I have additional concerns.

We drove 500+ miles last Friday and that means that Cindy and I listen to many hours of podcasts (when the Twins are not playing). We happened to listen to a TWIG program (This Week in Google – and the cloud) that got heavily into an analysis of Facebook privacy challenges AND what appears to be a strategy of collecting user data of several categories within the Facebook environment. Part of the conspiracy theory is that these two issues are inter-related; i.e., Facebook is purposefully making it difficult for users to control who can view their data in order to increase the amount of data Facebook can collect and organize.

If such issues interest you, the following resources may be helpful.

The issues with Facebook are evolving beyond whether instructors should friend their students or whether educational organizations should maintain a Facebook presence. I admit to distrusting consolidation, but I am trying to decide if this is something more.

Loading