首页> 外文OA文献 >The Law and Ethics of Experiments on Social Media Users
【2h】

The Law and Ethics of Experiments on Social Media Users

机译:社交媒体用户实验的法律和伦理

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

If you were on Facebook in January 2012, there is a chance that it tried to make you sad. If you were on OkCupid, there is a chance that it tried to match you up with someone incompatible. These were social psychology experiments: Facebook and OkCupid systematically manipulated peopleu27s environments to test their reactions. Academics doing similar experiments in a university setting would typically need to obtain informed consent from participants and approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). But Facebook and OkCupid, and the academics working with Facebook, had neither. This, I believe, is a problem.These experiments offer us a moment for reflection, a chance to discuss the law and ethics of experiments on social media users. In this essay, I will consider social media research through the prism of the Facebook and OkCupid experiments. I will focus on three questions: (1) When do social media experiments constitute research involving people? (2) What does it take to obtain the informed consent of users? (3) What institutions are responsible for reviewing such experiments?Part I offers an initial review of the Facebook and OkCupid research projects. Part II -- the bulk of the essay -- takes up these questions under current law. Part III considers the broader question of what the rules for regulating social media research ought to be. The most immediately pressing priority is to prevent the unraveling of the existing ethical framework through IRB laundering, in which a regulated institution outsources enough work to an unregulated one to evade IRB review and informed consent. Looking further ahead, I offer some tentative thoughts on the scope of coverage, informed consent, and oversight for social media experiments. Finally, the conclusion reflects on how we should think about u22consentu22 in this setting.
机译:如果您在2012年1月在Facebook上,则有可能试图让您难过。如果你在Okcupid上,有机会与你不兼容的人匹配你。这些是社会心理学实验:Facebook和Okcupid系统地操纵人员 U27S环境以测试他们的反应。在大学环境中进行类似实验的学者通常需要从参与者获得知情同意,并从机构审查委员会(IRB)获得知情同意。但是Facebook和Okcupid,以及与Facebook一起使用的学者也没有。我相信,这是一个问题。这些实验为我们提供了一个思考的时刻,有机会讨论社交媒体用户实验的法律和伦理。在本文中,我将通过Facebook和Okcupid实验的棱镜考虑社交媒体研究。我将关注三个问题:(1)社交媒体实验何时构成涉及人民的研究? (2)获得用户明智的同意是什么? (3)哪些机构负责审查此类实验?我对Facebook和Okcupid研究项目的初步审查提供了初步审查。第二部分 - 论文的大部分 - 在目前的法律下占据这些问题。第三部分考虑了规范社会媒体研究的规则的更广泛的问题。最紧迫的优先级是通过IRB洗钱来防止现有的道德框架解开,其中监管机构向不受监管的人提供足够的工作,以逃避IRB审查和知情同意。展望进一步,我为社交媒体实验提供了一些关于覆盖范围,知情同意和监督的初步思考。最后,结论反映了我们如何在此设置中考虑 U22Consent U22。

著录项

  • 作者

    James Grimmelmann;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2017
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号