Facebook secretly experimented with the moods of 700000 of its users
So I wonder how it bodes well for the contingent theory that the ultra violent so much as engage in the daily lifting of a pen or mouse in hand at best, are left with the psychopathic eminent domain so to as to protect the public as a whole, bolster the likes of the NSA, boost private securities black lists, and so forth. Apparently in terms of theory running these days towing informally what is likely in informal circles 'degenerate' art. I think this has been obvious with Facebook for a time, this sort of hit and run is not completely un common in other social networks.
Unfortunately, an associated picture does little to explain or really justify itself otherwise in a given article, or really make light, or at least one is to wonder where the money came for any study such as this.
A correction to the subsidiary image associated with the article leads in time, not only being something of a poster child, but being something substantially more for a given society that bore itself to disgustingly high levels of hypocrisy.
Over any number of years, to suggest in dealing in the sense of refrain or avoidance to social situations such as these invokes the theory, much laughter here, as to being the anti social, cold, detached, disassociated sort of individual, or strategic use of social networking as a whole, hardly a crime there. :).
Other problems one should imagine, a bit overlooked, outside of the existing, that if you hadn't picked up a nasty bug redirecting your links to a fake Facebook site which attempted to co op likely greater extremes of social manipulation (if not engaged in some form of outright malicious behavior to a more extensive degree), in dealing with the likes of any other private and governmental groups that should use Facebook to the extent of social manipulations, or it seems for all this, the better solution, drop all the problem links, heavily censor your personal content, generally minimize content use of this type, redirect social activities, or at least don't heavily invest yourself in certain directions beyond the time that you desire investing here. As to time spent, its yours, as to any discourse, I'd hope to personally keep the time spent bolstered. Not to pick on Facebook here exclusively here, I've seen something of this problem occurring in other social networking venues. Facebook just happens to be the largest of the bunch, and the easiest likely, in using with wider audience appeal, and in so far as creating social theater, the more likely to be used by predatory groups phishing for information or worse. In retrospect though I wonder how much a drop in the bucket such a situation were?!
The sorts of social manipulation these days might have you convinced the food supply weren't exactly safe, nor drinking water, and that individuals were even corrupting it by tainting the 'cat chow', and all this were the aims of public safety? Here if necessary to this extent there were supposedly even enough warrant to make it so, or that few should care, or that with some effort your condition could even be a self induced somatic condition. Certainly all of these perceptions, experiences must go beyond Facebook, I mean Facebook couldn't be responsible for, for instance, something like mutilated cattle, or black helicopters in the night suspiciously flying in the vicinity of a given location, and here you have the ugly disgrace, of tortured animals coupled with little compensation provided, the puzzled rancher in us scratches his head. After all it had seemed a bit puzzling the idea of any number of widespread collusion to be more than happenstance annoyance. Here, given to the idea of reacting, hadn't given so much the telephone hard dialings with list of emergency contacts in tote, or having evaded much of this with an overnight succession that should appear as good as any Roanoke or Mary Celeste fly by night venture, you were as in the previous day, should exist more easily in alms of Stockholm which must in itself be part of the calculus of captivity. There really weren't any backup money, backup plans, phone numbers, secret networks to shield and aid one here, nor really anyone to provide kind guidance, counseling, shelter, underground networks. To this extent, the silent sufferer lives out the same sorts of existence, and lives by some sort of mutual assurance it is then reasoned, something exists which prevents anything further from being any more true. After all the clearer signs should be anything of obvious warrant less searches, daily personal intrusions, forced labor, forced educational camps, something more squeamish exists on the part of a given society?! Bridge scandals and diarrhea are inconveniences, and surely the extent or rather that personal conquests of sorts in the proof, might have asserted something like imminent domain to the extent of state seizure of children to be held for an apparently undefined indefinite amount of time to try and prove its case, here you wondering if trained doctors really existed in hospitals, or at least something of the focus came from some shadowy individual with a red phone, arrogance, ignorance, and/or both to say one thing over the other and make things so, despite the better advice provided by any well trained jury. The problem is that when the phone call were made, as likely as it could have been instigated from someone with a recording in tote (or something else), to suggest the untimeliness of things, that it produces exactly the same sets of conditions leading to the same sets of likely outcomes, or that mere suspicion were the warrant of repetitions of things and its inclination, but likely less so the admittance of failure in a given theory, or when enough is enough is more likely the political circus of social ignorance, as much as that sort of captivity has bred, likely the captive subject is as captive as to be expected, and in the adulteration of literature, begs the question 'When do the algorithms of routine human existence, indicate more so when someone is not human?' It is the sort of question that the torturer asks to make himself feel at home to his own position, his own power, his own justification, his own reasoning...on the other hand, one should find oneself making due with absurdities, surely a stomach ailment were a stomach ailment that should get better in time. Sure one might have suffered but always to some extent of reasoned injury, and therein the problem with the experiment it must likewise be reasoned, and it weren't like one were something of a gun nut, or it would seem less likely these days the sorts of provocation of this sort were aimed at individuals such as these, more likely someone less likely to inflict harm or injury, that were to serve as the lynch pins of society, as to its state of existential decay, as to its malaise, its problems, its injury, and so forth. Everyone likely knows this: rewards are bestowed to the problems of this world, and taken away from the less likely of problems in this world. Or at least its the sort of maxim of the obvious sort, you always need an alibi when you have a hard time living with yourself, and that itself is enough to the warrant of suspicion in having observed it.
Here's a given recipe for social manipulation:
It would be noting that mirroring social networking information in theory shouldn't be so hard, after all if you could obtain account information knowing someone's account, you'd simply need to duplicate the information from a given account to a given user, and this ensures likely that you aren't held to the believable world simulations problem, that is where you were held to the responsibility of creating any number of posts that should sufficiently seem like the things the users friends may or may not say...after all, if you step out of bounds with out of character things too often too far, it might be more obvious to a given user that something is up, maybe the user is actually more likely to talk to someone in person about something, but its hard to know what sort of note comparison threshold exists here?! But the mirror world solution deals inherently with these problems not merely by creating from scratch anything, but only slightly modifying user posts as needed. In this way, you could for instance, have a post slightly more malignant, slightly more needling, but not enough for average note comparison thresholds, i.e., when and whenever a user goes a step further in talking to a person face to face, which seems more likely not true as opposed to being true, unless you might have sensed you were dealing with people likely to interact in any frequent sense face to face, e.g., soccer moms :). And even so in case of note comparisons, who wants to believe that third party actors were actively manipulating posts and posing as their friends, in this case, the user might even think their friends were more liars than they might have thought. Even so with the case, of more outright and obvious examples, it would seem more likely that one should even so less likely suspect their social networking service to be bad relative to a fake social manipulation. The other part of this problem, comes by way of omissions, one should imagine modifying given statistical likes for a user post could have slight and subtle effects on those seeking something of social approvals or positive user feedback. For instance, a user is rewarded with positive feedback for any linked posts, but then over time, I attempt to steer the user in a subtle way by reducing the user friend 'like' feedback provided for any set of posts containing similar socio/political/ideological content in this way, maybe the user is more likely not to post anything, if a given user friend base, not being required to say anything, neither provide approvals. Of course, it seems no wonder that psychological differences between individuals are such that some react less and more to these subtle feedback queue systems, and thus it seems for a given refinement, one should articulate feed back by either increasing or diminishing as necessary a given threshold in which someone may or may not respond to a given set of social stimulus. Reward and punishment systems (positive and negative) feedback systems are critical one should imagine in dictating the frequency in which people may or may not interact in these social systems. If you could, for instance, hook users into more use of a given social system, and then having changed reward/punishments over time could lead, one should imagine, a greater likelihood of changing content posts. One could not neglect carrot in this approach either, rewards should be as much in the mix as it were punishment. Otherwise, one risks losing a given user entirely in the process, or at least the user manages to find other avenues in communicating and/or comes to subconsciously know that a given social network tends to lean more often than not towards the negative. Few tend to be active seekers of negative rewards stimulation as in human nature it should seem?! Its hard to imagine this at least, or that a fair number would likely engage in avoidance, or dismissal of a given experience. Internalizing negative stimulation tends to be something more often than not defined as an issue of emotional maturity one should reason. At least adolescents could be more likely to internalize or act upon negative social stimulus, while adults more likely having a diversified sense of esteem grounded in alternative forms of social activity. For instance, the adult could be more likely to have any number of social activities in a given acquired social experience wisdom to fall back upon in seeking reward stimulation. Whereas young adults and adolescents less likely to be self resourceful in finding alternative forms of positive social stimulation. Having recalled a recent public radio segment on the origins of tracking devices used for alternatives to traditional incarceration. The tracking device's intent was not so much designed in its early days to ensure conformity to home incarceration, for instance, in the negative sense of something like parole violation alone when the would be prisoner, for instance, had violated the condition of their confinement say going out when they weren't supposed to leave a given premise, but instead, reward systems could be implemented when a prisoner had actually conformed to the condition of achieving something, like completing a voluntary work task, and then getting say something like pizza privileges. At that time, at least the approach were considered differed relative to what it were today, which often tends towards the punishment ends. At least if you the manipulator intend to use something like prisoner models, you think actively of ways to achieve adequate levels of social interaction in the prisons that you intend to create, I'd offer here.
As you see I post in a similar theme these days, now it would appear in some ways that exterior virtual social systems have inflected the nature and degree of any number of these posts. More so when negative stimulus are provided in varying degrees, leads to its likely to a mirrored outcome, or this is to say, if the world seems more negative by the degree and influence of social spheres, one may likely perceive this as negative. As to the difference between reflection, ideation, and violent behavior. That is, another matter of nebulous territory, or at least it seems dubious enough with respect to those that do or don't react in ways violently, a vast statistical majority of those having thought in manner of violence never do act upon these thoughts (something like in the single digit several percent territory do), and one should imagine even well in this day and age, a vast statistical majority of America as whole invariably at one time or another having violent thoughts or fantasies that neither acted out on any number of these thoughts. Again, something of the pop psychology social circus and the great and grand sociological experiment entailed, prediction of social behavior always a foregone conclusion?!
I'd only leave off that I hadn't thought Facebook is inherently bad despite present and past hand wringing, as it were evident enough in their popular rise, and part of these being proximate to responding to the needs of their user base, in so far as providing user site content control, obviously a less flexible site could lead to the types of online sociological disaster, like I didn't know that about my friend/neighbor and not for the better, which should lead to the sorts of consequences in the long term, that a once higher user population base finds themselves leaving the social networking experience behind. To be a successful venture means articulating in some ways a balance which gives user a way to implement site controls so that they feel empowered enough in so far as site content (i.e., who wants to be subjected to a barrage of opposing negative partisan chatter), and then theses days I've delved into something of horror (fictional one should hope), but unfortunately, it would seem the problems of social networking may go well outside Facebook alone. Social experiences here are neither less solitary at times, outside of the incidental or non incidental contacts, being something of an aged male at that of what ever opinion should be hit and miss, or at least this statistically one should gather is a more endemic process of the aging male, while some manage social attractions, such species is more likely (outside of the profession sorts) doomed to social isolation in many ways. If socially normative expectations were that one had too much to say, too much opinion, hadn't conformed to any number of perceptions of the aged white male, it would seem that something of social conditions is likely reflected by this. Being quiet, were not enough at times in one's defense, being less than quiet certainly not enough, being too compassionate something else, while the opposite most definitely a problem, it seems in any event there could be much indictment for its own sake here, however, arbitrary all of this were in reality. Maybe we relate to one another certainly, we relate to our own social aggression, the sort of opposite of sex attractions at once seemingly holding to the paradox of being allured truly to the likeliest perpetrators of crimes in general.
So I wonder how it bodes well for the contingent theory that the ultra violent so much as engage in the daily lifting of a pen or mouse in hand at best, are left with the psychopathic eminent domain so to as to protect the public as a whole, bolster the likes of the NSA, boost private securities black lists, and so forth. Apparently in terms of theory running these days towing informally what is likely in informal circles 'degenerate' art. I think this has been obvious with Facebook for a time, this sort of hit and run is not completely un common in other social networks.
Unfortunately, an associated picture does little to explain or really justify itself otherwise in a given article, or really make light, or at least one is to wonder where the money came for any study such as this.
A correction to the subsidiary image associated with the article leads in time, not only being something of a poster child, but being something substantially more for a given society that bore itself to disgustingly high levels of hypocrisy.
Over any number of years, to suggest in dealing in the sense of refrain or avoidance to social situations such as these invokes the theory, much laughter here, as to being the anti social, cold, detached, disassociated sort of individual, or strategic use of social networking as a whole, hardly a crime there. :).
Other problems one should imagine, a bit overlooked, outside of the existing, that if you hadn't picked up a nasty bug redirecting your links to a fake Facebook site which attempted to co op likely greater extremes of social manipulation (if not engaged in some form of outright malicious behavior to a more extensive degree), in dealing with the likes of any other private and governmental groups that should use Facebook to the extent of social manipulations, or it seems for all this, the better solution, drop all the problem links, heavily censor your personal content, generally minimize content use of this type, redirect social activities, or at least don't heavily invest yourself in certain directions beyond the time that you desire investing here. As to time spent, its yours, as to any discourse, I'd hope to personally keep the time spent bolstered. Not to pick on Facebook here exclusively here, I've seen something of this problem occurring in other social networking venues. Facebook just happens to be the largest of the bunch, and the easiest likely, in using with wider audience appeal, and in so far as creating social theater, the more likely to be used by predatory groups phishing for information or worse. In retrospect though I wonder how much a drop in the bucket such a situation were?!
The sorts of social manipulation these days might have you convinced the food supply weren't exactly safe, nor drinking water, and that individuals were even corrupting it by tainting the 'cat chow', and all this were the aims of public safety? Here if necessary to this extent there were supposedly even enough warrant to make it so, or that few should care, or that with some effort your condition could even be a self induced somatic condition. Certainly all of these perceptions, experiences must go beyond Facebook, I mean Facebook couldn't be responsible for, for instance, something like mutilated cattle, or black helicopters in the night suspiciously flying in the vicinity of a given location, and here you have the ugly disgrace, of tortured animals coupled with little compensation provided, the puzzled rancher in us scratches his head. After all it had seemed a bit puzzling the idea of any number of widespread collusion to be more than happenstance annoyance. Here, given to the idea of reacting, hadn't given so much the telephone hard dialings with list of emergency contacts in tote, or having evaded much of this with an overnight succession that should appear as good as any Roanoke or Mary Celeste fly by night venture, you were as in the previous day, should exist more easily in alms of Stockholm which must in itself be part of the calculus of captivity. There really weren't any backup money, backup plans, phone numbers, secret networks to shield and aid one here, nor really anyone to provide kind guidance, counseling, shelter, underground networks. To this extent, the silent sufferer lives out the same sorts of existence, and lives by some sort of mutual assurance it is then reasoned, something exists which prevents anything further from being any more true. After all the clearer signs should be anything of obvious warrant less searches, daily personal intrusions, forced labor, forced educational camps, something more squeamish exists on the part of a given society?! Bridge scandals and diarrhea are inconveniences, and surely the extent or rather that personal conquests of sorts in the proof, might have asserted something like imminent domain to the extent of state seizure of children to be held for an apparently undefined indefinite amount of time to try and prove its case, here you wondering if trained doctors really existed in hospitals, or at least something of the focus came from some shadowy individual with a red phone, arrogance, ignorance, and/or both to say one thing over the other and make things so, despite the better advice provided by any well trained jury. The problem is that when the phone call were made, as likely as it could have been instigated from someone with a recording in tote (or something else), to suggest the untimeliness of things, that it produces exactly the same sets of conditions leading to the same sets of likely outcomes, or that mere suspicion were the warrant of repetitions of things and its inclination, but likely less so the admittance of failure in a given theory, or when enough is enough is more likely the political circus of social ignorance, as much as that sort of captivity has bred, likely the captive subject is as captive as to be expected, and in the adulteration of literature, begs the question 'When do the algorithms of routine human existence, indicate more so when someone is not human?' It is the sort of question that the torturer asks to make himself feel at home to his own position, his own power, his own justification, his own reasoning...on the other hand, one should find oneself making due with absurdities, surely a stomach ailment were a stomach ailment that should get better in time. Sure one might have suffered but always to some extent of reasoned injury, and therein the problem with the experiment it must likewise be reasoned, and it weren't like one were something of a gun nut, or it would seem less likely these days the sorts of provocation of this sort were aimed at individuals such as these, more likely someone less likely to inflict harm or injury, that were to serve as the lynch pins of society, as to its state of existential decay, as to its malaise, its problems, its injury, and so forth. Everyone likely knows this: rewards are bestowed to the problems of this world, and taken away from the less likely of problems in this world. Or at least its the sort of maxim of the obvious sort, you always need an alibi when you have a hard time living with yourself, and that itself is enough to the warrant of suspicion in having observed it.
Here's a given recipe for social manipulation:
It would be noting that mirroring social networking information in theory shouldn't be so hard, after all if you could obtain account information knowing someone's account, you'd simply need to duplicate the information from a given account to a given user, and this ensures likely that you aren't held to the believable world simulations problem, that is where you were held to the responsibility of creating any number of posts that should sufficiently seem like the things the users friends may or may not say...after all, if you step out of bounds with out of character things too often too far, it might be more obvious to a given user that something is up, maybe the user is actually more likely to talk to someone in person about something, but its hard to know what sort of note comparison threshold exists here?! But the mirror world solution deals inherently with these problems not merely by creating from scratch anything, but only slightly modifying user posts as needed. In this way, you could for instance, have a post slightly more malignant, slightly more needling, but not enough for average note comparison thresholds, i.e., when and whenever a user goes a step further in talking to a person face to face, which seems more likely not true as opposed to being true, unless you might have sensed you were dealing with people likely to interact in any frequent sense face to face, e.g., soccer moms :). And even so in case of note comparisons, who wants to believe that third party actors were actively manipulating posts and posing as their friends, in this case, the user might even think their friends were more liars than they might have thought. Even so with the case, of more outright and obvious examples, it would seem more likely that one should even so less likely suspect their social networking service to be bad relative to a fake social manipulation. The other part of this problem, comes by way of omissions, one should imagine modifying given statistical likes for a user post could have slight and subtle effects on those seeking something of social approvals or positive user feedback. For instance, a user is rewarded with positive feedback for any linked posts, but then over time, I attempt to steer the user in a subtle way by reducing the user friend 'like' feedback provided for any set of posts containing similar socio/political/ideological content in this way, maybe the user is more likely not to post anything, if a given user friend base, not being required to say anything, neither provide approvals. Of course, it seems no wonder that psychological differences between individuals are such that some react less and more to these subtle feedback queue systems, and thus it seems for a given refinement, one should articulate feed back by either increasing or diminishing as necessary a given threshold in which someone may or may not respond to a given set of social stimulus. Reward and punishment systems (positive and negative) feedback systems are critical one should imagine in dictating the frequency in which people may or may not interact in these social systems. If you could, for instance, hook users into more use of a given social system, and then having changed reward/punishments over time could lead, one should imagine, a greater likelihood of changing content posts. One could not neglect carrot in this approach either, rewards should be as much in the mix as it were punishment. Otherwise, one risks losing a given user entirely in the process, or at least the user manages to find other avenues in communicating and/or comes to subconsciously know that a given social network tends to lean more often than not towards the negative. Few tend to be active seekers of negative rewards stimulation as in human nature it should seem?! Its hard to imagine this at least, or that a fair number would likely engage in avoidance, or dismissal of a given experience. Internalizing negative stimulation tends to be something more often than not defined as an issue of emotional maturity one should reason. At least adolescents could be more likely to internalize or act upon negative social stimulus, while adults more likely having a diversified sense of esteem grounded in alternative forms of social activity. For instance, the adult could be more likely to have any number of social activities in a given acquired social experience wisdom to fall back upon in seeking reward stimulation. Whereas young adults and adolescents less likely to be self resourceful in finding alternative forms of positive social stimulation. Having recalled a recent public radio segment on the origins of tracking devices used for alternatives to traditional incarceration. The tracking device's intent was not so much designed in its early days to ensure conformity to home incarceration, for instance, in the negative sense of something like parole violation alone when the would be prisoner, for instance, had violated the condition of their confinement say going out when they weren't supposed to leave a given premise, but instead, reward systems could be implemented when a prisoner had actually conformed to the condition of achieving something, like completing a voluntary work task, and then getting say something like pizza privileges. At that time, at least the approach were considered differed relative to what it were today, which often tends towards the punishment ends. At least if you the manipulator intend to use something like prisoner models, you think actively of ways to achieve adequate levels of social interaction in the prisons that you intend to create, I'd offer here.
As you see I post in a similar theme these days, now it would appear in some ways that exterior virtual social systems have inflected the nature and degree of any number of these posts. More so when negative stimulus are provided in varying degrees, leads to its likely to a mirrored outcome, or this is to say, if the world seems more negative by the degree and influence of social spheres, one may likely perceive this as negative. As to the difference between reflection, ideation, and violent behavior. That is, another matter of nebulous territory, or at least it seems dubious enough with respect to those that do or don't react in ways violently, a vast statistical majority of those having thought in manner of violence never do act upon these thoughts (something like in the single digit several percent territory do), and one should imagine even well in this day and age, a vast statistical majority of America as whole invariably at one time or another having violent thoughts or fantasies that neither acted out on any number of these thoughts. Again, something of the pop psychology social circus and the great and grand sociological experiment entailed, prediction of social behavior always a foregone conclusion?!
I'd only leave off that I hadn't thought Facebook is inherently bad despite present and past hand wringing, as it were evident enough in their popular rise, and part of these being proximate to responding to the needs of their user base, in so far as providing user site content control, obviously a less flexible site could lead to the types of online sociological disaster, like I didn't know that about my friend/neighbor and not for the better, which should lead to the sorts of consequences in the long term, that a once higher user population base finds themselves leaving the social networking experience behind. To be a successful venture means articulating in some ways a balance which gives user a way to implement site controls so that they feel empowered enough in so far as site content (i.e., who wants to be subjected to a barrage of opposing negative partisan chatter), and then theses days I've delved into something of horror (fictional one should hope), but unfortunately, it would seem the problems of social networking may go well outside Facebook alone. Social experiences here are neither less solitary at times, outside of the incidental or non incidental contacts, being something of an aged male at that of what ever opinion should be hit and miss, or at least this statistically one should gather is a more endemic process of the aging male, while some manage social attractions, such species is more likely (outside of the profession sorts) doomed to social isolation in many ways. If socially normative expectations were that one had too much to say, too much opinion, hadn't conformed to any number of perceptions of the aged white male, it would seem that something of social conditions is likely reflected by this. Being quiet, were not enough at times in one's defense, being less than quiet certainly not enough, being too compassionate something else, while the opposite most definitely a problem, it seems in any event there could be much indictment for its own sake here, however, arbitrary all of this were in reality. Maybe we relate to one another certainly, we relate to our own social aggression, the sort of opposite of sex attractions at once seemingly holding to the paradox of being allured truly to the likeliest perpetrators of crimes in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment