The recent emotional contagion experiment conducted on Facebook has sparked unprecedented public debate about research ethics, drawing comparisons to the infamous Milgram experiment of the 1960s. Critics have rightly pointed out that participants were not asked for proper consent, given the option to withdraw, or fully debriefed afterwards. However, it would be naive to think that the world has suddenly become passionate about research ethics, as hundreds of less ethical studies are conducted daily without public scrutiny.
The true reasons for the outcry may lie in deeper societal concerns. Since the Snowden revelations, public trust in the internet has been declining, and the Facebook experiment has become another symptom of anxiety over privacy and the clandestine use of digital records. While many people continue to use services like Facebook, the reaction should be seen as a warning to tech companies that consumers are increasingly uneasy about how their data is used.
Facebook's immense power and perceived control over personal information also contribute to the distrust. The company's public disclosure of its manipulation techniques has been a significant public relations blow, even more so than the publication of its diversity record. This has reinforced the perception that absolute power corrupts and makes companies untrustworthy.
Despite the controversy, the actual impact of such experiments on mood may be limited. Deliberate interventions to manipulate mood are not as powerful as people think, and uncontrollable factors often have a greater influence. If Facebook had truly mastered the formula for making people happy, it would likely apply it to increase user engagement. Instead, the experiment has made many people unhappy with Facebook itself, albeit probably by accident.
