Research Ethics
Research Ethics
[Megan is facing Cueball and Ponytail.] Megan: Facebook shouldn't choose what stuff they show us to conduct unethical psychological research. Megan: They should only make those decisions based on, uh... Megan: However they were doing it before. Megan: Which was probably ethical, right?

This comic references the recent revelation that Facebook engaged in a " psychological experiment " by selectively showing users more "positive" or "negative" posts on their news feed and recording the users' comments to see if the change affected the positivity or negativity of their posts. Further experiments have since been revealed such as one that tested security measures by locking users out of their accounts .
Here, Megan is commenting on the fact that, while the media is calling this control over what content the user sees " unethical ," Facebook, and other companies like Google , must, one way or another, control what content the user sees, whether to present users with a limited selection of all postings, or to tailor ads to particular users; even if the regular algorithms are not set up for psychological experiments, they are still "manipulating" what posts users see or don't see. As Megan points out, no one really knows what the "normal" constraints are of the algorithm which chooses which posts are shown on news feeds. This comic is parodying the strong reaction to what is basically already a common practice.
Accumulation, control and analysis of user-generated information can be a part of the terms of service / end-user license agreement of a Website or software. In such a scenario, the user has effectively signed his/her consent to being part of such research. Unfortunately, most users don't read the terms before clicking the "I agree" option, so it can come as a shock when the service uses the data in a way the user hadn't anticipated.
The title text ironically/sarcastically accepts that Facebook has access to all of its users thoughts through posts and photos, and they can read them for research or other purposes, but contrasts this with a suggestion which likely mirrors how Facebook would respond to such a request that Facebook's code is private and can not be revealed to us. The title text basically appears to be musing that this is backwards, and our personal data should be considered MORE private than Facebook's programming code, which may be proprietary, but is not personal private data.
It is as if your neighbor was spying on you while you left all your shades open, but you felt it to be inappropriate to find out what he knew about you because that's his business. Asking for the source code might similarly be equivalent to asking for the specifications of the binoculars your neighbor used for spying.
[Megan is facing Cueball and Ponytail.] Megan: Facebook shouldn't choose what stuff they show us to conduct unethical psychological research. Megan: They should only make those decisions based on, uh... Megan: However they were doing it before. Megan: Which was probably ethical, right?
