Barriers to academic data science research in the new realm of algorithmic behaviour modification by digital platforms – Nature.com

  • Shmueli, G. Research dilemmas with behavioral big data. Big Data 5, 98–119 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F. & Kıcıman, E. Social data: biases, methodological pitfalls and ethical boundaries. Front. Big Data 2, 13 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, A. X. & Taneja, H. Platform enclosure of human behavior and its measurement: using behavioral trace data against platform episteme. New Media Soc. 23, 2650–2667 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, D. M. et al. Computational social science: obstacles and opportunities. Science 369, 1060–1062 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski, J., Viljoen, S. & Whittaker, M. Everyone should decide how their digital data are used—not just tech companies. Nature 595, 169–171 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan, I. et al. Machine behaviour. Nature 568, 477–486 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Stewardship of global collective behavior. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2025764118 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srnicek, N. Platform Capitalism (Wiley, 2017).

  • Helmond, A. The platformization of the web: making web data platform ready. Social Media Soc. 1, 1–11 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff, S. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (Profile Books, 2019).

  • Gauci, J. et al. Horizon: Facebook’s open source applied reinforcement learning platform. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00260 (2018).

  • De Cnudde, S. et al. What does your facebook profile reveal about your creditworthiness? Using alternative data for microfinance. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 70, 353–363 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. & Graepel, T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 110, 5802–5805 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G. & Stillwell, D. J. Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12714–12719 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauci, J., Liu, H., Ghavamzadeh, M. & Nahmias, R. Open-sourcing Reagent, a Modular, End-to-end Platform for Building Reasoning Systems https://ai.facebook.com/blog/open-sourcing-reagent-a-platform-for-reasoning-systems/ (2019);

  • Michie, S. et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann. Behav. Med. 46, 81–95 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milano, S., Mittelstadt, B., Wachter, S. & Russell, C. Epistemic fragmentation poses a threat to the governance of online targeting. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 466–472 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogg, B. J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do (Morgan Kaufmann, 2002).

  • Yeung, K. ‘hypernudge’: big data as a mode of regulation by design. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 118–136 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., De Ruyter, B. & Aarts, E. Personalizing persuasive technologies: explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles. Int. J. Human Comput. Stud. 77, 38–51 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (MIT Press, 2018).

  • Chen, M. et al. Top-K off-policy correction for a reinforce recommender system. In Proc. Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining 456–464 (ACM, 2019).

  • Eyal, N. Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products (Penguin, 2014).

  • Bird, S., Barocas, S., Crawford, K., Diaz, F. & Wallach, H. Exploring or exploiting? Social and ethical implications of autonomous experimentation in AI. In Workshop on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Machine Learning (2016); https://ssrn.com/abstract=2846909

  • Burr, C., Cristianini, N. & Ladyman, J. An analysis of the interaction between intelligent software agents and human users. Minds Mach. 28, 735–774 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control (Penguin, 2019).

  • Cristianini, N., Scantamburlo, T. & Ladyman, J. The social turn of artificial intelligence. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01289-8 (2021).

  • Milano, S., Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. Recommender systems and their ethical challenges. AI Soc. 35, 957–967 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menczer, F. 4 reasons why social media make us vulnerable to manipulation. In Proc. Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 1 (ACM, 2020); https://doi.org/10.1145/3383313.3418434

  • Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J. & Hmielowski, J. D. Facebook news and (de) polarization: reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21, 940–958 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bidar, M. Liberals to ‘Moscow Mitch,’ conservatives to QAnon: Facebook researchers saw how its algorithms led to misinformation. CBS News Online (25 October 2021); https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-algorithm-news-feed-conservatives-liberals-india/

  • Saar-Tsechansky, M., Melville, P. & Provost, F. Active feature-value acquisition. Manag. Sci. 55, 664–684 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saar-Tsechansky, M. & Provost, F. Handling missing values when applying classification models. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 8, 1623–1657 (2007).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yahav, I., Shmueli, G. & Mani, D. A tree-based approach for addressing self-selection in impact studies with big data. MIS Q. 40, 819–848 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athey, S. & Imbens, G. Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7353–7360 (2016).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens, D., Provost, F., Clark, J. & de Fortuny, E. J. Mining massive fine-grained behavior data to improve predictive analytics. MIS Q. 40, 869–888 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramon, Y., Martens, D., Provost, F. & Evgeniou, T. A comparison of instance-level counterfactual explanation algorithms for behavioral and textual data: SEDC, LIME-C and SHAP-C. Adv. Data Anal. Classif 14, 801–819 (2020).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudin, C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 206–215 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. & Muchnik, L. Design of randomized experiments in networks. Proc. IEEE 102, 1940–1951 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadad, V., Hirshberg, D. A., Zhan, R., Wager, S. & Athey, S. Confidence intervals for policy evaluation in adaptive experiments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2014602118 (2021).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. & Russell, C. Why fairness cannot be automated: bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI. Comput. Law Security Rev. 41, 105567 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, S. et al. Network-based marketing: identifying likely adopters via consumer networks. Stat. Sci. 21, 256–276 (2006).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobback, E., Bellotti, T., Moeyersoms, J., Stankova, M. & Martens, D. Bankruptcy prediction for SMES using relational data. Decision Support Syst. 102, 69–81 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens-Davidowitz, S. & Pabon, A. Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are (Harper Collins, 2017).

  • Robertson, R. E., Olteanu, A., Diaz, F., Shokouhi, M. & Bailey, P. ‘I can’t reply with that’: characterizing problematic email reply suggestions. In Proc. 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Vol. 724, 1–18 (2021).

  • Praet, S. et al. I Like, Therefore I Am. Predictive Modeling to Gain Insights in Political Preference in a Multi-party System. Research paper 1–34 (University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics, 2018).

  • Bapna, R., Ramaprasad, J., Shmueli, G. & Umyarov, A. One-way mirrors in online dating: a randomized field experiment. Manag. Sci. 62, 3100–3122 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, A. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread—the Lessons from a New Science (Penguin, 2014).

  • Matz, S. C. & Netzer, O. Using big data as a window into consumers’ psychology. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 18, 7–12 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G. & Persily, N. A new model for industry-academic partnerships. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 53, 703–709 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Martens, D. & Baesens, B. Social network analysis for customer churn prediction. Appl. Soft Comput. 14, 431–446 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E. & Hancock, J. T. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 8788–8790 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Chu, W., Langford, J. & Wang, X. Unbiased offline evaluation of contextual-bandit-based news article recommendation algorithms. In Proc. Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining 297–306 (ACM, 2011).

  • Jeunen, O. Revisiting offline evaluation for implicit-feedback recommender systems. In Proc. 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems 596–600 (ACM, 2019).

  • Weller, K. & Kinder-Kurlanda, K. E. A manifesto for data sharing in social media research. In Proc. 8th ACM Conference on Web Science 166–172 (ACM, 2016).

  • Bastos, M. & Walker, S. T. Facebook’s data lockdown is a disaster for academic researchers. The Conversation Online (11 April 2018); https://theconversation.com/facebooks-data-lockdown-is-a-disaster-for-academic-researchers-94533

  • Mattu, S., Yin, L., Waller, A. & Keegan, J. How we built a Facebook inspector. The Markup (5 January 2021); https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/01/05/how-we-built-a-facebook-inspector

  • Messing, S. et al. Dataverse (Social Science One, 2020); https://socialscience.one/facebook-dataverse

  • Schnabel, T., Swaminathan, A., Singh, A., Chandak, N. & Joachims, T. Recommendations as treatments: debiasing learning and evaluation. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning 1670–1679 (PMLR, 2016).

  • Lee, D., Hosanagar, K. & Nair, H. S. Advertising content and consumer engagement on social media: evidence from Facebook. Manag. Sci. 64, 5105–5131 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, S., Dickerson, J. & Hines, K. Counterfactual explanations for machine learning: a review. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10596 (2020).

  • Puiutta, E. & Veith, E. M. Explainable reinforcement learning: a survey. In Proc. International Cross-Domain Conference for Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 77–95 (Springer, 2020).

  • Schneider, C., Weinmann, M. & Vom Brocke, J. Digital nudging: guiding online user choices through interface design. Commun. ACM 61, 67–73 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lardinois, F. Microsoft finally starts doing something with LinkedIn by integrating it into Office 365. Tech Crunch (25 September 2017); https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/25/microsoft-finally-starts-doing-something-with-linkedin-by-integrating-it-into-office-365/

  • de Myttenaere, A., Le Grand, B., Golden, B. & Rossi, F. Reducing offline evaluation bias in recommendation systems. In Proc. 23rd Annual Belgian-Dutch Conference on Machine Learning (Benelearn 2014) 55–62 (2014).

  • Summary Judgment Opinion (ACLU, 2020); https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/summary-judgment-opinion-0

  • Gorwa, R. What is platform governance? Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 854–871 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorwa, R., Binns, R. & Katzenbach, C. Algorithmic content moderation: technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data Soc. 7, 2053951719897945 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuigan, L. This tool lets you confuse Google’s ad network, and a test shows it works. MIT Technology Review (6 January 2021); https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/06/1015784/adsense-google-surveillance-adnauseam-obfuscation/

  • Yao, S. et al. Measuring recommender system effects with simulated users. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04526 (2021).

  • Tufekci, Z. Big questions for social media big data: representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. In Proc. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Vol. 8 (AAAI, 2014).

  • Horwitz, J. Facebook seeks shutdown of NYU research project into political ad targeting.Wall Street Journal (23 October 2020); https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-seeks-shutdown-of-nyu-research-project-into-political-ad-targeting-11603488533

  • Activities that Require IRB Review (UCI, accessed 24 February 2022); https://research.uci.edu/compliance/human-research-protections/researchers/activities-irb-review.html

  • Shmueli, G. & Tafti, A. How to ‘improve’ prediction of human behavior using behavior modification. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12138 (2020).

  • Fried, I. Scoop: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist. Axios (9 December 2020); https://www.axios.com/sundar-pichai-memo-timnit-gebru-exit-18b0efb0-5bc3-41e6-ac28-2956732ed78b.html

  • Google fires Margaret Mitchell, another top researcher on its AI ethics team. The Guardian (20 February 2021); https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/19/google-fires-margaret-mitchell-ai-ethics-team

  • Dave, P. & Dastin, J. Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research—documents. Reuters (23 December 2020); https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-research-focus-idUSKBN28X1CB

  • Kitchin, R. Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20, 14–29 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boka, Z. Facebook’s research ethics board needs to stay far away from Facebook. Wired Magazine (23 June 2016); https://www.wired.com/2016/06/facebooks-research-ethics-board-needs-stay-far-away-facebook/

  • Bietti, E. From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In Proc. 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency 210–219 (ACM, 2020).

  • Li, L., Chu, W., Langford, J. & Schapire, R. E. A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation. In Proc. 19th International Conference on World Wide Web 661–670 (2010).

  • Van Dijck, J., Poell, T. & De Waal, M. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

  • Haugen, F. Statement of Frances Haugen. Whistleblower Aid (4 October 2021); https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E-4914-BEDB-3A7B1190BD49

  • Spread the love

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.