Facebook

In further proof that the Internet is a fickle, fleeting place, it seems everyone has already forgotten about a piece of news no one could stop talking about just a few months ago.

Back in June, Facebook caused a major public outcry when it revealed it had manipulated the news feeds of over half a million users as part of a psychological study to examine how emotions spread on social media. It was a messy situation, to put it lightly, and not long afterwards we found out Facebook wasn’t the only site to experiment on its users.

OkCupid came forward to say that it, too, had manipulated users’ experience - but that it wasn’t really sorry about it. The site’s blog post made the (valid) point that “if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.” Websites - especially dating websites - have to perform tests, otherwise they’d never be able to improve and make the user’s experience as good as it can possibly be.

So when it came down to the question of whether or not you should be upset by Facebook and OkCupid’s actions, opinion was divided.

A University of Maryland law professor is now claiming that Facebook and OkCupid violated a state law when they manipulated customer data as part of company research. Professor James Grimmelmann says the two websites are in violation of a 2002 Maryland law that requires all research on human subjects to have informed consent of the those involved, as well as approval by an ethical review panel.

In response, Facebook’s spokesman Israel Hernandez maintains that the company did not break federal or Maryland law, but says it is examining its internal processes. “We know some people were upset by this study and we are taking a hard look at our internal processes as a result,” Hernandez wrote in an email to the Washington Post. “The requirements specified by the federal Common Rule and Maryland law do not apply to research conducted under these circumstances.”

The allegations are now in the hands of Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, who told the Washington Post, “They’ve already discontinued doing this, so what we’d want to do is talk to them and figure out whether or not what they did was appropriate, whether there was enough notice given to users and whether or not they intend to do something like this again in the future without violating privacy concerns and without giving the ability to opt in or opt out of the testing.”

Some users have reported due to Tinder being down on Wednesday that they have lost all of their matches. According to The Wire and their communication with Tinder's VP of Communications, Rosette Pambakian, the Lost Matches bug has now been fixed.

No matches have been deleted and all you need to do to get your Tinder matches back is to log out of the dating app and then log back into it again.

We also learned that the reason why there was a Tinder outage on Wednesday was because Facebook went down. Tinder relies on Facebook to retrieve the user information for their members. If the Facebook service is not accessible then Tinder will not work either.

Do people tend to speak up more about issues facing our society because of social media? Does everyone’s voice get heard? If you were to look at any Facebook feed, you’d probably say it’s a great tool for discussing issues and stating opinions. It’s given many people a voice, and the ability to craft a thought and publicize it.

But a recent study by Pew Research points to something else – namely, that people have quite the opposite reaction when it comes to social media: they are afraid to share their views. There is a tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”

Social media has only deepened this tendency, at least as Pew researched human behavior pre-Internet compared to what is taking place now. Facebook and Twitter especially seem to advocate for those who hold minority opinions to use their platforms to voice them, but many users haven’t.

Pew conducted a survey of 1,801 adults, focusing on one important public issue that most Americans had heard about: the Edward Snowden revelation about government surveillance of Americans’ phone and email records. Pew says they chose this issue because Americans were divided about the issue - whether Snowden’s leaks to the media were justified or whether the surveillance policy itself was a good or bad idea.

The research firm surveyed people’s opinions about the leaks, their willingness to talk about the revelations in either in-person or online settings, and their perceptions of the views of other people, both online and offline.

It turns out, people were less willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story over social media than they were in person, with 86% willing to discuss in person versus only 42% of Facebook and Twitter users who were willing to post about it on those platforms. In addition, in both personal and online settings, people were more willing to share their views if they thought their audience agreed with them. For example, those who felt their co-workers agreed with them were about three times more likely to say they’d join a workplace conversation about the Snowden situation.

It is similar with Facebook users – those who thought their friends would agree with them were also more likely to post their opinion about the issue, but those who weren’t sure were less likely. Facebook and Twitter users were also less likely to share their opinions in person with friends, say over dinner, if they felt that their Facebook friends didn’t agree with them.

Many people might decide that sharing political viewpoints over Facebook or Twitter might alienate friends or colleagues. This is also a reason why people refrain from sharing information that is too personal. Regardless, the Pew study shows that Americans may be a lot less willing than we assumed to share their true feelings over social media.

A recent article in The New York Times shed light on a particular problem that’s been rearing its ugly head lately: companies are conducting secret experiments with users of social media and online dating sites. Facebook recently revealed that it manipulated the emotional content of news feeds of 700,000 people to see if emotions were contagious. In addition, OkCupid recently shared the results of its own three secret studies of users.

In one test, OkCupid obscured profile pictures so that people could communicate, but they couldn’t see who they were communicating with. The dating site found that members had more meaningful conversations, exchanged more contact details, and responded to first messages more often. When pictures were revealed, many conversations stopped.

In another test, OkCupid hid profile text to see how it affected personality ratings. In general, more attractive users were regarded as more personable – in other words, users were equating looks with personality – even though there wasn’t much information to go on.

The third experiment was the cause of the most controversy, where the site lied to a portion of users, telling them that matches who were (according to OkCupid algorithms) 90% compatible were actually only 30%, and matches with very little compatibility were told they had high compatibility. The end result? Communication went up when people thought they were being matched with someone very compatible, because OkCupid gave them that impression of compatibility, even if it wasn’t the truth.

While it’s interesting to note that people can be swayed by looks and influenced by what a dating site tells them might work, is it really going to improve the overall experience of online dating? In other words, we might track people’s behavior to understand it a little better, but deceiving people to see how they behave is a slippery slope, and doesn’t really improve the current dating experience on OkCupid (or any site). As the study noted, as soon as the pictures were revealed, people went back to their old patterns of behavior.

Facebook and OkCupid aren’t the only sites studying user behavior, and probably aren’t the only sites conducting experiments on users. But before we continue down this path, it’s important to ask: who are these studies really benefitting? Are they helping us to become more open-minded daters? So far, not really.

The study succeeded in making online daters even more cynical about online dating. How do they know if what OkCupid is telling them about compatibility or ratings is true? It makes the already confusing world of dating a little less friendly and upfront. Dating needs more honesty, not less.

Just when you think Facebook couldn’t possibly get any bigger than it already is, it goes and shatters all expectations. For the 8^th quarter in a row, Facebook’s earnings beat projections.

Much of that growth is in mobile, where Facebook is growing twice as fast as it is compared to its services as a whole. Facebook currently logs 654 million daily mobile users and 1.07 billion mobile users each month. Thanks to the continued increase in smartphone usage, 62% of the social network’s ad revenue came from mobile in Q2. In total, Facebook now has 829 million daily users and 1.32 billion monthly users. Altogether, they are responsible for a spectacular 2^nd quarter for Facebook. The company beat Wall Street’s estimated earnings of $2.81 billion to end Q2 2014 with $2.91 billion in revenue.

Here’s how that stacks up against Q1 2014:

• Facebook's total user count is up 3.125% from 1.28 billion total monthly users to 1.32 billion
• Total daily user count is up 3.36% from 803 million to 829 million
• Monthly mobile user count is up 5.9% from 1.01 billion to 1.07 billion
• Daily mobile user count is up 7.4% from 609 million to 654 million

Revenue isn't the only way Facebook is exceeding expectations. Some critics have said the social network is losing its influence with Western users, but its monthly user count in the USA and Canada grew by 2 million this quarter. And for anyone who dared to suggest that Facebook wouldn't survive the transition from desktop to mobile, Facebook's 391 million mobile-only users dwarf its 240 million desktop-only users.

Internationally, Facebook is showing equally impressive numbers. Ad revenue is up everywhere, and the site hit an all-time high average revenue per user in every region around the world.

The only low point was payments revenue, which Facebook largely derives from the 30% tax on the in-app purchases from its Web games platform. Total payments revenue dropped slightly to $234 million from $237 million in Q1. On the plus side, it's still up 9% compared to Q2 2013.

On the horizon for Facebook now is the launch of Facebook Audience Network, the company’s mobile ad network that will bring in revenue by incorporating its targeted ads in other companies' apps. Another big development is Slingshot, a photo and video messaging app that Facebook hopes will be a competitor for Snapchat.

When asked for his thoughts on Facebook’s remarkable 2^nd quarter, all CEO Mark Zuckerberg had to say was “We had a good second quarter. Our community has continued to grow, and we see a lot of opportunity ahead as we connect the rest of the world.”

To find out if this social network makes a good dating tool you can read our Facebook review.

Facebook caused a huge outcry back in June when it revealed it had manipulated the news feeds of over half a million users as part of a psychological study to examine how emotions spread on social media.

The response was intense (to say the least), but Facebook is far from the only Internet company to treat its users like lab rats. OkCupid fessed up to conducting studies on its members via a blog entry posted on July 28. And they weren't exactly apologetic about it.

“We noticed recently that people didn’t like it when Facebook 'experimented' with their news feed,” the entry reads. “Even the FTC is getting involved. But guess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.”

Admittedly, they have a point. No matter how popular or successful OkCupid is, there are always improvements to be made and the only way to discover those improvements is to conduct experiments. Or, in the site’s own words, “OkCupid doesn’t really know what it’s doing. Neither does any other website. It’s not like people have been building these things for very long, or you can go look up a blueprint or something. Most ideas are bad. Even good ideas could be better. Experiments are how you sort all this out.”

In this case, the experiment told users they were more compatible than they really were to test the power of suggestion. Typically, among users who were given a 30% compatibility rating by OkCupid, a single message from one to another turned into a conversation just 10% of the time. But, if OkCupid told users with low compatibility that their compatibility score was 90%, the odds of having a conversation jumped to 17%.

The experiment found the same results in the opposite direction. When users with 90% compatibility were told their score was only 30%, the likelihood of a conversation dropped from 20% to 16%. OkCupid isn’t at all surprised that users take the compatibility rating so seriously – “after all,” notes the blog post, “that’s what the site teaches you to do.”

Then OkCupid took a step further. The question became “Does the displayed match percentage cause more than just that first message – does the mere suggestion cause people to actually like each other?”

As far as this data goes, the answer is yes. When OkCupid tells people they’re a good match, they act as if they are, even if they should be wrong for each other - which means that at the end of the day, the myth of compatibility may be just as powerful as the truth.