Its' _absolutely not_ OK for any of this information to get anywhere near the "targetted ads" part of their service. Imagine if you could advertise your alcohol products directly to alcoholics!
It's not OK for people to run explicit "psychological manipulation" experiments without the user's consent and without very specific rules with regards to the danger to the users. There's a reason why you don't replicate the prison experiment.
Maybe FB is already doing this in context of their algorithmic feed improvements. In that case they should already be asking for user consent when running these experiments.
It's not even that hard! "We're trying new changes to feeds to help show you content that is more relevant to you/more positive/etc. Click here if you want to opt-in. See here for details"
They can do right here, and I bet enough people within FB would like to do things "right", but might simply not be informed enough.
That doesn't entirely contradict what I said. We generally assume psychologists and therapists are benevolent, but they aren't allowed to disclose private information even if it's in the best interests of the patient. Even if we assume Facebook is perfectly benevolent, this kind of vigilante psychology with no oversight is scary. They've thrown out all established codes of ethics in favor of just doing whatever the hell they want.
And I'm certain Facebook isn't benevolent. They deliberately make their website as addictive as possible. They have run experiments that tried to make people unhappy. If this really is a selfless attempt to help their users, it's inconsistent with what Facebook has done before.
They may have nudged on one particular code of ethics.
Alarmism does not help your credibility.
The state is elected by the people and is - at least nominally - meant to serve them.
> Maybe we are going to have to have that discussion about involuntary interventions by corporations, too.
This is textbook Corporatocracy. I have neither the power to vote corporations in or out nor any recourse if they decide I need an "intervention". How is this not high-tech serfdom?
Maybe it's more that Facebook thinks it's horrible when people kill themselves, and that if Facebook's tech could help prevent suicide, inaction would be immoral.
Most of us accept some level of State interference in our lives for our own good. Maybe we are going to have to have that discussion about involuntary interventions by corporations, too.