[Air-L] Research ethics and platform Terms of Use

Thu Aug 9 19:14:43 PDT 2018

Yes, these are ethics questions, writ large.

“Please prove your research complies with the Terms of Use, just in general” is not an ethics question, but it is one that is starting to creep into the ethics clearance process, including but extending well beyond research that wants to gather and analyse social media data in the form of user posts and interactions.

A not-very hypothetical example might be that I want to conduct an app walkthrough of a dating app to investigate the extent to which it invites some kinds of identities and practices, and works against the inclusion of others. I need to take screenshots of the app to document the research process, and these screenshots become data. In doing so, I would certainly have to consider and address potential capture and storage of other users’ personal information.  In parallel to this, the Terms of Use might imply that taking screenshots is something the app provider doesn’t want me to do. I am seeing a pattern where the Terms of Use is being used as a default guide for ethics protocols, and (in case it isn’t clear), I absolutely do not think it should be, because I think it’s more likely a foil for institutional risk avoidance.

I know some on this list/in the AoIR FB group are actively writing about this issue, and super keen to have access to anything published, as well as to repeat my original call (off list is fine!) for any similar experiences at your institutions.

Jean

From: Donald Matheson <donald.matheson at canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: Friday, 10 August 2018 at 11:42 am
To: Timothy Graham <Timothy.Graham at anu.edu.au>
Cc: Deen Freelon <dfreelon at gmail.com>, Jean Burgess <je.burgess at qut.edu.au>, aoir <air-l at aoir.org>
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Research ethics and platform Terms of Use

Hi colleagues,

I kind of agree. On the other hand, users of these services sign up to the terms and conditions and we should be holding those platform providers accountable to the culture of use and public expectations and legal-ethical responsibilities, as well as pushing them to provide users with more control over their own material and the data about them.

--
Dr Donald Matheson
Head of Department, Media and Communication | Te Tari Mātai Pāpāho
University of Canterbury | Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha
Aotearoa New Zealand
tel: +64 3 369 5849 or +64 21 023 77860

On 10/08/2018, at 12:46 PM, Timothy Graham <Timothy.Graham at anu.edu.au<mailto:Timothy.Graham at anu.edu.au>> wrote:

Thanks Deen - really insightful points.

"ToS are not, and should not be considered, ironclad rules
binding the activities of academic researchers. Think about it: does it
really make sense to have social media companies dictating what we can
and can't study?"

Well said. ToS for commercial platforms such as Twitter primarily function to serve the interests of capital. In the current political and social context, should corporate interests be governing the scope and ethics of online social research? It certainly doesn't really make sense.

Tim

Dr Timothy Graham

Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Research School of Social Sciences | College of Arts and Social Sciences

Research School of Computer Science | College of Engineering and Computer Science

The Australian National University

Canberra ACT 0200

Australia

E: Timothy.Graham at anu.edu.au<mailto:Timothy.Graham at anu.edu.au>

W: https://anu-au.academia.edu/TimothyGraham

Twitter: @timothyjgraham

________________________________
From: Air-L <air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org>> on behalf of Deen Freelon <dfreelon at gmail.com<mailto:dfreelon at gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, 10 August 2018 1:45:51 AM
To: Jean Burgess; aoir
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Research ethics and platform Terms of Use

Jean,

I'm glad you brought this issue up. In a forthcoming journal article,
book chapter, and a series of recent talks, I have articulated the
argument that ToS are not, and should not be considered, ironclad rules
binding the activities of academic researchers. Think about it: does it
really make sense to have social media companies dictating what we can
and can't study? Remember, ToS can include almost anything, so a
platform could try to forbid all research even remotely involving
content posted to it. I don't think researchers should reasonably be
expected to adhere to such conditions, especially at a time when
officially sanctioned options for collecting social media data are
disappearing left and right.

Another related issue deals with the difference between human subjects
protections and the purpose of ToS. Like human resources, ToS exist to
protect the parent company, not users. Any user protections are
completely optional and subject to change without notice. Thus, just as
compliance with ToS does not guarantee user protection, ToS violations
do not necessarily imply user harm. These issues are entirely distinct
and should be handled accordingly by researchers and IRBs.

Finally, I have advocated for what I call a "public interest rationale"
in violating ToS for certain research purposes. For example, consider
the recent dump by FiveThirtyEight of nearly 3M tweets posted by the
Internet Research Agency:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/
[https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/roeder-russiantweets-chartcrop-16x9.png?w=1599]<https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/>

Why We’re Sharing 3 Million Russian Troll Tweets ...<https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/>
fivethirtyeight.com
The tweets are from 2,848 Twitter handles associated with the Internet Research Agency troll farm.

This dataset violates Twitter's terms of service in two ways: first, by
posting full Twitter metadata rather than only Twitter IDs; and second,
by encouraging the study of deleted content, which third parties are
supposed to dispose of. But given the importance of understanding
foreign attempts to undermine democracy--acknowledged at the highest
levels of the US government--I believe these infractions are more than
justified. As the 538 authors write, "Reassembling this corpus of tweets
is an exercise in a certain kind of national security." The public
deserves to know when and how their democratic process is being messed
with, and I don't think it's a good idea to let corporate red tape
prevent them from acquiring that knowledge.

Curious to know what others think about this issue. Best, /DEEN

On 8/8/2018 7:27 PM, Jean Burgess wrote:

And of course, the subject line should not be APIs, but Terms of Service/Use!

On 9/8/18, 9:24 am, "Air-L on behalf of Jean Burgess" <air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org on behalf of je.burgess at qut.edu.au> wrote:

    Dear colleagues, I’m keen to hear of your experiences with your own research ethics boards/committees, especially in the PCA (Post-Cambridge Analytica) era:

      1.  Have any of you noticed a recent increase in IRBs/ethics committees requiring proof of compliance with social media platforms or apps’ Terms of Service/Terms of Use as part of ethical clearance requirements? Please note I’m not only interested in so-called data-driven methods or API access here, but all kinds of ethnographic, qualitative social research, and critical-interpretative approaches as well.
      2.  If so, are questions of ToS compliance restricted to reasonable questions of harm to participants (for example, your methods may inadvertently induce a participant to share the content of another user, hence violating their own contract with the platform provider)
      3.  Where questions of ToS appear to exceed the bounds of human research ethics considerations (perhaps appearing more concerned with institutional risk avoidance), how have you responded?

    Not actually asking for a friend

    Jean
    _______________________________________________
    The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
    is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
    Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

    Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
    http://www.aoir.org/

_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/

--
Deen Freelon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Media and Journalism, UNC-Chapel Hill
http://dfreelon.org | @dfreelon <https://twitter.com/dfreelon> |
https://github.com/dfreelon
_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/