New York Times Op-Ed on the A/B Illusion

I have an op-ed with Christopher Chabris that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times on one theme in my recent law review article on corporate experimentation. Despite the rather provocative headline that the Times gave it, our basic argument, made as clearly as we could in 800 words, is this: sometimes, it is more ethical to conduct a nonconsensual A/B experiment than to simply go with one's intuition and impose A on everyone. Our contrary tendency to see experiments—but not untested innovations foisted on us by powerful people—as involving risk, uncertainty, and power asymmetries is what I call the A/B illusion in my article. Here is how the op-ed begins:

Can it ever be ethical for companies or governments to experiment on their employees, customers or citizens without their consent?

The conventional answer — of course not! — animated public outrage last year after Facebook published a study in which it manipulated how much emotional content more than half a million of its users saw. Similar indignation followed the revelation by the dating site OkCupid that, as an experiment, it briefly told some pairs of users that they were good matches when its algorithm had predicted otherwise.

But this outrage is misguided. Indeed, we believe that it is based on a kind of moral illusion.

Comments

[Al Brophy]

Congratulations, Michelle. Your work and writing always impress me.

[Orin Kerr]

Nice.

[anon]

Yes, it's true: all morality is an illusion, and ethical conduct a delusion of the unenlightened mind. Nice!

[Enrique Guerra-Pujol]

The op-ed is actually over 200 words shorter than the "abstract" of the original article referred to in op-ed

[Michelle Meyer]

Al and Orin, thanks. Very kind of you to say.

anon: Yes, it's true: I spent 7 years getting a PhD in ethics in order to write 800 words (and, as Enrique helpfully points out, 1,000 words and also 26,000 words) saying that all morality is an illusion, and ethical conduct a delusion of the unenlightened mind. Thank you for your typically nuanced, constructive comment based on a careful read.

Enrique: Yes, I plead guilty as charged to writing a very long SSRN abstract. Your disapproval is duly noted. Twice now, in fact. But I think it might be time to move on. (I do appreciate that you posted under your name, however.)

[anon]

Wow. Looks like you are very pleased with praise (based on a "careful read" of your 26,000 words?), but a bit overly sensitive when it comes to anything even approaching something less than praise (even if the praise is perhaps also not "nuanced [and] constructive").

Or, perhaps, it is just the placement of your piece that was the subject of this praise. If so, then I would question whether attention, and clicks and recognition of any form is what really matters in this milieu.

As for posting anonymously, that is permitted here. You imply it is not your preference. Why? What "ethical" basis do you have to wish to know the id of commenters? Do you also demand signed evaluations when you teach? Is this an "ethical" stance, or just an emotional one?

On the "merits" you refer to outrage over the cited examples as a form of moral illusion. That is enough, really - your Ph.D. and seven years of schooling notwithstanding. Sorry to have disagreed in a snarky way, but really, it wasn't intended to be a "nuanced comment based on a careful read" of your op ed (which I will forego).

I'll refrain from commenting on your writing again. You can be satisfied with "nice" and "very impressive" and leave it at that, knowing that such nuanced comments based on careful reading will always always yield nothing but accolades.