LinkedIn may have a reputation as a relatively boring social network (a virtual version of a networking happy hour filled with people wearing lanyards), but a recent study conducted by LinkedIn showed that it It’s in the news because of the interesting discoveries it has brought.

A group of researchers from Harvard, Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and LinkedIn recently published the results of a five-year study on social connectivity and work mobility in a journal. chemistry.

Between 2015 and 2019, Linkedin ran the People You May Know feature by randomly varying the amount of weak and strong contacts suggested as new connections with its 20 million users. I tried the underlying algorithm that strengthens the . LinkedIn measured mutual connections and interactions between users to associate “strong ties” with close friends and “weak ties” with occasional acquaintances.

In a series of micro-experiments that we later analyzed with other experts, we found that people were more likely to get jobs through “weak ties,” especially in more digital industries. This finding is consistent with an influential sociological theory proposed in 1973, which states that casual contact tends to be a more important source of new information and opportunities than close friends. .

LinkedIn, a Microsoft-owned platform, intended to use these insights to create better algorithms for everyone. The company’s privacy policy also clarifies that users’ personal data may be used for research purposes.However, experts recently expressed concern new york times These behind-the-scenes tweaks can have long-term negative effects on users.

Michael Zimmer, director of the Center for Data, Ethics, and Society and associate professor of computer science at Marquette University, said: “The findings suggest that some users have access to better job opportunities, or are more likely to have access to them. It suggests that there is a significant difference in access.” new york times“These are the kind of long-term consequences that need to be considered when considering the ethics of engaging in this kind of big data research.”

[Related: The fascinating and fraught ways researchers are studying modern friendships]

Transparency isn’t the only thing these companies are working on. LinkedIn is also dealing with new cases of connection fraud, according to a recent investigation. MIT Tech Review We showed that scammers with fake identities use mutual connections to gain the trust of their victims.

It’s not uncommon for technology companies to pilot test different features with a small group of users. But large-scale, undisclosed social experiments by big tech companies have received mixed reactions. For example, his Facebook study in 2014 that analyzed how user moods are affected by manipulating news feed content received backlash. That same year, OKCupid publicly announced that it falsifies its compatibility score to see its impact on user behavior on the site.

Spotify, on the other hand, is doing more passive, observational research, and both YouTube and Twitter are using misinformation identification education and crowdsourcing content content to help users have a better experience on their platforms. We are actively testing features such as labeling.

Modern psychologists and sociologists are also trying to use the Internet and its various applications as a way to study friendships, social networks, online culture, and their impact on behavior. However, psychology as a field has long struggled with issues surrounding the ethics of experimentation and the notion of deceiving participants. Many of the classic studies of the 1900s are thankfully not possible today (think the twin experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment). Understanding where the boundaries between researchers, technology platforms, and unwitting users lie is, in some ways, just his 21st-century iteration of this ongoing challenge.