Facebook Doesn't Get It, Google Redacts History & Other News You Can't Miss Today

MORE JOBS – The June jobs reports just came out and it's early fireworks for the Fourth of July this year: the US added 288,000 jobs in June — way, way more than expectations — and the unemployment rate descended to 6.1 percent, the lowest since September 2008, when the subprime crisis reached critical stage. The labor force participation rate (i.e. people who are working or still looking and haven't given up) is steady at 62.8% for the third month in a row. Average hourly wages are up 2% year on year. That's not to say there are not plenty of jobseekers still struggling in America, but this is a sign of the economic recovery maybe finally accelerating and benefitting workers too, not just bottom lines.

_____

MORE LAB RATS – The anger is not abating over Facebook's psychological "study," in which the social network modified the algorithm ruling over 700,000 people's news feeds to show more negative or positive information and see what impact it had on their own emotions. And it's not likely to. The Wall Street Journal took a look at the data science team behind the test, finding that it has routinely run tests that play on users' emotions without the usual safeguards of academic research, the most essential one being informed consent. Studies included showing political messages to see whether people would then vote or pretending people were about to lose their Facebook account to see how they'd react. The WSJ's Reed Albergotti reports:

"There's no review process, per se," said Andrew Ledvina, a Facebook data scientist from February 2012 to July 2013. "Anyone on that team could run a test," Mr. Ledvina said. "They're always trying to alter peoples' behavior." (Read the full story.)

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg attempted an apology yesterday: “This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was; it was poorly communicated. And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you.” Just what you want to hear: we're sorry that you're sorry. The kind of apology only 10 lawyers together can come up with, appearing contrite while never admitting to wrongdoing. And not even from CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Writes LinkedIn member John Pettitt:

On the surface she’s right, web companies test new variations of their products all the time in a process called A/B testing. Users are divided randomly into groups and each group is shown a different site feature or design element and their behavior measured. The process lets a company continually improve products without risking a major product flop by introducing new features all at once.

However you can be technically right and completely wrong from a business standpoint. (Read the full post.)

Amen.

_____

AND SO IT BEGINS – Under the now much written-about "right to be forgotten" rule, Google deleted from its search results in Europe a very legitimate article about the failures of former Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O'Neal. The 2007 story by BBC economics editor Robert Peston is right here and will probably now be viewed way more than it ever was at the time. It details how O'Neal was ousted from the investment bank after investments he made caused huge losses. "There is nothing incorrect in the post, in fact it's a rather mild account of O'Neal's incompetence during the period," writes Business Insider's Jim Edwards. It's information that anyone with a vague interest in the financial world, aka anyone with a pulse, might need at some point.

It may not have been O'Neal himself who requested the change (the article can still be found in a "Stan O'Neal" Google search) but someone mentioned in the comments, Peston notes. Google isn't saying. And that opens a whole other can of worms: legitimate information could be hidden because one piece of questionable data appears on the same page. Plus in addition to being known as a failed banker, O'Neal now passes for a vain man battling windmills to expunge his record – when he probably has nothing to do with it, notes Jim Edwards.

Peston writes that Google alerted him of the move and explained that the article was reported by "someone exercising his or her new 'right to be forgotten', following a ruling in May by the European Court of Justice that Google must delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its results when a member of the public requests it." Actually, Google mustn't necessarily delete the data. It must consider deleting the data – and it hired a philosopher to do so. One obvious interpretation here is that Google is being purposefully overzealous and made sure to alert a target with a powerful megaphone to prove the critics right and garner public support against the EU decision. Point made.

––––

NOT THAT KIND – It may be presenting them a bullseye but that's where the comparison ends. Target asked its customers to please kindly keep the guns at home. Second Amendment activists had started showing up at stores in "open carry" states after a group on the other side of the debate – Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which was created after the Sandy Hook tragedy – started petitioning for Target to ban guns from its stores. (For non-US readers, "open carry" refers to laws allowing you to carry a licensed firearm in public, in plain view or hidden depending on cases, even when you are not a law enforcement professional. Private business can decide to ban weapons altogether on their property.) Target joins other corporations like Wendy's, Applebees, Starbucks, Chipotle and Jack in the Box on the no-gun side. The company was very prudent in announcing the policy, on one of the most polarizing issues in American politics:

This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create."

But Target is only making a suggestion: it will not be enforcing the rule and asking armed customers to leave. That would require the kind of bodily attention from security you only get at the airport. Not the shopping experience most people would want. Then again, probably neither is this:

Are you mad enough to leave Facebook over this study? What do you think of Google's implementation of the "right to be forgotten"? If you have insider knowledge of these or other topics in the news today, write your own post explaining what's happening. Share the URL here in the comments mentioning me or tweet @LinkedInPulse. (Want to write, but don't yet have access? Leave your info here.)

Photo: JD Lasica/Socialmedia.biz via Flickr/Creative Commons