[otrahuevada]

The wording on the main driver of the experiment, their especially bad emails, leads website operators to think there is a problem where there is none. This, on top of the research being entirely devoid of consent between the human parties involved, makes it a _very_ bad study, one that could well cause both the university and the research team to lose money if some of the 'subject' parties actually had to go get a lawyer to have a look at their shoddy emails.

In better studies what is supposed to happen is, you propose taking part in the experiment, you get a signed agreement of some sort, and only then actually start experimenting. What happened here is more like some kind of youtube prank than a useful information gathering procedure.