[doctor_eval]

Not at all the same.

Most authors are deliberately trying to elicit emotion in their writing, and you can decide if you want to keep reading or not. Personally, I often get to a point where I realise my mood is being negatively affected by writing, and decide to move on. But that's part of the experience of reading in any media.

The difference is that Facebook would be selective about what writing they would move you on to, in order to deliberately manipulate your emotional state over a long period of time.

If you read the damninteresting post and felt bad, maybe you would decide to go check out xkcd or theoatmeal or something. But on Facebook, the next article would have a similar sentiment, so you didn't get the unicorn break you needed to maintain a good mood.

The decision to move on was taken away from you, without your knowledge, in the interests of "research".

[nonrandomstring]

The important difference is that an author is just one person with a busy life who for a few hours a week writes to manipulate your emotional state.

Facebook is a machine. It's a gargantuan, for-profit, always-on swarm of bots spread globally across multiple data centres all programmed to relentlessly manipulate your emotional state.

When making moral comparisons people forget factors of scale and speed matter. Quantitative differences become qualitative differences.

[doctor_eval]

Yes, that really what I meant. Once you’re on Facebook it takes over your reading selection, and it does so to the benefit of Facebook.

It’s been incredibly pernicious, and I remain astounded that we (Facebook users) allowed it to happen.