Research data?

@BioStar Glen brought it up here https://www.7cups.com/forum/GlensNook_84/Community_547/PartIINextGenerationSupport_63689/ and he also links to a previous post where it was first mentioned.

I agree, we should have at least gotten a notification so we knew the option was now there as opt-in is the default.

I don't feel comfortable giving a summary because I don't really understand exactly what's going on. I think this segment from Glen's first post gives the most explanation:

If you decide to donate your data, then we will use all of your data - including all of your messaging data - to help us build out this map. Your information, as always, will be completely anonymous. The individual data is not the important part, the important part is the aggregate data. It is looking at the patterns of listeners that provide help to people that are struggling with depression and seeing how they tend to listen or say things that help. It is looking at how people that are anxious make that transition from being overwhelmed with worry to worrying less, to not worrying at all.

That and the company that will be used to look at this data is Qntfy.

Maybe @GlenM would be willing to clarify more?

Wow, thanks for calling this to our attention, @BioStar ! This strikes me as clearly unethical. It's shocking to go into my profile and see a checkbox marked as if I'd agreed to something that I not only had not, but had never even heard of! @GlenM, this is at the very best questionable on your part, if not actively in violation of the standards of informed consent adopted by every professional society engaged with human subject research. It seems likely that the use of anonymized data here is benign and carries minimal risk to participants, but a glib "I want to improve mental health outcomes by donating my anonymized data" line scarcely constitutes informing a user of the actual risks and potential benefits of participating in any putative research. It also extends the disturbing trend on this site of deciding for its users what they ought to be deciding "by default" (e.g. the listeners contacting members feature).

It used to be that discussions between members and listeners were regarded as a sacred trust between the two parties involved. Anonymized data or not, this is a big change, one that people need to be aware of and OPT IN to, with informed consent. We are not your playthings Glen, we are people, and we deserve to be treated with the dignity, respect and agency that every professional body who has weighed in on the ethical conduct of research insists upon. And you should well know this, given your professional training; this is not some mere lapse by a well-meaning but naive person. At some point in your career you surely dealt with an IRB, were taught how to conduct research. This might, arguably, fall within the realm of not requiring informed consent of every member, but you can burn a lot of good will by being so presumptuous regarding what could be a pretty straightforward and uncontroversial request for consent. I know I feel burned.

Hi guys! I went through that post and realized that all 7 cups of Tea wants to do is make the interaction a little more normal and fluent as opposed to what it is now.

If you've been a guest at the site one or more times, you'll realize how frustrating it is to talk to Noni (our bot).

Also, I (and I believe, other listeners too) have come across listeners who don't seem to do their jobs very well. This eliminates the "bad listening" factor.

Lastly, I believe that the technology is simply being used to provide the members with the kind of "caring" environment which they don't seem to be getting in real life.

P. S. Addressing the privacy issue, I don't think it is an intense violation of our privacy - since 7 cups already tells us NOT to put up our personal data upfront. This is JUST like a successful entrepreneur sharing his success story with the world.

However, we SHOULD be informed and be able to opt out if/whenever we choose to.

:)

Love,

Rhea