Four main topics of concern about ethics in psychology research are privacy, access to data, informed consent, and relative risks of participation. In a 2014 study (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full), a team of psychologists at Facebook changed users' news feeds to examine whether those users would post more negative status updates if they saw more negative news, and more positive status updates if they saw more positive news. Facebook published the results, and argued that they did not need to ask participants to consent to take part in the research, because the participants had all accepted Facebook's Terms of Service when they signed up to use Facebook, "constituting informed consent for this research." What are some arguments for and against Facebook's interpretation of privacy and informed consent in this study? Which of the arguments you think of (for and against) do you think is most convincing? Why?