> It is disgusting how Lyft and Uber treat drivers with their A/B testing
Society as a whole needs to answer the question "is it moral to roll a dice and offer a worse service to people who get an odd number?"
In my view, it is. As far as that person is concerned, they can pretend your company doesn't exist and go to another company (and maybe roll another dice)
Some other people would say "all businesses must treat all customers equally and fairly". In many ways, I don't see how this can be universally true - there is always the superstore that has run out of a product - why should Mrs Smith who picked up apples at 9am get some, when Mr Jones who tried to buy some at 9:15am finds the shelf empty? Thats unfair.
Instead I'd like to see a list of characteristics a business is not allowed to discriminate on (religion, race, etc.), and explicitly allow discrimination based on another list (random number, position in queue, length of service as a customer, etc.). Any other factor, judges can decide which list it falls into.
I work at a large tech company. I have to maintain a certification for human experimentation with my IRB. Usually, A/B testing falls outside of the experimentation framework as the actual feature in question cannot cause harm, is engaged with voluntarily, and users are already aware that the software changes arbitrarily (usually through marketing material as "continuous updates"). We usually only get into the human experimentation bit when we send out a survey or the like.
Is said a/b test supported or funded by the Department of Health and Human Services? If not, that website clearly indicates that the regulations do not apply.
Society as a whole needs to answer the question "is it moral to roll a dice and offer a worse service to people who get an odd number?"
In my view, it is. As far as that person is concerned, they can pretend your company doesn't exist and go to another company (and maybe roll another dice)
Some other people would say "all businesses must treat all customers equally and fairly". In many ways, I don't see how this can be universally true - there is always the superstore that has run out of a product - why should Mrs Smith who picked up apples at 9am get some, when Mr Jones who tried to buy some at 9:15am finds the shelf empty? Thats unfair.
Instead I'd like to see a list of characteristics a business is not allowed to discriminate on (religion, race, etc.), and explicitly allow discrimination based on another list (random number, position in queue, length of service as a customer, etc.). Any other factor, judges can decide which list it falls into.