* When you do something to people to see how they act, it's a human experiment. The purpose of this study was officially "to understand how websites would respond to real users"
* The participants / subjects of the study are people, not "websites" as the study claims. Websites don't read and respond to emails, people do.
* The participants of this study were selected without their consent
* The participants were not told that they are in a study, nor the purpose of that study
* The participants were lied to, as the researcher pretended to be someone else
* The researcher deliberately communicated in a way that heavily implied legal consequences if they don't get what they demand
* The researcher's threats and demands do not actually match what is afforded to them by the law
* The study caused undue stress and financial losses (e.g. hiring lawyers) to the participants, including those that were not subject to CCPA at all.
I don't care what labels you choose to put or not put on it, it's a shitty, abusive study that should have never passed ethics review.
* The participants / subjects of the study are people, not "websites" as the study claims. Websites don't read and respond to emails, people do.
* The participants of this study were selected without their consent
* The participants were not told that they are in a study, nor the purpose of that study
* The participants were lied to, as the researcher pretended to be someone else
* The researcher deliberately communicated in a way that heavily implied legal consequences if they don't get what they demand
* The researcher's threats and demands do not actually match what is afforded to them by the law
* The study caused undue stress and financial losses (e.g. hiring lawyers) to the participants, including those that were not subject to CCPA at all.
I don't care what labels you choose to put or not put on it, it's a shitty, abusive study that should have never passed ethics review.