Facebook research has proliferated during recent years. However, since November 2017, Facebook has introduced a new limitation on the maximum amount of page posts retrievable through their Graph application programming interface, while there is limited documentation on how these posts are selected. This paper compares two datasets of the same Facebook page, a full dataset obtained before the introduction of the limitation and a partial dataset obtained after, and employs bootstrapping technique to assess the bias caused by the new limitation. (...) This paper demonstrates that posts with high user engagement, Photo posts and Video posts, are over-represented, while Link posts are under-represented. Top-term analysis reveals that there are significant differences in the most prominent terms between the full and partial dataset. This paper also reverse engineered the new application programming interface’s ranking algorithm to identify the features of a post that would affect its odds of being selected. Sentiment analysis reveals that there are significant differences in the sentiment word usage between the selected and non-selected posts. This paper has significant implications for the representativeness of research that use Facebook page data collected after the introduction of the limitation. (shrink)

Three of the articles included in this issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy - Ron Amundson and Shari Tresky's "On a Bioethical Challenge to Disability Rights"; Rachel Cooper's "Can It Be a Good Thing to Be Deaf?"; and Mark T. Brown's "The Potential of the Human Embryo" - interact (in various ways) with the concepts of disability, humanity, and personhood and their normative dimensions. As one peruses these articles, it becomes apparent that terms like "disability," "human being," and (...) "person" carry with them great normative significance. There is, however, much disagreement concerning both the definition and the extension of such terms. This is significant because different terms and definitions are associated with different sets of normative requirements. In what follows we reconstruct the argument of each of the articles, and then offer some brief critical analysis intended to stimulate further thought about and discussion of the issues that each raises. (shrink)

(2007). Introduction. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 537-539.