 We discussed previously that media researchers have to do with ethical questions on a regular basis. For example, they have to ask participants in their experiments for permission, the so-called informed consent. Media research, however, is not only conducted at universities or at research companies. Many companies that run a website are continuously running some kind of experiment. For instance, they present different groups of users with different versions of their websites. In order to find out which version makes people stay longer, click more, or buy more. So far more than ever before, media practitioners are in fact conducting some form of social scientific research. Traditionally, among researchers, there is widespread agreement that research participants must be asked for their consent before participating in a study. Applying a deontological perspective, one could argue that this could qualify as a universal rule. Universality, however, can be hard to stick to in practice. From the prototypical example of the duty to ask for informed consent in experiments and surveys, there is indeed little reason to argue why it shouldn't be a universal rule. However, looking at the contemporary media environment, it becomes more difficult. More and more often, it is actually not clear what a study is or when it begins or ends. Take the case of A-B testing, which is one way that website operators test how a change in their design will play out. Before implementing a new feature or changing their website design, all big website operators first make the change available to some of the visitors, while others still see the old version. These groups are referred to as A and B, and a website operator can analyze whether the version shown to group A or B works better, for example which version generates more clicks. This is basically a social scientific experiment. People are randomly assigned to a control group and to an experimental group. One can argue whether such tests would be ethical, because they might be solely in the commercial interest of the company and not in the interest of the participants. For example, the A group might receive a better surface than the B group, and no one is aware of this or able to act to change this. So if one accepts the deontological premise that a rule must be universal, A-B testing is unethical, unless every visitor to the site gives their explicit consent. However, this would clearly be impractical. Imagine having to read and sign a consent form every time you visited any major website. And even if one were to implement this, people would probably not read it and therefore not be informed. This is shown by the experience from countries in which people have to read and accept a statement about cookies before proceeding to the website using them. Non-deontologists, in contrast, could argue that little harm is done here. And besides, is there such a thing as a right to have one website version for everyone? From a utilitarian perspective, one could even argue that not doing such research would lead to a worse outcome for all, as it would prevent us from creating knowledge. So what is your perspective on this? Do we need to adjust our ethical framework because the world around us is changing? Or is it the very point of ethics to not be dependent on technological developments?