Data Ethics Case Archive

A documented record of ethical dilemmas faced and decisions taken. This archive makes our ethics observable, not symbolic, and protects future stewards from repeating mistakes.

Why This Archive Exists

Most platforms claim ethical operation but never document actual ethical decisions. This creates symbolic ethics—principles stated but never tested.

By documenting real dilemmas and our reasoning, we make ethics testable, build institutional trust, and create a decision-making precedent for future situations.

Documented Cases

Case 001: Viral Anxiety Spike During Exam Season

Jan 2025

Situation

During January 2025 exam season, we observed a 47% spike in self-reported anxiety scores among 18–21 year olds. The data was statistically significant and aligned with predictable academic stress patterns. Media outlets requested early access to publish "Gen Z Mental Health Crisis" stories.

Risk Identified

Publishing this insight could:

  • Pathologize normal exam stress as clinical crisis
  • Fuel sensationalist mental health narratives
  • Pressure students to self-identify as "anxious generation"
  • Be weaponized for political or commercial agendas

Decision Taken

We delayed publication until post-exam period (February) and reframed the insight as "Seasonal Stress Patterns" rather than "Mental Health Crisis." We explicitly stated in the context panel that exam-related anxiety is developmentally normal and does not indicate pathology.

Reasoning

Our responsibility is documentation, not alarm. While the data was accurate, immediate publication during peak stress would have amplified panic rather than understanding. Temporal distance allowed for calmer interpretation and prevented contributor harm.

Precedent set: Timing of publication is an ethical variable. Accuracy alone does not justify immediate release.

Case 002: Brand Partnership Offer for "Youth Insights"

Jan 2025

Situation

A major consumer brand offered funding in exchange for quarterly "youth behavior reports" tailored to their product categories. The offer included editorial independence and no requirement to mention their brand.

Risk Identified

Even with editorial independence:

  • Funding source creates implicit bias toward commercially relevant insights
  • Future question design might unconsciously favor sponsor interests
  • Public trust would erode if partnership became known
  • Sets precedent for commercial entanglement

Decision Taken

We declined the partnership. No commercial funding is accepted, regardless of editorial independence guarantees. Fomofiles operates as a non-commercial research project indefinitely.

Reasoning

Structural independence is more important than funding. Once commercial relationships begin, mission drift becomes inevitable—even with good intentions. Contributors trust us because we have no financial incentive to manipulate their data.

Precedent set: No commercial partnerships, even with editorial independence. Structural purity over financial sustainability.

Case 003: Request to Remove "Unflattering" Regional Data

Jan 2025

Situation

An educational institution requested removal of data showing lower career confidence scores among students from their region. They argued it could harm student morale and institutional reputation.

Risk Identified

Removing data based on institutional pressure:

  • Destroys research integrity
  • Sets precedent for censorship by powerful actors
  • Betrays contributor trust
  • Invalidates all other published insights

Decision Taken

We refused removal. However, we added contextual notes explaining that regional differences may reflect survey sampling bias rather than actual capability differences. We also emphasized that career confidence is not career competence.

Reasoning

Data cannot be removed because it is uncomfortable. Our responsibility is accurate reporting with appropriate context, not reputation management. If we remove data once, the entire system becomes untrustworthy.

Precedent set: Published data is permanent. Context can be added, but findings cannot be removed due to external pressure.

Reporting Ethical Concerns

If you identify an ethical concern with our data, interpretation, or publication decisions, you may submit a formal concern through:

Email: ethics@fomofiles.in

All concerns are reviewed by the research lead. Responses are provided within 14 days. If the concern results in a policy change or publication decision, it will be documented in this archive.

Archive Policy

This archive is permanent and public. Cases are added as they occur. No cases are removed or edited after publication, except to correct factual errors. This archive is part of Fomofiles' institutional memory.