Nope, sorry, Jeffrey Hancock of Cornell University. You don't get to:
collaborate with Facebook in the design and analysis of its "emotional contagion" study that manipulated the News Feeds of users to see if sadder inputs led to sadder outputs;
skip the ethics review at your university because Facebook itself had collected the data, allowing you to breeze right by principles like "informed consent;"
disappear from public view for months after your study blew up and became a worldwide controversy, refusing to answer reporters' questions or show your face on social media, even though you have the extraordinary protections of academic tenure, and even though Facebook people (who do not have such protection) were at least trying to explain themselves;
decline to express any regret or apologize in any way when you finally do surface again;
position yourself as a leader in efforts to develop adequate guidelines for commercial research on internet users. ("Professor Hancock said he would help develop such guidelines by leading a series of discussions among academics, corporate researchers and government agencies like the National Science Foundation." Link.)
And then. Just this week...
... try to become a concerned critic of Facebook, asking tough questions about transparency in research, after the company announced a new policy for its experiments on unwitting users.
You don't get to do all that. It's more than the traffic will bear.
Oh, Christ, maybe you do. The New York Times reports:
Mr. Hancock, whose advice was sought by Facebook after he discussed his views in an interview with The New York Times, said it was important to know what standards the company was going to use to judge internal research. In particular, he asked, would projects similar to the emotion manipulation study be conducted in the future and never be disclosed? “Will they keep doing those and not publish them? Or does the review panel say we need to think about that?” he asked. “They don’t say anything about informed consent or debriefing.”