I would say that someone died within 1000 feet from where you live, while you actually lived there. This is probably true, unless you live in a remote house.
And they all forget to count ghosts from microorganisms and insects.
It may be that, in Shinto Buddhism (the predominant religion in Japan,) the "ghosts" of microorganisms, insects, etc. don't exist, or aren't worth worrying about, because they're part of the natural order.
Also bear in mind that, if one believes in reincarnation and animism, "ghosts" on earth may be considered a special case, when the expectation is that most spirits rejoin the karmic cycle (or whatever.)
That is an appeal to tradition, and it a fallacy. It isn't moral for advertisers to do harmful things to users just because most advertisers do it.
Most scientist do not do harmful things to their subjects. Modern science requires consent. So your fallacious argument, even if it weren't, fails to argue correctly in the first place, because scientists aren't advertisers.
Facebook study was done without consent. It was harmful to their users (subjects) because it interfered with their emotions. It is immoral.
The outrage might seem ridiculous, from the perspective of an advertiser, because, as you said, they do worst things all the time, so this study is hardly appalling for them. But from the perspective of other people, it is.
I hope this gave you an insight into (our) reaction to the study.
merely exposing your own feelings. (Is that what you meant?)
Yes, in that case it is. Facebook is forcing us to stare in a mirror of our own mistakes and failings. We should fix them and not avoid them. Unfortunately the mirror is crooked. It only shows the apparent best features of a person, and it doesn't tell who are we supposed to compare to. There are always people who are (or appear) more successful; Facebook makes them visible to anyone as if they were the average case and not the rarity, what they really are.
