[the truth]

this show has zero value as a social experiment or anything else simply because of the bias shown by producers and the endless manipulation. I believe it would be infinitely better if the producers were even handed fair and far less intrusive

[Chuckyegg]

It is hilarious that anyone would call this a social experiment.

[Stevep]

Anyone who thinks this is or ever was a 'social experiment' is way off point, it's an entertainment show. No more, no less.

It was given the tag 'social experiment' to give itself a cloak of intrigue, a pull to draw viewers in. It's no more a social experiment than what I'm A Celeb is.

Hopkins only mouthed off because she feels it's what her 'free speech' character would most likely say.

[Tip]

It's entertainment.

If there is any social experiment (hardly of any scientific worth so seems a bit grand to call it that) it includes all the social (viewer) reactions, social norms and broadcasting standards and biases.

Basically people like to hate/love, get outraged, get amused and seem to use the program as therapy for their various difficulties with society and people. That's the only interesting part of the social "experiment".

[the truth]

its not entertainment, its contrived drivel that is very dangerous as it takes everything out of context and creates serious problems for individuals. it creates massive media backlash that can destroy lives with its hysterical nonsense. if left alone it could have been a truly brilliant show and a great tribute to the legendary George orwell

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

She literally just described the state of Big Brother down to a T.

The way she said people should be allowed to express themselves and be evicted by the process was spot on.

This woman responded to an advert in the paper 15 years ago to appear in a social experiment which turned out to be the pilot of BB and she is right in saying BB is totally flawed and again she is 100% spot on when saying people shouldn't be censoring themselves.

Shes just worded what ive been feeling for years.

I agree with you and Katie Hopkins.

When Big Brother was first envisaged, the 'Social Experiment' aspect was indeed claimed and it was a fascinating prospect; How would 'normal' people cope and react living under the 24/7 scrutiny of CCTV cameras in a 'microcosm' of real life?

Unfortunately, we will never know, because a genuine social experiment is not compatible with any kind of TV show.

In ‘real life’ people use the ‘N’ word in everyday conversations, as well as other terms like ‘Polack’, Pakki and ‘Yank’ and ‘Chinkie’ – and most of the time not with racist intent.

In real life, every weekend in our Cities, young women regularly expose their breasts or backsides in public, and young men regularly expose their cocks or backsides in public - and not always fuelled by drink.

In real life men of all ages ogle women’s arses and other parts of their anatomy.

In real life, people do not self censor their speech or behaviour, whilst in the BB house housemates are forced to.

But the above reasons are not the only reasons why the social experiment element of the show will never really work, because there is also the fact that with both CBB and BB, the housemates are only too aware of the cameras and capitalise on their presence to project a false ‘nice’ or ‘interesting’ persona which they hope will be ‘swallowed’ by the viewing public and reflected in their voting.

The only successful element of the show’s claim to be part social experiment, is in the fact that in the real world it can take months, if not years, to discover that certain people are ‘fake’; ‘false friends’ who turn out to be backstabbers and liars for example, whereas in the ‘microcosm’ of the house, facades slip and false personas become exposed within days.

How often do we ‘hate’ one person upon entry and end up liking them as the show progresses, and vice versa with people who we previously ‘liked’?