Happy Nice Mall

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. Here is a collection past columns.

A internal communication stack He took a rare, stark look at Facebook’s self-reviews and deliberations about how people are being influenced by the company’s product designs and decisions.

If these looks weren’t so rare, perhaps the public and Facebook could benefit from it. Facebook and other internet powers can help us understand the world by showing a little more about the complex reality of running virtual spaces for billions of people.

Something that pleasantly surprised me without reporting Documents collected by Frances HaugenThe former Facebook product manager demonstrates how much thought and care Facebook employees put into evaluating the company’s practices and the ways they shape what people do and how communities and societies behave. Facebook, show us this side.

Casey Newton, a technology writer, made this case last month: “What if Facebook routinely publishes its findings and allows its data to be audited? What if the company has made it significantly easier for qualified researchers to review the platform independently?”

But what if other companies in tech do the same?

Imagine Facebook out loud explaining ways to do this. grappled with restricting posts with false information about scams After the 2020 US presidential election and whether this risks silencing legitimate political debate.

What if Facebook shared with the public its specific assessments of ways to easily share many posts? amplified hateful or bullying posts?

Imagine if Facebook employees involved in major product design changes—like U.S. Supreme Court judges—could write dissenting opinions making their disagreements public.

I know some or all of this sounds like a fantasy. Organizations have legitimate reasons to keep secrets, including to protect their employees and customers.

But Facebook is no ordinary organization. It is among the very few companies whose products help shape how people behave and what we believe.

Learning more about what Facebook knows about the world will help us understand each other and Facebook better. It would give outsiders the opportunity to verify, challenge and add to Facebook’s self-assessments. And it can make the company a little more credible and understandable.

Facebook said it believes the news about its internal communications lacks nuance and context. including his reaction to tighten internal negotiations to minimize leaks. And in conversations with people in tech this week, there’s a fear that Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and others will respond to weeks of hard reporting on Facebook by doing less research on the effects of their products or by keeping what they’ve learned on lockdown. key.

But another way is to be more open and reveal much more. That wouldn’t be completely out of character for Facebook.

In 2015, the company was publicly released and discussed Research by data scientists who found that the social network didn’t make the “filter bubbles” problem worse,” that people only see information that confirms their beliefs. In 2018, Mark Zuckerberg published a long text It details the company’s review of how people on Facebook respond to obscene or offensive material. That same year, Facebook announced an ambitious plan sharing large amounts of posts and other user data with outside researchers to examine harmful information.

These efforts were far from perfect. In particular, the independent research consortium corrupt data and disagreements beyond protecting people’s privacy. But efforts show Facebook wants to be more open at times.

Nathaniel Persily, Stanford Law School professor who was formerly co-chair of the research consortium, recently draft text for legislation This can give independent researchers access to information about the inner workings of internet companies.

He told me he thought of the research consortium as “a deadly path to something great”, which would be both voluntary and mandatory transparency by major internet companies. He praised Twitter, which released a message last week. analysis about the ways in which computer systems in some cases strengthen views of the political right more than those of the left.

Twitter’s research was lacking. The company said it didn’t know why some messages were spreading more than others. But Twitter was honest about what it knew and didn’t know, giving the public and researchers the opportunity to do more research. He showed us the mess.

More about Facebook from The New York Times Opinion:

Farhad Manjoo: Misguided congressional proposals aimed at fixing Facebook are worse than no legislation at all.

Greg Bensinger: “Facebook has shown that it won’t fix its systemic problems until it’s mandatory. Now it seems only advertisers can make the status quo unprofitable and unsustainable”

Black Swisher: Mark Zuckerberg no longer a popular leader and cultural touchstone on Facebook.

Before you go …

• Giant tech companies are still great at money: Google and Microsoft $$$$ did. Twitter is doing well, more.

• Can you upload your passport to watch YouTube? My colleague David McCabe is helping more companies and countries digital age checks to try to keep young children out everything from video games to online pornography. But it’s hard to balance the benefits of online anonymity while keeping kids safe.

• Amazon takes a stab at talk radio, sort of: The Verge writes that Amazon is developing a new app. let anyone create a live sound show and let the audience ring with their voices. Is that clever or weird, or both?

hug this

This is a Twitter thread of cows and beans that look like them. for the truth. (first time I’ve seen this Trash Day newsletter.)