/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

← → days · ↑ ↓ browse · Enter similar · o open

How ProPublica is developing its own machine learning algorithms and chatbots as investigative tools to hold Facebook and other big tech companies accountable

Katharine Schwab / Co.Design : Tweets: @lilianedwards Tweets: Lilian Edwards / @lilianedwards : “Facebook said that it does sampling to ensure that censors are following the rules-but it also admitted that it had made a mistake on 22 of the 49 posts” Doesn't bode well for when they're policing illegal content.. http://www.fastcodesign.com/ ...

Co.Design Katharine Schwab

Context & Ripple Effects

ProPublica's move answers a problem the related coverage keeps documenting: Facebook's enforcement systems are visible only through leaks and admissions. The leaked moderation docs describe an apparatus processing billions of posts weekly in 100+ languages, while Lilian Edwards flagged that Facebook admitted mistakes on 22 of 49 sampled posts — a quality signal outsiders can't independently verify.

The pattern runs both ways on access: Facebook promised a machine-readable API for its political-ad archive only under researcher pressure, and by 2021 AlgorithmWatch abandoned its Instagram monitoring project after legal threats from Facebook. Building in-house ML tools is ProPublica's answer to depending on the platform's own disclosures.

First-order effects

  • ProPublica gains the ability to test Facebook's moderation and ranking claims with its own classifiers rather than relying on leaked documents or platform self-reporting.
  • Facebook's enforcement accuracy — already questioned after the 22-of-49 sampling admission Edwards cited — becomes subject to independent, repeatable measurement.

Second-order effects

  • Facebook must choose between granting structured access like the political-ad API or facing adversarial scraping-style investigations, since each restriction pushes newsrooms toward building their own tooling.
  • Other investigative outlets and academic researchers gain a template for auditing platforms at scale, raising the cost of the opacity that let Facebook's internal policy team of engineers, lawyers, and PR staff operate largely unexamined.

Third-order effects

  • If legal threats against monitors like AlgorithmWatch become the standard response while journalists build counter-algorithms, platform accountability splits into two tracks: litigation-suppressed academic research versus legally shielded newsroom investigation.
  • The longer arc points toward mandatory external auditability of content-moderation systems, since voluntary disclosure has repeatedly proven insufficient across the coverage here.

The trend: Platform accountability is shifting from relying on companies' own disclosures toward independent computational audits, with each access restriction pushing investigators to build their own tools.

Discussion

  • @lilianedwards Lilian Edwards on x
    “Facebook said that it does sampling to ensure that censors are following the rules-but it also admitted that it had made a mistake on 22 of the 49 posts” Doesn't bode well for when they're policing illegal content.. http://www.fastcodesign.com/ ...