Facebook VP says WSJ's series contained deliberate mischaracterizations, and conferred egregiously false motives to Facebook's leadership and employees

A lot has been said about Facebook this week. A series of articles published by the Wall Street Journal has focused …

About Facebook 2021-09-19 Nick Clegg

Context & Ripple Effects

Facebook’s rebuttal arrived as the Journal’s Facebook Files drew on the company’s own data and research; related coverage characterized the disclosures as Facebook’s largest crisis since Cambridge Analytica. The dispute centered not only on the reporting’s conclusions but on Facebook’s account of its leaders’ and employees’ motives.

Facebook’s response did not settle the underlying criticism. Subsequent coverage said the company did not address many issues raised about Instagram and a whistleblower later alleged that Facebook misled the public about its progress on harms including hate speech and misinformation.

First-order effects

Facebook’s leadership and communications team are immediately committed to contesting the Journal’s framing and defending the company’s internal research and decision-making.
The Wall Street Journal’s reporting becomes a direct reputational challenge for Facebook rather than a discrete critique of a single product or policy.

Second-order effects

The public disagreement raises the value of underlying internal evidence: Facebook’s refusal to release or contextualize cited data leaves critics and journalists focused on what the company’s research shows.
The later whistleblower’s public allegations give the reporting dispute a new messenger outside Facebook, increasing pressure on the company’s claims of progress against platform harms.

Third-order effects

If disclosures of internal research repeatedly collide with corporate rebuttals, platform accountability will increasingly turn on who can substantiate claims about product harms with primary evidence rather than public assurances.
The episode points toward a more adversarial relationship between large platforms and scrutiny of their internal safety research, with reputational crises extending beyond any one investigation.

The trend: Large platforms are facing accountability battles in which internal research, whistleblowers, and corporate rebuttals compete to define the public record on product harms.

Discussion

@andymstone Andy Stone on x
As the Wall Street Journal itself makes clear, we have a team of experts who help us uncover patterns of harmful behavior so we can disrupt it. We've got arguably more experts and resources dedicated to this work than any other consumer technology company in the world.
@nickclegg Nick Clegg on x
The @WSJ series raises serious & complex issues. It's absolutely legitimate for Facebook to be held to account. But it contains deliberate mischaracterizations of what we are trying to do & confers egregiously false motives to our leadership & employees. https://about.fb.com/...
@yaeleisenstat @yaeleisenstat on x
No @nickclegg, your take (see screenshot) is the opposite of the actual takeaway: the series doesn't impugn hard-working employees who want to make Facebook better. It impugns leadership for repeatedly lying about what FB knows & for business decisions they knew prioritized... 1/…
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
This company is a blight on humanity. It's rotten through and through. Good people go to work for it and try to reform it and they either get corrupted by the money or chewed up and spat out. It cannot be fixed.
@nickclegg Nick Clegg on x
@WSJ Its central allegation is just plain false: that we systematically & willfully ignore research that is inconvenient. This impugns the motives & hard work of the researchers, experts & engineers who strive to improve the quality of our products and understand their wider impa…
@kantrowitz Alex Kantrowitz on x
Had an awesome conversation with @JeffHorwitz of the WSJ and ex-Facebook executive @brianboland about the Facebook Files. I enjoyed it because we discussed both problems and solutions, and included reporter & tech executive points of view. Check it out: https://open.spotify.com/.…
@samidh @samidh on x
In my view, it's actually not uncommon for FB researchers working on societal issues to feel ignored, or at least grossly underweighted, in decisions that have public policy or growth tradeoffs. @nickclegg, perhaps you can do an internal 2way Q&A to understand their POV? https://…
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
It's actually very funny that it took them a week to come up with “how dare you impugn the motives of the hard-working billionaires and millionaires who have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize growth and profit at all costs” https://twitter.com/...
@ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x
In my view, the summary: the WSJ series is accurate. We're not disputing the facts, FB says https://about.fb.com/...
@moonalice Roger McNamee on x
.@YaelEisenstat gets this exactly right. Nick Clegg's job is to defend the indefensible. Our job is to ignore him. https://twitter.com/...
@blackamazon @blackamazon on x
This is insultingly transparent and a pattern of abusive disingenuousness that while mocked will never be actually challenged and is why it continues https://twitter.com/...
@grady_booch Grady Booch on x
@nickclegg @WSJ Furthermore, Nick, it is telling that you then pivot to suggest we are impugning all the good “researchers, experts and engineers”. No, we are calling out Facebook's leadership.
@jeffnolan Jeff Nolan on x
why would anyone take @nickclegg seriously when it comes to a Facebook response to yet another damning expose on the company? https://twitter.com/...
@andymstone Andy Stone on x
“At the heart of this series is an allegation that is just plain false: that Facebook conducts research and then systematically and willfully ignores it if the findings are inconvenient for the company.” https://about.fb.com/...
@colegarry2 Cole Garry on x
I'm not going to pretend posts like this are easy to write but it remains astounding how consistently Facebook botches crisis comms https://about.fb.com/...
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
The man in charge of “integrity” at Facebook founded a VPN that FB bought and used to spy on users - including explicitly targeting teenagers - in order to undercut competitors. There's no reforming it. It' just sanctimonious self-justification of immorality through and through.
@tarletong Tarleton Gillespie on x
What a generous, humble, thoughtful response, so willing to take criticism seriously—oh sorry, must have misread every aspect of Facebook's reply to the WSJ, which is defensive, haughty, tone-deaf, and just plain Cleggy. Failing also at damage control. https://about.fb.com/...
@nickclegg Nick Clegg on x
It'd be really worrisome if Facebook didn't do this sort of research in the first place. We do it to hold up a mirror to ourselves and ask difficult questions about how people interact at scale with social media.
@nickclegg Nick Clegg on x
We will continue to invest in research into these serious and complex issues. We will continue to ask ourselves the hard questions. And we will continue to improve our products and services as a result. https://about.fb.com/...
@iansherr Ian Sherr on x
How are we to take this seriously? It offers one bewildering datapoint and otherwise comes across as standard PR pearl clutching we've read so many times. Next up: “We're sorry you're upset.” Then maybe another record government settlement without admitting any wrongdoing https:/…
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
Nice to see this candor from a reporter who has so closely covered Facebook over the years. She brings the heat. 🙏🏽 https://twitter.com/...
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
“deliberate mischaracterizations” Facebook's top global policy chief and disgraced parliamentarian is tripling down and impugning a significant number of top journalists holding his masters to account by implying motivations. Please don't share his blog post. It's garbage. https:…
@bgrueskin Bill Grueskin on x
This @nickclegg statement is exactly wrong. The WSJ series *doesn't* impugn Facebook's researchers or experts. It impugns — with damning evidence—the willful obstinance of their bosses, and in particular Mark Zuckerberg. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
It may be possible to run a social network for 3 billion people in a responsible way, though I doubt it, but there is no doubt that Facebook cannot and will not do it. The people in charge of this company are unfit. Mitigating harms until it can be dismantled has to be the goal.
@johnpaczkowski John Paczkowski on x
Speaking of cherry-picking information to present issues as if there is only ever one right answer, what has Facebook been doing for the past decade? “Pretty crazy,” right? https://twitter.com/...
@katierosman Katie Rosman on x
Not a single citation of a specific error. https://twitter.com/...
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
Imagine being Nick Clegg. https://twitter.com/...
@gregbensinger @gregbensinger on x
No dispute from Facebook about the veracity of the documents — so what's “wrong” is the tone, not the substance https://about.fb.com/...
@kantrowitz Alex Kantrowitz on x
WSJ has more credibility on Facebook given the track records. But it should release the files it obtained. Best way to refute FB's allegations of cherry picking. https://about.fb.com/...
@sg Sean Garrett on x
@CaseyNewton Credit Facebook for evolving. Disingenuous apologies have been swapped for disingenuous denials.
@_alialkhatib Ali Alkhatib on x
facebook is determined to falsely convince you that their tremendously opaque organization and algorithmic systems, which they kicked @LauraEdelson2 and others out from studying under fucking bullshit and egregiously disingenuous pretexts, totally has your best interests at heart…
@zamaan_qureshi Zamaan Qureshi on x
Then release the documents yourself. https://twitter.com/...
@samifathi_ Sami Fathi on x
Oh boy, this should be fun to read. https://twitter.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
i agree with this sentence! (From FB's pushback on Wsj series) and it is perhaps unintentionally a statement that makes the best case for allowing researchers outside of the company to access and study data in a way that does not harm consumer privacy https://about.fb.com/... htt…
@slaby Michael Slaby on x
Facebook's response to @JeffHorwitz work at @WSJ attacking the reporting rather than demonstrating how it's false is a pretty typical political strategy to avoid an argument you know you can't win. https://twitter.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
I'm trying to remember instances of Facebook being held to account that the company's PR admitted were “absolutely legitimate” and drawing a blank. https://twitter.com/...
@jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x
these people are so f***ing shameless. @nickclegg dismisses @WSJ reports *Facebook's own research* about how toxic its products as “deliberate mischaracterizations” — and also takes credit for the decline in vaccine hesitancy over the course of 2021. https://twitter.com/...
@bobbyallyn Bobby Allyn on x
“The way these documents make it to folks like me is that people have a moral crisis,” says @JeffHorwitz. Really good chat here about the WSJ's revelatory Facebook Files https://twitter.com/...
@nickclegg Nick Clegg on x
We understand the responsibility that comes with operating a global platform. We take it seriously, and we don't shy away from scrutiny and criticism. But we fundamentally reject this mischaracterization of our work and motives.
@kimmasters Kim Masters on x
This thread is a basic introduction to PR weasel words and misdirection, brought to you by Facebook. https://twitter.com/...
@caseynewton Casey Newton on x
This response to the WSJ's Facebook Files fulminates about “cherry picking” and then tries to discredit the entire series by citing a single statistic favorable to the company. 🤔 https://about.fb.com/...
@dnvolz Dustin Volz on x
This Facebook statement huffs and puffs about “mischaracterizations” and “lop-sided views” but what it lacks is a refutation of any specific facts reported by WSJ. https://twitter.com/...
@ravmabay @ravmabay on x
Facebook caused massive damage to human societies & democracies across the globe. If you're serious @nickclegg, put your money where your mouth is: Kick violent insurrectionists, vaccine deniers, & people who push out mass disinformation that KILLS people off your platform. https…
@davidnemer David Nemer on x
“The company's own research reveals that Instagram harms teens, that it can't control anti-vax misinformation, and that there is a secret double standard for VIPs. In short, the problem with Facebook is Facebook.” @sivavaid https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@edzitron Ed Zitron on x
Good to hear nick clegg, the paragon of good and clear intentions, on this subject https://twitter.com/...
@keithmansfield @keithmansfield on x
Nick Clegg happy to take his multimillion dollar salary & shill for Mark Zuckerberg. #Facebook's all about shareholder value & corporate profits. We badly need decentralized social media where, instead of being the product, we each own & control our own data. Via @Miles_Brundage …
@somospostpc @somospostpc on x
I really hope Nick Clegg is getting paid handsomely for these years of having to come back with these empty arguments. Man, what a sad state of affairs if this is the best you have after a robust investigation https://about.fb.com/...
@daveleeft Dave Lee on x
In which Nick Clegg doesn't highlight anything the WSJ got wrong. https://twitter.com/...
@sarosecav Sarah Rose Cavanagh on x
“A world with Facebook is going to be crueler, stupider, and more deadly than one without Facebook. But it looks like we're stuck with it.” Sigh. by @sivavaid https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
actually i think that this largely misses the point and reinforces a false narrative. the problem is that it's actually genuinely impossible to effectively make those decisions about what is “good” & “bad” at the scale of billions of pieces of content in dozens of languages, etc …
@senwarren Elizabeth Warren on x
Instead of trying to address the proliferation of false and divisive content on Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg continues to look the other way. No company should be too big to be held accountable for spreading misinformation, toxicity, and violent content. https://www.wsj.com/...
@migueldeicaza @migueldeicaza on x
Facebook is a trash company, with garbage morals and principles - it needs to be dismantled and its rotten corpse fed to the vultures. We knew Facebook was a trash fire, but the new Facebook Files reporting from the WSJ show that it is explosive shit on fire. https://twitter.com/…
@pierasselin Pierre Asselin on x
@ScheckWSJ ... I just can't say enough good things about this series. All of you are doing amazing work. This reads like a dystopian novel. Facebook implants platforms in countries without any concern for the collateral damage, and no infrastructure to prevent it.
@jeffhorwitz Jeff Horwitz on x
Some @Facebook folks have told me we should pay more attention to how the interplay between social media and cable TV news affected the public discussion of Covid vaccines, including on the company's platforms. It's not something that belonged in this story, but they're right.
@bernstein Joe Bernstein on x
A fascinating nugget from the outstanding Facebook series, which goes to the question of whether people are persuaded by the prevalence of bad information, or turned off by it. Facebook's desperate attempts to goose engagement suggest, to me, the latter https://www.wsj.com/... ht…
@giladedelman Gilad Edelman on x
Lots of good stuff here, but IMO the framing gets way ahead of the evidence. So pro-vaccine posts get flooded with anti-vaxx comments. But is there any reason to think FB comments heavily affect people's beliefs? Let alone enough to “hobble” FB's effort? https://www.wsj.com/...
@gartenberg Michael Gartenberg on x
The more I read The Facebook files the more horrified I get at what's going on there. Makes me wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg floating on the surface and what's underneath
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
This WSJ series is a great reminder that if you work for a company that is sitting on information that you are convinced the world deserves to know, you are not helpless. You can contact a journalist you trust—ideally via secure channels—about making that information known.
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Just want to be the 3 millionth person to applaud the WSJ's investigative “Facebook Files” series: https://www.wsj.com/... And join maybe a smaller number in thanking the whistleblowers at FB who took serious personal risks to expose critical findings that their bosses wouldn't.
@tvietor08 Tommy Vietor on x
“In the weeks before Mr. Zuckerberg made his announcement, another memo said initial testing concluded that roughly 41% of comments on English-language vaccine-related posts risked discouraging vaccinations.” https://www.wsj.com/...
@jodikantor Jodi Kantor on x
The @WSJ saved the most damning part of their series, about how Zuckerberg wanted to provide reliable vaccine information but lost control of his own creation, for last. https://www.wsj.com/...
@pinboard @pinboard on x
This is not unique to the WSJ, but part of a dismaying industry standard in journalism. For example, the New York Times ran a flagship series on privacy, complete with earnest editorial calling for regulation, that was stuffed with ad trackers. https://twitter.com/...
@pinboard @pinboard on x
The Wall Street Journal's “Facebook Files” has been widely lauded. But every article in the series also contains Facebook tracking scripts, and this clear conflict of interest (along with the WSJ's financial relationship with Facebook) is never mentioned. https://t.co/pOpKENLv7v
@om @om on x
Somehow reading the @wsj story about Facebook vindicates what been writing/saying for almost a decade. It feels me sadder because we are now permanently caught in this vortex of misinformation, lies & mental pollination. Even they don't know how to stop the monster they unleashed
@anthony Anthony DeRosa on x
Even authoritative sources of vaccine information were becoming “cesspools of anti-vaccine comments,” the authors wrote. “That's a huge problem and we need to fix it,” they said. https://www.wsj.com/...
@jemimacmcevoy Jemima McEvoy on x
Nugget from WSJ's Facebook story today: Mark Zuckerberg wrote to Dr. Fauci asking if he could personally fund vaccine trials. https://www.wsj.com/...

Chronicles