Facebook shares two annotated internal research docs about Instagram's impact on teen mental health, after being notified of WSJ's plans to publish the docs
accusing the company of putting profits ahead of children's wellbeing and concealing the harms that its apps pose to young people. The hearing came days after Facebook “paused” work on an app for kids under 13. https://www.npr.org/... Steve Kovach / @stevekovach : These annotations are just incredible. Completely divorced from reality. And that's the strategy. Facebook communications under Clegg has an audience of one: Mark Zuckerberg. So we get stuff like this. https://twitter.com/... Josh Hawley / @hawleymo : Take a look here at @Facebook's own internal research showing @instagram is toxic for teenagers, especially teen girls https://www.theverge.com/... Dave Lauer / @dlauer : Within a day, an account posing as a 13 y/o girl with body image issues was being fed content promoting self-injury. This what FB's “AI” is doing @ylecun. FB is too powerful. It must be broken up. The time for debate and discussion is done. The alternative is sci-fi dystopia. https://twitter.com/... Will Oremus / @willoremus : This is Instagram working as intended. And it isn't just Instagram. This is simply what happens when you build a platform based on algorithmic recommendations in which the highest value is growth/engagement. https://twitter.com/... @rmac18 : Watching the Facebook hearing and it's worth noting the co sent a lieutenant instead of a leader. Instagram head Adam Mosseri had time for the Met Gala and Today Show, but not lawmakers. Zuckerberg's only response to reporting has been about his surfboard. https://www.nytimes.com/... @rmac18 : I just asked a Facebook spokesperson if they front-ran the WSJ by publishing the annotated documents, knowing that the Journal was about to publish their sets of slides. They declined to comment. Shira Ovide / @shiraovide : It feels like now there will be endless fights about the meaning of research slides. Does that distract from the big question: What *should* be done to maximize the good from Facebook & Instagram and minimize the harm? https://www.nytimes.com/... Will Oremus / @willoremus : For a big PR shop like Facebook's, front-running a reporter's story when they come to you with a heads-up or request for comment is an act of contempt or desperation. You win some short-term control of the narrative at the cost of journalists being able to trust you ever again. https://twitter.com/... Donie O'Sullivan / @donie : Didn't think it would be possible to feel bad for a Facebook executive. But it really should be Adam Mosseri the head of Instagram testifying tomorrow before Congress, not Ms. Davis. https://twitter.com/... Lindsey Barrett / @lam_barrett : you ever physically feel sweat dripping off a quote https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/... Jeff Horwitz / @jeffhorwitz : I second this! I am going to highly recommend EVERYONE read Facebook's annotations dismissing its own research and stating that the exec presentation slides should not be interpreted as saying the things they actually say. You need to check this out! Click through to the docs! https://twitter.com/... Casey Newton / @caseynewton : The last time Facebook front-ran a story like this was ........ CambridgeAnalytica https://twitter.com/... @rmac18 : “The headline should be clarified to be: ‘Teens who have lower life satisfaction more likely to say Instagram makes their mental health or the way they feel about themselves worse than teens who are satisfied with their lives.’” https://www.nytimes.com/... @rmac18 : The annotations on this research calls the findings and how they were presented “myopic” in one instance. On another slide, the company calls into question the very definition of “mental health.” Imagine being a PhD who goes to work at Facebook and getting called out this way. Mary Beth Hunzaker / @mbfhunzaker : Perhaps, if FB execs gave as much scrutiny to potential integrity risks in new feature launches as they do to subtitle phrasing in leaked research decks... We wouldn't all be here dealing with these problems? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ @washingtonpost : Facebook releases documents about its products' effects on adults' and teens' mental health as lawmakers gear up to deliver the company a brutal rebuke at a Capitol Hill hearing https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Kirsten Gillibrand / @sengillibrand : Playdates shouldn't be growth opportunities for Big Tech companies like Facebook. Our kids are being targeted at younger and younger ages. We urgently need a Data Protection Agency to protect them and their data online. https://www.wsj.com/... Rep. Frank Pallone / @frankpallone : Facebook's efforts to attract children and teenagers to its platforms are concerning, especially given the toxic effects it has on their mental health. The safety and privacy of young people should be an absolute priority. https://www.wsj.com/...
Watching the Instagram/Facebook teen mental health hearing and Blumenthal starts off talking about an experiment his own office ran to see what Instagram would recommend if they posed as a 13-year-old girl who followed accounts associated with eating disorders. https://twitter.co…
Today we provided Congress with the research decks that were the primary focus of the Wall Street Journal's mischaracterization of internal Instagram research on teenagers and well-being. We published these two research decks with annotations here: https://about.fb.com/...
In talking to current and former employees at Facebook, one of the takeaways from them based on this is that the company is ready to throw its own researchers under the bus to save itself. https://twitter.com/...
As @nickclegg pledged on Monday, today we released the internal research that was the focus of the Wall Street Journal's story on teens and Instagram. https://about.fb.com/...
Senators grilled a Facebook official today — accusing the company of putting profits ahead of children's wellbeing and concealing the harms that its apps pose to young people. The hearing came days after Facebook “paused” work on an app for kids under 13. https://www.npr.org/...
These annotations are just incredible. Completely divorced from reality. And that's the strategy. Facebook communications under Clegg has an audience of one: Mark Zuckerberg. So we get stuff like this. https://twitter.com/...
Within a day, an account posing as a 13 y/o girl with body image issues was being fed content promoting self-injury. This what FB's “AI” is doing @ylecun. FB is too powerful. It must be broken up. The time for debate and discussion is done. The alternative is sci-fi dystopia. htt…
This is Instagram working as intended. And it isn't just Instagram. This is simply what happens when you build a platform based on algorithmic recommendations in which the highest value is growth/engagement. https://twitter.com/...
Watching the Facebook hearing and it's worth noting the co sent a lieutenant instead of a leader. Instagram head Adam Mosseri had time for the Met Gala and Today Show, but not lawmakers. Zuckerberg's only response to reporting has been about his surfboard. https://www.nytimes.com…
I just asked a Facebook spokesperson if they front-ran the WSJ by publishing the annotated documents, knowing that the Journal was about to publish their sets of slides. They declined to comment.
It feels like now there will be endless fights about the meaning of research slides. Does that distract from the big question: What *should* be done to maximize the good from Facebook & Instagram and minimize the harm? https://www.nytimes.com/...
Didn't think it would be possible to feel bad for a Facebook executive. But it really should be Adam Mosseri the head of Instagram testifying tomorrow before Congress, not Ms. Davis. https://twitter.com/...
For a big PR shop like Facebook's, front-running a reporter's story when they come to you with a heads-up or request for comment is an act of contempt or desperation. You win some short-term control of the narrative at the cost of journalists being able to trust you ever again. h…
Clegg promised this research out of transparency. he said FB was just crossing Ts & dotting Is. but really it was going through 20 layers of PR so they could deploy it as a comms offensive on the eve of the harms-to-kids hearing.
I second this! I am going to highly recommend EVERYONE read Facebook's annotations dismissing its own research and stating that the exec presentation slides should not be interpreted as saying the things they actually say. You need to check this out! Click through to the docs! ht…
“The headline should be clarified to be: ‘Teens who have lower life satisfaction more likely to say Instagram makes their mental health or the way they feel about themselves worse than teens who are satisfied with their lives.’” https://www.nytimes.com/...
The annotations on this research calls the findings and how they were presented “myopic” in one instance. On another slide, the company calls into question the very definition of “mental health.” Imagine being a PhD who goes to work at Facebook and getting called out this way.
Perhaps, if FB execs gave as much scrutiny to potential integrity risks in new feature launches as they do to subtitle phrasing in leaked research decks... We wouldn't all be here dealing with these problems? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Facebook releases documents about its products' effects on adults' and teens' mental health as lawmakers gear up to deliver the company a brutal rebuke at a Capitol Hill hearing https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...