Nick Clegg says that Facebook will put “more friends, less politics” in News Feed and will “nudge” teens away from toxic Instagram content

Fighting back after a whistleblower's damning testimony earlier this week before a Congressional committee …

Deadline 2021-10-11 Bruce Haring

Context & Ripple Effects

Facebook's new feed and Instagram-safety commitments follow [[a:971394|Clegg's internal warning that a whistleblower would challenge Facebook's election safeguards]] and his earlier public argument that pushing users toward extreme content was not in Facebook's interests. The response matters because it ties the company's defense to changes in the ranking and recommendation experiences users actually see.

The commitments also sit against reported internal efforts to win back teen users through recommendations and teen-focused influencers, creating a concrete tension between engagement goals and the proposed Instagram protections.

First-order effects

Facebook's News Feed teams must give social connections greater ranking priority while reducing the prominence of political material.
Instagram must build interventions that steer teen users away from content it identifies as toxic, directly changing recommendations for that audience.

Second-order effects

Instagram's earlier teen-retention approach—adjusting recommendations and boosting teen-friendly influencers—faces a sharper trade-off if safety nudges reduce exposure to content that drives return visits.
Facebook's public defense shifts from statements about its incentives to product-level ranking changes, making its feed and recommendation design the immediate test of those claims.

Third-order effects

If this approach persists, platform governance will increasingly be implemented through ranking, recommendation, and interface choices rather than only through removing individual posts.
The tension between teen growth programs and safety interventions points toward greater scrutiny of how platforms define and optimize recommendations for younger users.

The trend: Large platforms are moving moderation and youth-safety commitments into the design of recommendation systems and feeds, where engagement objectives and risk controls directly collide.

Discussion

@hypervisible @hypervisible on x
When considering platforms' algorithms it's also crucial to think about the massive surveillance mechanisms that undergird them. Much of what they do depends on ubiquitous tracking. https://www.cnn.com/...
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
So @nickclegg is blabbing away to everyone but reporters who have covered the company since its founding. Sway's gotten a pile of no's from FB execs for interviews, emails so numerous that I could paper my powder room with them. Nonetheless, nice job @DanaBashCNN who is onto him.…
@yaeleisenstat Yael Eisenstat on x
I don't believe press should invite Clegg again until he agrees to share the interview w/ one of FB's “critics”, but at least @DanaBashCNN pressed him on this crucial point. Frankly, it's time to stop giving PR time & insist on data access for Congress & academics to investigate.…
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
Haugen is not saying algorithms should be wiped out — she is talking about transparency around them and more sensible design.
@independent @independent on x
Nick Clegg 'can't say' whether Facebook's algorithm helped inspire US Capitol riot https://www.independent.co.uk/ ...
@lorakolodny Lora Kolodny on x
what is this vague excuse for a metric supposed to mean? “if our algorithms are as nefarious as some people suggest, why is it that those systems have reduced the prevalence of hate speech on our platforms to as little as 0.05%?” https://twitter.com/...
@sifill_ldf Sherrilyn Ifill on x
Closing the barn door...... https://twitter.com/...
@rachelmetz Rachel Metz on x
This — particularly the idea of transparency — is exactly what the experts I quoted in my piece today argue for. Facebook's success was built on algorithms. Can they also fix it? https://www.cnn.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
This this this this It's hard (not impossible) to regulate algorithms themselves and even harder (probably impossible) to regulate the underlying speech without doing more harm than good But Congress can & should ban the surveillance practices that are the source of FB's power ht…
@swodinsky Shoshana Wodinsky on x
what kind of a fucking question is this lol https://twitter.com/...
@mehdirhasan Mehdi Hasan on x
Nick Clegg went from providing cover for David Cameron to providing cover for Mark Zuckerberg and he was amply rewarded for both. https://twitter.com/...
@moonalice Roger McNamee on x
Among the problems with algorithm discussion: fact that there are many algos (sometimes w/ conflicting objectives), that algo-driven biz model optimized for attention will inevitably amplify fear/outrage, and that on FB, much of harm is from recommendation engines and FB Groups h…
@erinisaway Erin Taylor on x
the fact this guy tried to call algorithms “spam filters” really reminds you he has a reason to downplay algorithmic violence and increased misinfo due to algorithms lol https://twitter.com/...
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
this is probably not a popular point and Clegg is using it as a shitty dodge but also the question is not all that good...i basically think conversations like this one are pretty worthless! question is too broad and answer is disingenuous (and technically probably also right!) ht…
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
Everyone who says they have an easy solution to misinformation online is required to read this (and admit they don't have an easy solution). https://twitter.com/...
@yoda Drew Olanoff on x
Just pointing out the fact that Nick Clegg does not work on child safety or Instagram or research these issues and has no direct knowledge of the topic from his work at Facebook. https://twitter.com/...
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
@szhang_ds from your vantage, what would be a good question here for him (genuinely curious and earnest here!)
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
i think i just generally recoil at the Facebook issue becoming a core political cable news subject. hard to imagine a worse forum for an extremely complicated, technical problem
@rmac18 @rmac18 on x
Still, I find it hard to believe that Facebook doesn't have the tools, people, and resources to ascertain whether or not its algorithms pushed election fraud content ahead of Jan. 6. It may be a complex problem, but it seems like one you'd probably want to get to the bottom of.
@rmac18 @rmac18 on x
Watching this clip and it feels like this is a moment that will come back to bite Facebook. Either outcome isn't great. Either FB's algos did amplify election fraud content, or FB doesn't know what content is pushed by its systems. https://twitter.com/...
@yoda Drew Olanoff on x
maybe facebook's communication plan shouldn't involve rolling out a fleet of policy people to speak on shit they don't work on or will ever truly understand (or care to!).
@debramessing Debra Messing✍🏻 on x
.@Facebook helping SPREAD MISINFORMATION. Spreading the message of INSURRECTIONISTS. https://twitter.com/...
@amyklobuchar Amy Klobuchar on x
I am so tired of hearing “trust us” from Facebook and social platforms. The time for talk is over, we need action. https://twitter.com/...
@davewiner Dave Winer on x
You know why I prefer Facebook over journalism? At least I, as a human being, have a role in Facebook. Sure I'm just one of 2.7 billion, but at least I'm one. When it comes to journalism, I'm zero.
@blackamazon @blackamazon on x
They can't fix it themselves and shouldn't be trusted to https://twitter.com/...
@lizmair Liz Mair on x
... in the US, it reads as “shit I have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm really sweating this.” Conversely on UK TV, someone who speaks fluidly without tripping over a single word sounds over-rehearsed and inauthentic. I say this as someone who does TV in BOTH places.
@dwstweets Debbie Wasserman Schultz on x
.@nickclegg Playing word games by suggesting that “removing” @Facebook's algorithms would make it more likely that people see hate speech is like telling a woman that she's more likely to get pregnant if she uses birth control. https://thehill.com/... #facebookwhistleblower
@yoda Drew Olanoff on x
I'd like to hear from someone who didn't actively work on getting Trump elected. https://twitter.com/...
@hypervisible @hypervisible on x
Arsonist will nudge you to move to another room in burning building. https://www.reuters.com/...
@szhang_ds @szhang_ds on x
@cwarzel The questions that I've been asking haven't gotten people to pay attention. I can make technically interesting and nuanced questions, but journalists also need publicity and attention. Not surprising that people notice nuance doesn't work and instead iterate on what does…
@swodinsky Shoshana Wodinsky on x
when tech becomes a part of the Political Broadcast Zeitgeist, you don't get away w saying “algorithm” or “amplification” like they're magical catch-alls anymore. Be specific!! Ask what you mean!!! You're a *journalist*!!!!!
@sifill_ldf Sherrilyn Ifill on x
As though the fact that he can't give a yes or no answer isn't itself damning. https://twitter.com/...
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
Bottom-line, we need more scrutiny of academics and “experts” - who consult, receive funding or partner with Facebook or even former employees - now spreading narratives consistent with Facebook's crisis PR plan. There are lines they don't cross at a time they need crossing.
@davewiner Dave Winer on x
I will keep saying positive things about Facebook to balance the fact that the press only attacks them and never Google.
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
@RMac18 I'm also a bit surprised frankly the company doesn't have something prepared on this that it'll share now. Along with what guardrails it dropped post election. They're going to have to tell Jan 6 committee ultimately, surely.
@emmalbriant @emmalbriant on x
This is getting conflated, frustrating - algorithmic decision making about what to show you, is not the same as *content itself*. Algorithms are also based on data which can be protected and restricted with privacy legislation. None of this means taking down negative information.…
@moonalice Roger McNamee on x
Before you get excited about this FB announcement, remember kids are on Insta (not FB). Insta was architected to create envy (due to filters, influencers). You cannot fix harm with “nudges.” You have to change architecture, design. Not going to happen. https://www.reuters.com/...
@ohhkaygo Kayla Gogarty on x
Facebook only cares about good press and would rather mislead or even lie to the public instead of actually addressing the platform's serious problems
@jeffjarvis Jeff Jarvis on x
She might not outlaw algorithmic promotion but others would and this would be the result. https://twitter.com/...
@jilliancyork Chillian J. Yikes on x
Excellent piece from @daphnek @jkosseff. I'd add that Haugen's policy recommendations center the US far too much, which is simply misguided in an era in which Americans are a minority on these platforms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@tristansnell Tristan Snell on x
Was part of the Trump-Zuckerberg secret bargain that Facebook would turn a blind eye to “Stop the Steal” and the planning of January 6?
@nichboy Nich Richardson on x
Facebook plans “to introduce a feature “called ‘take a break,’ where we will be prompting teens to just simply take a break from using Instagram.” Yeah, because people always stop using things that hurt them when you ask them to. You fucking idiots. https://www.theverge.com/...
@jgreenblattadl Jonathan Greenblatt on x
Facebook's VP Nick Clegg's inability to answer this question about Facebook's algorithm amplifying Jan. 6th pro-insurrection content is deeply troubling. We need regulation and reform to put people over profit and #REPAIRTheInternet. https://twitter.com/...
@marietjeschaake Marietje Schaake on x
1) Thousands of Facebook algorithms 2) FB can deny more easily what it doesn't choose to measure 3) new challenge for regulators, as the space to regulate is more fluid than in other sectors ↘️ https://twitter.com/...
@repkenbuck Rep. Ken Buck on x
My suggestion is that Congress passes antitrust reform to actually hold Facebook accountable. https://twitter.com/...
@lloydhardy Lloyd🛡️Hardy on x
Nick Clegg manages to not answer that Facebook's algorithm really did amplify the Capitol Riots by saying they don't know what the algorithms do but they do know they don't do things that people say they do but maybe to individuals but he knows they can't know. Which means Yes. h…
@szhang_ds @szhang_ds on x
Social media has created a world where people get attention by adhering to the public zeitgeist and making unnuanced emotional soundbites. No surprise that the public criticism of FB that gets attention is the same. It's not ideal, but also ironic. Hoist by their own petard? http…
@lizmair Liz Mair on x
Also a small suggestion for my friends at Facebook... in the UK, the Clegg style of interviewing plays well. I'm not really sure how to explain this but in the UK, the sort of stammering sounds like authentic thinking about what you're saying and being sincere and authentic...
@annagronewold Anna Gronewold on x
if we know anything about teens, it's that they respond *great* to “this might be bad for you” messaging https://twitter.com/...
@cnn @cnn on x
Algorithms are not going away. But there are ways for Facebook to improve them, experts in algorithms and artificial intelligence told CNN Business. It will, however, require more transparency and control for users. https://cnn.com/...
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
“Algorithms are not going away. But there are ways for Facebook to improve them, ⁦@rachelmetz⁩ writes. “It will, however, require something Facebook has so far appeared reluctant to offer: more transparency and control for users.” https://www.cnn.com/...
@johnwilson John Wilson on x
Less politics will be healthier for everyone, and also diminish media importance as well. https://twitter.com/...
@ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x
A thread 🧵on our front page Facebook story today: We heard this a “Big Tobacco Moment” This won't be a “moment,” but more like a very long fight to regulate FB and big tech. Here's what to expect, how the analogy works and doesn't. 1/ https://www.nytimes.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
Good reporting here overall but this is a wild oversimplification of what 230 does and you do readers a disservice by not at least mentioning the significant human rights concerns around changing it... especially after Blumenthal pushed the EARN IT act, widely condemned by expert…
@mr_james_c @mr_james_c on x
10/ A final thought. IMO this feels to me like we're in the midst of a Moral Panic. We look back on moral panics and think “pfff those people are so dumb!” But those people didn't feel dumb at the time, they felt righteous. Anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. But maybe you are too. End/
@jameeljaffer Jameel Jaffer on x
The amplification=nicotine analogy is bad for social media companies but maybe also bad for newspapers, book publishers, opera houses, film distributors, among others. Not sure the line here is as clear as some people seem to think it is. https://twitter.com/...
@ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x
7/ The fact of the matter is, Big Tech is not a political priority (Facebook knows this). And Facebook is way better off than tobacco in one key way: it's liability shield from the speech on its apps: https://www.nytimes.com/...
@dublinerich Erich Steyaert on x
Interesting comparison between tobacco and tech industries here. While I would be careful with the comparison, which may flatter and even embolden tobacco companies, there are similarities in youth marketing strategies. Increased tech regs to protect children welcome + needed! ht…
@devan_ Dead Lasso on x
Also I don't think there was probably a tobacco equivalent of “Will you commit to ending ‘finsta?’” Like we are starting from a major deficit. https://twitter.com/...
@tegantrex @tegantrex on x
Stripping platforms of Sec 230 protection is gonna do more than wipe sex off the internet. It's gonna strangle and silence activism, which has used social media to give voice to issues people would otherwise ignore. https://twitter.com/...
@doctorow Cory Doctorow on x
We need to fix the internet, not the tech giants. The problem isn't just that Zuck is really bad at being the unelected pope-emperor of the digital lives of 3,000,000,000 people - it's that the job of “pope-emperor of 3,000,000,000 people” should be abolished. 7/
@zephyrteachout Zephyr Teachout on x
When you—when we—allow crime among elites and the powerful it doesn't just go away. It comes back, stronger and more abusive. Which is why we can't let Facebook, the Sacklers, or Trump, get away with saying the past is past. We need to be looking at criminal charges.
@loupas Lou Paskalis on x
Great piece by ⁦@ceciliakang⁩ in today's ⁦@nytimes⁩: “Some lawmakers have urged reworking a law that shields tech companies from lawsuits, changing it so that the firms could be held responsible if their software AMPLIFIES harmful speech.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@loupas @loupas on x
Amplification is the crux of the issue. People, propaganda shops masquerading as news orgs, megalomaniacs, insane ex-Presidents and their acolytes can all post their screeds with impunity. They are not, however, entitled to AMPLIFICATION and that is what platforms must rein in.
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
Journalists often conflate regulation and fatal punishment. Consider Big Tobacco. Today I can still buy a pack of Marlboro's at 7-11, Altria's market cap is up 50% since 2011 & cigarettes kill 500K Americans annually. Regulation by itself isn't a panacea. https://www.nytimes.com/…
@ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x
4/ Back to Big Tobacco analogy: whistleblowers revealed internal research on product harms. Tobacco also marketed its products to young kids in pursuit of growth and luring new customers. Tobacco had an enormous lobby to protect their biz. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@repmikequigley Mike Quigley on x
Disinformation shouldn't only concern one party—it's an issue that impacts us all. The recent testimony from Frances Haugen shows that when it comes to handling disinformation, Facebook has been careless and must be held accountable. https://twitter.com/...
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Here's Republican antitrust enforcer @CSWilsonFTC quoted in the New York Times arguing against using antitrust on big tech. And she voted against Trump's antitrust suit to break up Facebook. Hey conservatives, get Silicon Valley out of your house. https://www.nytimes.com/... http…
@congressmanraja Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi on x
Facebook has long been an issue. It's far past time for them to change their ways. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@benjedwards Benj Edwards on x
@Techmeme @ceciliakang The govt wont last that long if it's not regulated, so this is much more urgent than tobacco
@alexandrageese Alexandra Geese on x
The documents finally put all the facts on the table to allow us to adopt a stronger #DigitalServicesAct . See my demands at @POLITICOEurope to invite @FrancesHaugen to testify at @Europarl_EN https://www.politico.eu/... #facebookwhistleblower #FacebookFiles
@nicholasvinocur Nicholas Vinocur on x
Frances Haugen's revelations on Facebook are feeding into EU plans to regulate online content via the Digital Services Act, and some lawmakers are calling on her to testify. But the invitation hasn't gone out yet, for some reason. By @clothildegouj https://www.politico.eu/...
@the_iap @the_iap on x
EU won't be her only stop. “EU lawmakers want a Facebook whistleblower to come and testify before the bloc's parliament about revelations of toxic practices on the platform as they hammer out the fine print on new rules to regulate online content.” https://www.politico.eu/...
@guyeats239 @guyeats239 on x
@Techmeme @ceciliakang I wish they would just rip the damn Band-Aid off on so many things 🤦🏻‍♂ ️
@dlippman Daniel Lippman on x
“It took more than 50 years from the first published research about the dangers of cigarettes, and more than a decade after a whistle-blower shared internal documents ... before there was meaningful government regulation.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@nytimes @nytimes on x
Is Facebook having a Big Tobacco moment? If so, what lies ahead is likely to be a yearslong, complicated path toward new rules and regulations, with no guaranteed result. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x
New: “It was a lightbulb” - the whistleblower's findings to the Tobacco industry. But Facebook's “Big Tobacco Moment” portends a long and contentious battle to regulate social media via @NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/...
@dlippman Daniel Lippman on x
Sen. Richard Blumenthal to the NYT: “It was a light bulb, and all the memories came back of the strategy papers done by tobacco companies on reaching middle schoolers. It was like you could just rearrange the words and substitute it with ‘tobacco.’” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@tonyromm Tony Romm on x
One thing we don't discuss enough is how Congress has changed — such that these big truth bombs, which might have moved the needle in generations past, generally cannot overcome the vicious partisanship at the Capitol. https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles