To those whose reaction to this story involves saying "I can't believe Instagram wrote that down", would you rather they not write it down? wsj.com/articles/faceb…
I see it as a testament to @mosseri's leadership that Instagram is willing to invest in understanding its impact on people-- both the good and the awful-- and spin up dedicated efforts to mitigate even the most intractable and heartbreaking harms.
The alternative would be an app that is blind to its role in society. That would be reckless and dangerous to us all. Instead, we need to engage with this research thoughtfully and bring to the conversation a spirit of constructive problem solving.
If we greet these findings with only outrage, it could have a chilling effect on internal research. Teams could be dissuaded from looking into tough questions, find their results overly sanitized, or limited in sharing what they found (even internally). That hurts everyone.
Of course there also needs to be more avenues for external research, new models for data sharing, and regulatory structures to make that mandatory. But let's also respect the work of internal researchers, whose insights are often the most influential critiques of all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today's WSJ reporting was especially difficult for me to read because it touches on a topic that probably "kept me awake" more than anything else when I was at FB. And that is, how can social networks operate responsibly in the global south? wsj.com/articles/faceb…
🧵...
It can't be easily disputed that social networks' rapid expansion into the global south was at times reckless and arguably neocolonialist. And the inadequate attention both within platforms and within the media on these issues is rightly shocking. What can help? Some thoughts...
When a social network operates in any market, it needs to ensure it can adhere to some minimal set of trust & safety standards. It needs to be capable of processing user reports and automatically monitoring for the worst content in all the supported dialects.
Was hoping for a quiet day but @JeffHorwitz strikes again. Do I have thoughts on the issues raised? You bet! I share in the spirit of trying to enhance understanding of these complex dilemmas. In short, we need to imbue feeds with a sense of morality. wsj.com/articles/faceb…
When you treat all engagement equally (irrespective of content), increasing feed engagement will invariably amplify misinfo, sensationalism, hate, and other societal harms. I wish this weren't the case, but it is so predictable that it is perhaps a natural law of social networks.
So it is no surprise that the MSI (meaningful social interaction) ranking changes of 2018/2019 had this impact, and as the reporting shows, many people at FB are conscious of and concerned about these side effects.
While I had no involvement whatsoever in @JeffHorwitz's very thorough reporting in the WSJ on FB's x-check system, I was quoted in the article based on a leaked internal post, so I am compelled to give a more full perspective.
First, to state the obvious, automated moderation systems inevitably make lots of mistakes because human language is nuanced & complex. In theory, a confirmatory round of review is prudent because it is an awful experience to have your post taken down without cause.
But how you execute that second round of review is critically important! Figuring out who is eligible, how you staff, etc. makes all the difference between responsible enforcement and de-facto exemptions from the platform's policies.