Since annotating leaks seems to be in vogue these days, here are my notes on this memo. 🧵... nytimes.com/2021/10/02/tec…
Maybe not a primary *cause*, but is it an accelerant? And if it were, does FB think it has a responsibility to lessen its contribution? There are many long-standing ills of humanity that tech can make worse. The builders of these technologies should want to do their part to help. 
Yes, but what is meaningful engagement for an individual might also be extremely harmful for society overall. Polarizing content is very enticing to an individual, but can break society apart if it is becomes predominant in the info environment.
Alternative interpretation: "We knew it would be harmful at the time but decided to fix it later, just as we do with all launches."
Yup, "that's life". What is new though are platforms preferentially amplifying this kind of speech over more level-headed ramblings of non-extremists. Acknowledging that this change meant you are more likely to come across extreme posts just shows what FB chose to prioritize.
This conflates two things: hate speech + polarization, which aren't necessarily the same. What makes polarizing content such a challenge is it generally doesn't violate the more narrow rules around hate speech. Efforts on the latter don't excuse inaction on the former.
This is kind of an own-goal. Not sure why WhatsApp needs to be dragged into this topic. Polarization there is a separate discussion which requires looking at the dynamics of groups and forwarding. If it weren't an issue, would WhatsApp have instituted forwarding limits?
Yup, this was all very excellent work, if I do say so myself ;-)
These were indeed extremely important measures! Now providing the public with transparency on their triggering criteria would ensure accountability that these measures are activated/deactivated due to risk of actual harm rather than just PR risk.
This is a very misleading analogy. It implies that the current way that feeds are ranked is somehow "correct". The truth is that *all* ranking changes will impact the flow of benign information. Assuming the status quo is to be protected is what leads to poor decision-making.
This is where the rubber hits the road. What is the acceptable tradeoff between benign and harmful posts? To prevent X harmful posts from going viral, would you be willing to prevent Y benign posts from going viral? No easy answers. Worth the debate.
How about some intellectual consistency? You can't earlier say you worry about collateral damage, and then say you are okay with banning all political group recommendations. Makes the criteria feel opaque, hypocritical, or even non-existent.
The work to remove organized hate networks flies under the radar but is extremely impressive and rightfully deserving of recognition/praise. (Sadly this tweet will probably never get much distribution because it applauds FB. Please prove me wrong.)
Conflation once again. I'd wager the vast majority of election delegitimization content was not from organized hate groups, but rather from more traditional political organizers. This makes it much harder to deal with and worthy of deeper research... for those who are brave.
"Squarely" is a cleverly flexible word. But the overall rhetoric here sadly shows FB doesn't have a clear sense of its own responsibility. What the world asks of the company is not to accept sole blame, but rather to respond and help where it is able. That is response-ability.
Still unable to say his name. The specter of 2024 looms...
... but at least 2020 is over!
100% agree. Now it is time for the decision-makers to honor this incredible work, not just with their words but with their actions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
