On Russian interference in 2016, a FB comms official said:
“It will be a flash in the pan. Some legislators will get pissy. And then in a few weeks they will move onto something else. Meanwhile we are printing money in the basement, and we are fine.”
"Facebook’s Public Policy team...defended a “white list” that exempted Trump-aligned Breitbart News, run then by former White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon, and other select publishers from Facebook’s ordinary rules against spreading false news reports."
"The whistleblower...said such Groups have become havens for criminality, facilitating illegal trade in drugs and antiquities. When the whistleblower raised concerns about this within the company, a Facebook official replied, “We need to focus on the good,” the affidavit says."
I am *so* tired of the "focus on the good" narrative, which we saw as recently as last week from FB (about.fb.com/news/2021/10/h…).
Prevalence is a good metric when you're talking about removals, but not about harm.
Back in 2018, I was in a roomful of academics and one -- a white man -- batted down my concerns about gendered abuse because "hate speech was really such a small portion of content shared on FB."
When it's directed at you, it doesn't feel small, I can assure you.
(roomful? hmmm. It's Friday. I'm tired :))
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Critically, as she notes, many researchers were confirming and re-confirming the danger of Group recommendations for years before Facebook took action.
Last year, I wrote for @TheAtlantic about my own experience covering a local re-open movement and how my decade-plus of engagement patterns were upended seemingly overnight.
Together @CindyOtis_ and I described the problem in a @WIRED op Ed that only skimmed the surface of the disturbing things we had found. June 2020. wired.com/story/facebook…
One thing I have been perversely grateful for during the pandemic is that my father did not live to see it. He died of complications from Multiple Myeloma in 2011; this blood/bone marrow cancer wreaks havoc on the immune system.
Colin Powell also suffered from multiple myeloma. Any reporting that mentions Powell's COVID-19 vaccination status but not that his body was essentially unable to fight infections is not doing its due diligence.
Sending my condolences to his family.
(And yes, before you ask, several of the "biggest" news outlets in our country don't mention that he suffered from myeloma. It's appalling, fear-mongering, and endemic of the poor reporting and shallow discourse that has in part contributed to vaccine hesitancy in the US.)
While the Commerce Committee is in recess, some reading for you. A few pieces I've written tracking these issues over the past four years. Some details in enforcement have change, but by and large, the conclusions still hold up, and that is frustrating. (1/)
On self-regulation and why it didn't work, for @PostOpinions:
🧵 The Facebook Oversight Board will announce its decision on whether to uphold the platform’s post-January 6 ban on President Trump tomorrow.
It will have momentous consequences for political speech around the world. But for countering disinfo, it’s somewhat of a distraction.
A few years ago the main thoroughfare near my neighborhood got realigned, and the county put in some nice landscaping, which quickly got neglected and overgrown with weeds.
A little sapling started growing and by the fall, had grown into quite a plucky, woody weed tree, thriving amidst a bed of poison ivy that Jake, to my dismay, relishes walking through on our morning strolls.
Gendered abuse and disinformation are terrifyingly widespread. Of our 13 subjects, 12 faced gendered abuse, and 9 faced gendered disinfo. The overwhelming majority of abuse was posted on Twitter, and targeted @KamalaHarris (78% of our data!).
Here are the most prevalent keywords supporting gendered disinformation targeting the subjects in our study, including @KamalaHarris, @IlhanMN, @GovWhitmer, and @AOC. Women were targeted with abuse across party lines.
Good morning! Lots of men among my followers were giving me suggestions about how to deal with online misogynists in responses to this thread yesterday.
Here are a few reasons why it's not particularly helpful or constructive.
1. If you're a man telling a woman how to deal with online misogyny: nope. Just stop. You may as well be giving me tampon advice. Intellectually, you may think you understand what online (or real life) harassment is, but you can't understand the effect it has on the target.
2. It's highly personal; everyone deals with this differently. Not every target will choose to react the same way. Responses can range from righteous indignation to disengagement to direct response to trolls, and that's the target's choice, not yours.