Let's be honest: Facebook doesn't have a good choice in how to respond to the recent whistleblower allegations. At this point, it's abundantly clear that Facebook knows the harm its platforms have on the mental health of those who use them, and they consciously choose to ignore the issue. If you're a PR manager at Facebook, this is the point where you silently admit defeat and keep the lowest profile possible. This is an issue that no official statement or amount of good press can fix.
But one development I've found interesting is that when Facebook has responded, they tend to do so with loads of data discrediting Frances Haugen's claims and proving they do not disproportionately promote politically polarizing content or harm the mental health of teens and such.
Jeff Bezos actually has this amazing quote about interpreting data: “The thing I have noticed is that when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There is something wrong with the way that you are measuring it."
This is a case where, even if Facebook is reporting honest numbers in these rebuttals, there is clearly an issue with how the data is being measured. I don't think anyone was shell-shocked by Haugen's findings because, quite honestly, if you would've asked me a year ago whether or not Facebook knew its algorithm promoted polarized political content and posts damaging to a person's mental health, I would've said yes in a heartbeat. I've seen one too many people get sucked into Instagram depression to believe there isn't any accuracy to the whistleblower's claims.
In other words, I think Facebook throwing alternative statistics at the issue to disprove Haugen's claims is a lost cause. The anecdotes line up with Haugen's findings, not Facebook's. Pray for Facebook PR.
Comentarios