4 ms·
With the caveat that I don’t know much about Facebook’s research projects… the question “If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leadin
by nickloewen 5y ago
With the caveat that I don’t know much about Facebook’s research projects… the question “If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place?” sets alarm bells ringing for me—because I can imagine a cigarette company saying the same thing about the scientists they hired to argue that smoking isn’t so bad after all, or an oil company saying the same thing about the scientists they hired to argue that it’s too soon to act on climate change (especially since they’re “leading the charge” on renewable energy research).
(I’m influenced here by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s work in “Merchants of Doubt.”)
- ravi-delia 5y agoI think that the point here is that all the controversy is because of a study from Facebook's own research. If a cigarette company came out with a study showing cigarettes were dangerous, perhaps it would be a different story. Of course, I wouldn't say that being aware of the problems your product causes makes you less culpable; just the opposite.
- nickloewen 5y agoYes those are fair points! At the same time, I think that when it comes to assessing whether the company is acting in good faith or not, it is important to consider not just what research they do or don’t do, but also which findings they choose to promote and which they choose to keep internal… (Part of the fiasco with tobacco or climate is that those companies knew the risks associated with their products well enough, but didn’t publicize the findings that might cast them in a bad light in the same way that they publicized the findings that supported a “let’s wait and see” approach to policy. See for example https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...)
- panaffa 5y agoIts no different from exxon realizing climate change is real and hiding itm A scandal that shows no morales, but not illegal.
- owlbite 5y agoSure, but if a cigarette company commission a whole load of research, sat on the "bad" results and publicized the "good" ones, and then a whistleblower came forwards and showed the world the bad ones they had sat on...
- cornel_io 5y agoGoogle handled this in the right way: fire researchers who are clearly pursuing anti-company agendas, always. It's worse to pretend to support research (or "research", which TBH is what most of the anti-AI shite at Google was, bad actors working with external groups to "take down" big tech, funnel docs to DSA, etc) that hurts you than it is to just stop pretending you care what a bunch of hard-left extremist assholes think. Facebook has a tough problem, though, because a lot of their criticism is not just one wing of loonies, it's from every direction including normal sane people, and a lot of them agree with each other for once. I don't think they're breaking any laws, but I don't doubt someone will invent a shady case or charge them under a new law just because everyone hates Zuck. Not sure how you dodge that.
- manquer 5y agohe can step down from active management, he doesn't really need to run it anyway. FB is only big tech company that is still founder run (largely because it's younger ) . They could Split /diversify /dilute the brand /products the way google has done making it harder to associate with the bad things directly.
- wickedsickeune 5y agoSame for Dupont having tons of their own research on the health hazards of Teflon, yet both ignored in the name of profits.