Zuckerberg Rethinks Meta’s Social Research After Controversy
▼ Summary
– In September 2021, Mark Zuckerberg questioned Meta’s approach to researching social harms after a Wall Street Journal report revealed internal findings that Instagram worsened body image issues for many teen girls.
– The email, revealed in a New Mexico lawsuit, shows Zuckerberg believed Meta faced more criticism than peers like Apple because its proactive research and reporting made problems seem more prevalent on its platforms.
– Zuckerberg argued that companies like Apple, YouTube, Twitter, and Snap avoid similar scrutiny by doing less research or having fewer resources to study platform harms.
– Despite the risk of leaks, several top Meta executives advocated continuing internal research, viewing it as responsible for product improvement, though they considered restructuring teams to control sensitive information.
– The email is part of legal discovery in cases alleging Meta misled the public about platform safety for teens, with internal debates expected to feature in upcoming trials.
Following a major news report detailing internal findings on Instagram’s impact on teen mental health, Meta’s leadership engaged in a significant internal debate about the company’s approach to social research. An email from CEO Mark Zuckerberg, revealed through ongoing litigation, shows he questioned whether the company should alter its strategy for studying potential harms on its platforms. This reflection came directly after The Wall Street Journal published a story based on leaked documents showing Meta’s own research indicated Instagram worsened body image issues for a substantial percentage of teenage girls.
In the September 2021 message to top executives, Zuckerberg contrasted Meta’s proactive research with the approach of other tech giants. He pointed out that companies like Apple avoid much public scrutiny on social issues by not conducting similar in-depth studies on platform harms, framing user safety as an individual responsibility. He noted this strategy had “worked surprisingly well” for them, while Meta faced heightened criticism precisely because it publicly reported more on issues like child sexual abuse material, which could create a perception of greater problems on its services.
The email reveals Zuckerberg’s frustration, arguing the company should be “commended” for its work to understand and improve social issues, rather than having its internal research used to imply it was not doing enough. He suggested media coverage often ignored the trade-offs and implementation challenges inherent in any solution. This internal discussion occurred as part of a broader reckoning, following disclosures by whistleblower Frances Haugen, about the known effects of social media platforms.
In response, other executives largely advocated for continuing some form of responsible research. Javier Olivan, then-VP of central products, acknowledged that “leaks suck” but believed understanding these issues remained the responsible course, though perhaps with a more limited scope. David Ginsberg, VP of product, agreed, stating the internal work was crucial for product quality and user experience independently of broader societal goals.
The conversation led to a review of how research was organized. Product executive Guy Rosen outlined a spectrum of options, from centralizing teams studying sensitive topics to the extreme step of disbanding such teams and outsourcing the work. The eventual decision was to centralize these research teams in an effort to better control access to sensitive materials. Notably, Instagram head Adam Mosseri warned that announcing such changes immediately after his upcoming congressional testimony would look suspicious, prompting the company to act beforehand.
This email is now evidence in a lawsuit brought by the New Mexico Attorney General, which alleges Meta deceptively marketed its platforms as safe for teens while aware of harmful design choices. The company has stated it is proud of its “transparent, industry-leading research” and uses insights to make improvements like introducing teen accounts with built-in protections. The internal exchange underscores the complex calculation companies face between conducting impactful research and managing the reputational risks when difficult findings become public.
(Source: The Verge)
