Internal memo leak puts under-fire Facebook on blast, again

There has been a relentless string of bad press for Facebook in recent years, from the Cambridge Analytica scandal to now. This month’s serving of Facebook scandal comes in the form of a series of articles from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on leaked internal documents showing a cornucopia of bad choices, such as excluding celebrities and influential users from content moderation rules and burying research showing the psychological harm Instagram can have on young users. Facebook denied the latter claim in a response published on its corporate site.

Among the offences in the memos we see Facebook failing to deal with instances of human trafficking, revenge porn and discrimination on its platforms, over and above the well-documented cases where the platform was used to influence political agendas and even sway elections. I highly recommend the entire series from the WSJ, as well as additional reporting on the “Facebook Files” from the BBC.

This includes the revelation that Facebook knew its platform was being used to literally sell “domestic workers”, and even a child in one instance. This was reported in November 2019 by BBC News Arabic, and the WSJ materials show Facebook failed to make meaningful moves to counter this until it came under pressure from Apple, which threatened to remove the app from its App store. I repeat: this means Facebook was aware of users literally selling people on their platform.

And just when it thought it could breathe again, last week The New York Times (NYT) broke news of “Project Amplify”. This is Facebook’s plan to reshape the narrative using its own news feed. Specifically, the NYT reported on Friday: “The idea was that pushing pro-Facebook news items — some of them written by the company — would improve its image in the eyes of its users”.

I have other interests and hobbies — doomscrolling at 2am counts, right? — and don’t need to spend my time counting the offences of Zuckerberg’s social media colossus … but they do make it oh so easy

The NYT calls this a shift in strategy, away from public apologies and promising to do better towards a defensive one that protects founder Mark Zuckerberg and is intentionally less conciliatory. Facebook, naturally, denies this too. It has conceded some ground though. On Monday it announced that it would be pausing its much-vilified “Instagram for Kids” project to take in more external views on the matter.

Its critics are not just in the US. There are moves in the EU and the UK aimed at compelling social media (including Facebook) to course-correct its algorithms away from harmful content. The pressure is ramping up, especially as we understand more about the radicalising effect of the recommendation engine that, like YouTube, seems to send users down an extremism rabbit hole.

In practice this means if your online behaviour suggests you are vaccine-hesitant and have interacted with alternative medicine content, the algorithm starts to channel you, via a short series of links, to conspiracy content from vitamin shills (such as the Disinformation Dozen). Then you are not only primed to see conspiracy where there is scientific consensus, but are just a hair’s breadth away from the cesspools of white supremacy and other hate-fuelled material online.

How can a “Watch Next” video have that effect? Well, we now understand that this material is being poured into a receptive well, supercharged by a cocktail of confirmation bias and fearmongering. There is a growing stack of academic research into this effect, as well as books and testimonies of ex-staffers from across the range of social media companies. All of which leaves me wondering — in my best Carrie Bradshaw inner monologue voice — can capitalism succeed where civil society hasn’t?

Advising caution

So far, analysts have seemed immune to the worries of academics, legislators and Joe Public. A recent Bloomberg round-up of 58 equity analysts showed only three recommending this as a sell, but Bloomberg itself cites increasing competition and the departure of Facebook’s chief technology officer among their investment case concerns. Remember, too, that the US Federal Trade Commission is trying to force Facebook to carve itself up by selling off Instagram and Whatsapp. Instagram accounts for more than a quarter of the company’s revenue. Moreover, the US Securities and Exchange Commission was also on the receiving end of the latest stack of documents (by someone seeking whistle-blower protection), so the revelations about management failings could keep coming.

Facebook still has a lot to offer, with a huge user base, high engagement and booming ad revenues (plus its repeated promise of multiverse investment), but with successive waves of investigations, tribunals and regulatory scrutiny, commentators seem to be advising caution. And Zuckerberg’s future at the helm is being questioned, vigorously. Bloomberg’s Parmy Olson writes: “If Zuckerberg is replaced that may be no bad thing for Facebook’s shares. A new boss who can more stringently fix the company’s issues and appease regulators and lawmakers, could make the site a more attractive place for users who have left.”

Contrary to appearances, I don’t live to dunk on Facebook. Actually, I quite enjoy the platform as a means to keep up with family and friends. I also use Instagram and WhatsApp extensively (both Facebook companies), despite knowing better. I have other interests and hobbies — doomscrolling at 2am counts, right? — and don’t need to spend my time counting the offences of Zuckerberg’s social media colossus ... but they do make it oh so easy.

I’m not a Luddite by nature; to steal directly from vintage Eddie Izzard, “I don’t have technophobia, I have technojoy.” But if we are Marie Kondo-ing the social media drawer, this one no longer brings me joy.

• Thompson Davy, a freelance journalist, is an impactAFRICA fellow and WanaData member.