Visible to members of this folder

On Facebook, content moderation, free speech, and personal responsibility

🍇 On Facebook, content moderation, free speech, and personal responsibility

NOTES / Disagreement template

This is a fruitful disagreement with contributions from:

Cited Participants: Linda Dong, Karla Cole, J.T. Trollman, Rasmus Andersson, amélie lamont, Chikezie Ejiasi, Ankit Shah, Renée DiResta, Robert Mueller III, Tristan Harris, Daniel Burka, Julie Ann Horvath, Kevin Kwok, Bobby Goodlatte, Joel Califa, Mike Montiero, John Hanawalt, Elizabeth Warren, Josh Puckett, Kimberley D.

Curators: Buster Benson, Vicki Tan (DM one of us on Twitter for an invite if interested in helping curate)

💫 WHAT IS THIS DOCUMENT’S GOAL?

To help more of us collectively learn, orient, and ultimately take positive steps forward on the problems highlighted by this disagreement. We are but human and will no doubt make some missteps along the way, and we know we're not the final authority on fruitful disagreement, so please send us feedback, corrections, and additions that might help us improve over time.

STEP 1: LEARN	STEP 2: ORIENT	STEP 3: ACT
Gather facts and articulate values from multiple perspectives.	Identify shared values that point to evidence of improvement. Propose actions to get there.	Commit to acting on proposals and checking-in again once new facts turn up. Repeat if necessary.

🐲 WHAT IS THE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT?

🧠 FACTS	❤️ VALUES	✋ PROPOSALS
What do we know about Facebook's impact on the world?	What do we think about Facebook's impact? Who should feel bad about it? How bad should they feel?	What should Facebook, Facebook employees, and others do to make a positive impact?
Is there evidence that disinformation campaigns influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election? Is there evidence that Facebook’s content and/or ad policy has led to a negative impact on society?	Is Facebook's role in the 2016 elections something the company should be ashamed of? How much accountability and responsibility should employees take on behalf of their employer's actions? Should Facebook employees quit? What tangible evidence would prove that Facebook had sufficiently improved their stance on free speech and content moderation? How should a right (or lack of right) to distribution fit into freedom of speech in a world where speech doesn't travel without distribution?	What is the best proposal we can act on now to increase the likelihood of tangible improvements happening? New product and design processes that proactively identify and correct for unintentional negative impacts. A proposal to change Facebook’s ad policy to hold political ads to a higher standard Facebook’s proposal to protect the 2020 presidential elections. Turn off political advertising.

QUESTIONS

To propose new questions related to this disagreement, add comments here:

💬 SUGGEST A NEW QUESTION

🧠 Question about facts: Is there evidence that disinformation campaigns influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election?

	SUPPORTING EVIDENCE	CHALLENGING EVIDENCE
Strongest evidence	What we know about Russian Disinformation - Renée DiResta Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election - Robert Mueller, III
Qualifications on evidence	“The hard truth is that the problem of disinformation campaigns will never be fixed; it’s a constantly evolving arms race. But it can — and must — be managed. This will require that social media platforms, independent researchers and the government work together as partners in the fight. We cannot rely on — nor should we place the full burden on — the social media platforms themselves.” - Renée DiResta There is evidence that disinformation campaigns went to great lengths to attempt to influence the election, but it’s tough to know conclusively the extent to which those intentions were successful.

🧠 Question about facts: Is there evidence that Facebook’s content and/or ad policy has led to a negative impact on society?

	SUPPORTING EVIDENCE	CHALLENGING EVIDENCE
Strongest evidence	“The Myanmar military’s Facebook operation began several years ago, said the people familiar with how it worked. The military threw major resources at the task, the people said, with as many as 700 people on it.” - NYT “Members of the Myanmar military were the prime operatives behind a systematic campaign on Facebook that stretched back half a decade and that targeted the country’s mostly Muslim Rohingya minority group, the people said. The military exploited Facebook’s wide reach in Myanmar, where it is so broadly used that many of the country’s 18 million internet users confuse the Silicon Valley social media platform with the internet. Human rights groups blame the anti-Rohingya propaganda for inciting murders, rapes and the largest forced human migration in recent history.” - NYT An Independent Assessment of the Human Rights Impact of Facebook in Myanmar - Facebook
Qualifications on evidence	The misinformation campaign by Myanmar’s military was run via Facebook pages and Messenger, not via ads. “I wouldn’t say Facebook is directly involved in the ethnic cleansing, but there is a responsibility they had to take proper actions to avoid becoming an instigator of genocide.” - Thet Swe Win, founder of Synergy, a group that focuses on fostering social harmony in Myanmar

❤️ Question about values: Is Facebook's role in the 2016 elections something the company should be ashamed of?

	POSITION 1
Stated in charitable terms	Yes. They had a big role in spreading misinformation and continued efforts to relax content moderation policies show that things have not improved.
Strongest case for this	The company is doing shameful things that ended up hurting people and affecting an election, and they don't seem to be taking many measures to change that.
Qualifications and concessions
Quotes from supporters	"I think that given FB’s critical role in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 elections, its relaxation of policies banning false claims in political ads, Mark’s evasion of responsibility in congressional testimonial, etc the release of this news product is shameful" - @lindadong Example of speaking for yourself: “The backlash towards Facebook is deserved because they are seemingly pushing new life-damaging products without the publicly expressed desire to examine it's impact. I try to own and fix my company's woes, you should too.” - @chik “The thing I don't get about the pure free speech thing is that it ignores context and consequences. There's a literal genocide happening because of how Facebook empowers this kind of information to spread. They aren't without responsibility.” - @notdetails Example of seeking to understand: “You're right. Part of working on a social media platform as large as this is fully understanding the weight we carry. Myanmar is an excellent example, and one taken very seriously. It's one reason we've poured so much energy into preventing misinfo spread: link” - @jtroll “J.T., I know so many good people at Facebook so please don't take this the wrong way, but BREITBART is a trusted source and political ads are allowed to include outright lies. How exactly do these decisions align with the effort of preventing misinformation?” - @notdetails Example of speaking for yourself: “I personally disagree with the decision to not apply these anti-misinformation features to political ads, and continue to make that known. You're absolutely right to criticize us for not getting that right, in my eyes. Please continue to do so.” - @jtroll “What would really “suck” is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy.” - @ewarren

	POSITION 2
Stated in charitable terms	No. While they may have influenced the election, they are not doing so maliciously. They are in uncharted waters, and doing their best to learn to navigate these new problems.
Strongest case for this	Though there is a lot of criticism of Facebook's behavior, they didn't do anything wrong. What is being mistaken for wrong decisions is instead hard decisions about how balance the abilities of people holding different beliefs to express themselves on the platform.
Qualifications and concessions
Quotes from supporters	"I understand how the media made FB look like baddies, but based on all the information I have, FB didn’t do anything wrong. There were many really hard decisions (eg choice: either we appear to support white supremacy, or we appear to limit free speech.)" - @rsms "Strongly disagree. Facebook is not society. The analogy here is that Breitbart would exist with/without Facebook, yes. But when Facebook actively promote them as a legitimate source, it’s not “just holding up a mirror to society” — it’s taking an active role in defining it." - @krjespen "So all ya FB haters who apparently I follow here on the Twitter, legitimately and honestly: Can you help me understand why you hate FB so much? What am I missing? (If you can, please provide references to big claims :–)" - @rsms

❤️ Question about values: How much accountability and responsibility should employees take on behalf of their employer's actions?

	POSITION 1
Stated in charitable terms	If your company is potentially responsible for societal problems, you should not talk about or focus on problems unrelated to those problems.
Strongest case for this	When your company is being criticized for potentially hurting people, communities, and elections, celebrating your company without acknowledging this other reality is irresponsible.
Qualifications and concessions	This is not about asking people to leave their jobs. (see question below) Some people are more accountable than others. This is not a criticism of how hard you worked, or how good you are at your job.
Quotes from supporters	"To the designers who worked on this: PLEASE spare us all the “so thrilled to announce this is the project I’ve been working on for the last year so proud of the team they put in so much hard work and dedication now off to the next thing we can fuckall with!”" - @lindadong "And there we have it. Why can’t I just let these people with $250k+ salaries enjoy their money in peace, no matter if what they make hurts people, communities, elections. I’m heartless ya’ll" - @lindadong Example of speaking for yourself: I’m not saying that your team didn’t work hard, I’m sure everyone worked very hard - it’s a talented group." - @lindadong "People are upset because Facebook could choose to optimize social good over profits, but chooses not to do so." - @chabotc “Designers are absolving themselves of the responsibility for their consequences of the actions: ‘we didn’t have a say in that bad decision’. We earned the salaries but not the influence to change organizations. That’s on us.” - @dburka

	POSITION 2
Stated in charitable terms	Employees who feel they are putting something positive into the world should be able to market work they are proud of, even if they work at a company that is potentially responsible for societal problems.
Strongest case for this	It’s not necessary to villainize everyone for the perceptions from the outside. Good work is still possible, and recognition allowed. Many people on the inside may be waging battles for the same causes that they are being criticized. The problems may be actively addressed and still cause negative impacts, especially if they are very difficult and new problems without known solutions.
Qualifications and concessions
Quotes from supporters	“Don’t you dare villianize marginalized people who had to claw their way into tech to begin with.” - @nrrdcore “The standards set by the company doesn’t take away from the fact the ppl workin on the product believe deeply in trusted journalism.” - @karlamickens "If they want to talk about their work, they can! You don’t get to decide that ish." - @karlamickens "Yeah, people worked hard on this. They continue to. I'm proud of them, but there's a ton left to do." - @jtroll “Every one of us is complicit, regardless of what company we work at. Every single one of us has caused harm. There’s the baseline.” - @amelielamont Example of asking honest and open questions: “Is it possible that the examination of impact is actually pretty rigorous and that people are working their damndest and the problem is just very hard to solve?” - @ankitshah “Thx for asking! Yes it's possible they're trying. But we're not seeing it. So we don't know for sure. Publicly expressed desire to address the issues they're being accused of, is currently mismatched by newly launched products that highlight the issues they're accused of.” - @chik Example of seeking to understand: “One of my good friends is a print designer for a large health insurance company. She doesn’t have an evil bone in her body. Just a graphic designer trying to stay employed. She could easily argue health insurance companies are doing the best they can within our system to keep people healthy. Another person could argue health insurance companies are the root of all that is wrong with U.S. health care. Who is right? And depending on the answer to this question, should she be blamed for performing a fairly basic function for them?” - Mike Davidson

❤️ Question about values: Should Facebook employees quit?

	POSITION 1
Stated in charitable terms	If you work there, it’s a fair question to ask yourself. You should consider it if you think that’s the best way to fight the negative impact that Facebook is causing.
Strongest case for this	The cost of doing nothing isn’t nothing. If you aren’t actively fighting the negative impact of Facebook, and your circumstances allow it, your best move might be to quit.
Qualifications and concessions	It’s ultimately your choice that you need to make based on your own circumstances.
Quotes from supporters	“Every day that you go to work at a company that profits from hate-speech, anti-LGBTQ propaganda, anti-immigrant propaganda, men's rights bullshit, etc. you are making a CHOICE. And while the math on that choice is different for everyone it is STILL a choice.” - @montiero “And BTW, I am not encouraging you to quit. I am encouraging you to FIGHT. ORGANIZE. STOP WORK. GO OUTSIDE. PROTEST. And do it in a way that we can join you because are DYING to join you. We are on your side. But first you need to show us you’re on ours.” - @montiero “The cost of doing nothing isn’t nothing.” - @danachis ““How can you still work for Facebook (or Twitter)” is a fair question. Maybe designers have a thoughtful, defensible answer. Maybe they are legitimately mitigating the harm their company does. But as long as their company is doing harm, it’s a fair question.” - @h4n4w4lt Example of using friendly language: “I know, like, and respect individuals who are at Facebook currently. And—fun fact—I worked at an agency with Facebook and similarly…complicated…companies in its client portfolio. Pre-2016, but I still know how fuzzy the boundary between icky and unacceptable is. It’s a tough conversation, but we need to have it. And with all due respect, if you work for these companies, you’ve opted into the conversation. I mean that: people still deserve consideration as we debate this. It’s not a pass-ag “fuck you.”” - @h4n4w4lt “Tired of working at Facebook but afraid of making the leap? DM me.” - @joshpuckett

	POSITION 2
Stated in charitable terms	The option to walk away from a steady income is a privilege through and through.
Strongest case for this	You don't know the whole story. There's more to it than gets covered in the news. The issue is more complicated when viewed from the inside, and there are people who care deeply about the issues and work hard at fixing them, though their work may not be visible to the outside. It's easy to say that one should leave a job at a company that has been criticized by the public when it's not you, or when you are wealthy and privileged. Taking this stance could hurt less privileged people.
Qualifications and concessions
Quotes from supporters	“The option to walk away from a steady income is a privilege through and through.” - @nrrrdcore "[Telling someone to leave their job] is easy to say when you're sitting in the stands and didn't actually do any of the work. I happen to know the designers who worked on this and I know they care deeply about journalism. They are proud of their work, as they should be. Period." - @karlamickens "So let them collect their coin, support their families and be happy." - @karlamickens Example of speaking for yourself: “Like most other tech companies, Facebook has many contractors, including some who aren't making comparatively similar annual incomes. Some aren't in tech roles, or are entry level, or are in tech roles which aren't as high paying, or etc etc. And then of course there's the visa issue -- some employees who quit now have a very short timeline to secure another job or else leave the united states entirely. For me, any "quit your job for ethical reasons" would have to be accompanied by significant objective evidence that they were "privileged" enough to likely be able to do so without serious risk to themselves or their family” - @xaotica

❤️ Question about values: What tangible evidence would best prove that Facebook had sufficiently improved their stance on free speech and content moderation?

	POSITION 1
Stated in charitable terms	Higher editorial standards against misinformation and political ads, that led to considerably less reach.
Strongest case for this	There is an imbalance in power when it comes to the spread of misinformation that greatly favors it. This imbalance should be mitigated by the platforms that can do so.
Qualifications and concessions
Quotes from supporters	“Lies spread 6x faster than truth on viral platforms, and at no cost to the originator.” - @tristanharris “Keep in mind, YouTube recommended Alex Jones conspiracy videos more than 15 BILLION times. That's more than the combined traffic of BBC, NYT, WaPo, Guardian, etc.” - @tristanharris

❤️ Question about values: How should a right (or lack of right) to distribution fit into freedom of speech in a world where speech doesn't travel without distribution?

	POSITION 1
In charitable terms	Free speech shouldn’t include a right to free or paid distribution of speech.
Strongest case for this	Large media platforms aren’t neutral. What they choose to recommend actively changes the conversation (like when Facebook algorithms recommend conspiracy theories). Lies spread faster than fact checks, so checks and balances will not correct for malicious actors.
Qualifications and concessions
Quotes from supporters	“How does a right or lack of right to distribution fit into freedom of speech in a world where speech doesn't travel without distribution. That's the debate that matters. And everyone dances around, but is core” - @kevinakwok “The one thing paid ads reveal — especially when you also factor in their "earned" reach — is a large pricing disparity between candidates. Ads literally put a price on political speech. Some speech is cheaper to advertise than other speech. Is that speech somehow "free-er"?” - @rsg “Free speech ≠ Free reach. The real harm of digital platforms' is granting Hitler-sized broadcasting powers, or BBC-sized publishing powers without any degree of responsibility (truth in advertising, corrections, fact-checking). Broadcast-level reach with no skin-in-the-game.” - @tristanharris “Allowing paid civic misinformation to run on the platform in its current state has the potential to: Increase distrust in our platform. (…) Undo integrity product work. (…)” - Facebook employees

✋ Question about proposals: What are the best proposals we can act on now to increase the likelihood of tangible improvements happening?

	PROPOSAL 1:
The proposal:	New product and design processes that proactively identify and correct for unintentional negative impacts.
Evidence to support its effectiveness:
Criticism of this proposal:
Responses to criticism:
Quotes:	“There's no industry-wide or standardized practice of examining how your product may negatively impact society. Were only a decade or so into this game so we have a lot to do. Here are some process tips based on what peers and I have done, suggested, or learned in the past: During your initial UX audit, work with your research team to audit how folks from marginalized communities and people with disabilities use your product. What are the issues they're running into? If you love working off problem statements, this will give you a gold mine. Create end to end flows showing someone using your product to harm someone. It will be uncomfortable, but rest assured, you're saving lives here. You should now ideally have a few features crafted up that remedy the problems you revealed earlier. During design reviews, engage your PMs and Eng partners to establish at least one launch blocker that will address the problems you're solving for that community. Something is better than nothing. Track any metrics and insights and do follow-up research. Add that to your perf and follow-up with new improvements on your OKRs. IMPORTANT--> You might not see the immediate effects of your work but this is preventative medicine were taking about. The trick to all this is: YOU HAVE TO WANT TO DO THE WORK. You might not get it right the first time, but signals to your users is valuable.“ - @chik
Commitments to move forward:

	PROPOSAL 2:
The proposal:	Change Facebook’s ad policy to hold political ads to a higher standard: Hold political ads to the same standard as other ads. Stronger visual design treatment for political ads. Restrict targeting for political ads. Broader observance of the election silence periods Spend caps for individual politicians, regardless of source Clearer policies for political ads
Evidence to support its effectiveness:
Criticism of this proposal:	Federal law mandates that broadcast networks cannot censor political ads from candidates running for office.
Responses to criticism:
Quotes:	Full text of the Letter Facebook Employees Sent to Mark Zuckerberg About Political Ads.
Commitments to move forward:	~250 Facebook employees signed the letter

	PROPOSAL 3
The proposal:	Facebook shared a proposal to protect the 2020 elections and misinformation campaigns that included: Fighting foreign interference Combating inauthentic behavior, including an updated policy Protecting the accounts of candidates, elected officials, their teams and others through Facebook Protect Increasing transparency Making Pages more transparent, including showing the confirmed owner of a Page Labeling state-controlled media on their Page and in our Ad Library Making it easier to understand political ads, including a new US presidential candidate spend tracker Reducing misinformation Preventing the spread of misinformation, including clearer fact-checking labels Fighting voter suppression and interference, including banning paid ads that suggest voting is useless or advise people not to vote Helping people better understand the information they see online, including an initial investment of $2 million to support media literacy projects
Evidence to support its effectiveness:
Criticism of this proposal:
Responses to criticism:
Quotes:
Commitments to move forward:	Facebook

	PROPOSAL 4:
The proposal:	Turn off political advertising
Evidence to support its effectiveness:	Twitter did it, so it is at least viable as a business decision, though it undoubtedly has a direct impact on revenue.
Criticism of this proposal:
Responses to criticism:
Quotes:	“We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons… “ - @jack “We considered stopping only candidate ads, but issue ads present a way to circumvent. Additionally, it isn’t fair for everyone but candidates to buy ads for issues they want to push. So we're stopping these too.” - @jack
Commitments to move forward:	Twitter

CHANGELOG

Oct 30, 2019: Document shared publicly (link).

Oct 29, 2019: Added Facebook’s proposal for protecting elections and added a question about evidence related to the genocide in Myanmar.

Oct 28, 2019: Document started

Oct 25, 2019: This conversation was sparked by Linda Dong with this tweet.

Disclaimer: This document is incomplete and likely includes some errors. We welcome corrections, feedback, and suggested additions. Please DM one of the curators linked at the top of the doc if you’d like to help improve this page, or if you have an interest in helping curate future pages like this.

Have a nice day.

Vicki Tan 5 years ago

Bolded names have been contacted

Buster Benson 5 years ago

Suggest new questions by responding to this comment.

JT Trollman 5 years ago

You’re not asking for my personal opinion here, but I’d quibble with the idea that content moderation’s job will ever be “sufficient.” It will be in constant flux and gray area thanks to changes in technological advancement; societal norms & demands; and the shifting sands that are human speech and context.

Buster Benson 5 years ago

Your personal opinion is welcome! Is there a better word you can think of to capture the state where we believed that they had the “best” possible stance, even if it wasn’t sufficient?

JT Trollman 5 years ago

I think you’re probably putting your best foot forward here! It is indeed a question people are asking, and rightly so. I just don’t think it’s a question that will ever have an answer 100% acceptable.

Buster Benson 5 years ago

Yeah, I buy that. Do you have thoughts on what would even qualify as evidence towards an improvement here?

On Facebook, content moderation, free speech, and personal responsibility
WHAT IS THIS DOCUMENT’S GOAL?
WHAT IS THE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT?
QUESTIONS
Question about facts: Is there evidence that disinformation campaigns influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election?
Question about facts: Is there evidence that Facebook’s content and/or ad policy has led to a negative impact on society?
Question about values: Is Facebook's role in the 2016 elections something the company should be ashamed of?
Question about values: How much accountability and responsibility should employees take on behalf of their employer's actions?
Question about values: Should Facebook employees quit?
Question about values: What tangible evidence would best prove that Facebook had sufficiently improved their stance on free speech and content moderation?
Question about values: How should a right (or lack of right) to distribution fit into freedom of speech in a world where speech doesn't travel without distribution?
Question about proposals: What are the best proposals we can act on now to increase the likelihood of tangible improvements happening?

​​​💫​ WHAT IS THIS DOCUMENT’S GOAL?

​​​🐲​ WHAT IS THE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT?

​​QUESTIONS

​​​🧠​ Question about facts: Is there evidence that disinformation campaigns influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election?

​​​🧠​ Question about facts: Is there evidence that Facebook’s content and/or ad policy has led to a negative impact on society?

​​​❤️​ Question about values: Is Facebook's role in the 2016 elections something the company should be ashamed of?

​​​❤️​ Question about values: How much accountability and responsibility should employees take on behalf of their employer's actions?

​​​❤️​ Question about values: Should Facebook employees quit?

​​​❤️​ Question about values: What tangible evidence would best prove that Facebook had sufficiently improved their stance on free speech and content moderation?

​​​❤️​ Question about values: How should a right (or lack of right) to distribution fit into freedom of speech in a world where speech doesn't travel without distribution?

​​​✋​ Question about proposals: What are the best proposals we can act on now to increase the likelihood of tangible improvements happening?

💫 WHAT IS THIS DOCUMENT’S GOAL?

🐲 WHAT IS THE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT?

QUESTIONS

🧠 Question about facts: Is there evidence that disinformation campaigns influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election?

🧠 Question about facts: Is there evidence that Facebook’s content and/or ad policy has led to a negative impact on society?

❤️ Question about values: Is Facebook's role in the 2016 elections something the company should be ashamed of?

❤️ Question about values: How much accountability and responsibility should employees take on behalf of their employer's actions?

❤️ Question about values: Should Facebook employees quit?

❤️ Question about values: What tangible evidence would best prove that Facebook had sufficiently improved their stance on free speech and content moderation?

❤️ Question about values: How should a right (or lack of right) to distribution fit into freedom of speech in a world where speech doesn't travel without distribution?

✋ Question about proposals: What are the best proposals we can act on now to increase the likelihood of tangible improvements happening?