Answering a suppositional question with yet another question is, well, questionable. But, hey, if we're going to play games like this, then I'm game to take a stab at answering these questions to questions with yet even more questions.

> If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? - Because it allows you to learn potential results before anyone else, thus giving you the advantage to control the narrative by releasing first?

> If we didn't care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space -- even ones larger than us? - Because the cost of that labor is relatively cheap in comparison to your earnings, and making a visible effort (however well or poorly executed) gives you a convenient scapegoat to point toward in exactly these types of situations?

> If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we're doing? - Because if you don't make it appear like you're playing ball, senators and congressmen would be more motivated to hammer down your door to appease their constituencies?

> ... if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? - Because you don't apply the same algorithms or suggest the same content across all geographic locations?

>If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place?

I wonder why tobacco companies studied lung cancer and oil companies studied climate change. Was it because those industries thought those issues were more important than profit?

> Was it because those industries thought those issues were more important than profit?

I take a more cynical view - they wanted to get ahead of the narrative before the public did. It meant a better PR angle, a more well thought out strategy to thwart external pressure, and a better forecast on how long you could milk the cow.

To be clear, I was being sarcastic. I agree with you and don't think it is in anyway cynical. It is the obvious reason. It allowed these industries to change the public discourse regarding these issues. For example, the oil industry was a big force behind the "personal responsibility" angle of fighting environmental problems trying to shift public perceptions from blaming the oil industry to blaming individual consumers.

Fair enough! haha

I'm so baffled by Mr. Zuckerberg's response here: the core complaint is that research was sidelined and deemphasized, not that it didn't happen at all.

We can both be satisfied Facebook is seriously researching its impact on society, and also appalled that it has been too slow to act on the results of serious internal research. Our complaints with Facebook are complex; Mr. Zuckerberg is giving such a naive response.

Indeed. Was important for them to show a different narrative that let people think that tobacco was good and oil was not affecting the environment that much.

So same for Facebook I guess, they want to show us that they care and that they're not the evil here.

There are plenty of unbiased independent research that show the opposite of what they keep claiming

Not to mention that they have been anything but transparent with their research. What he said is pretty much a complete lie.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/technology/facebook-popul...

> Does he have any clue whatsoever what impact that his majority control over Facebook has over the behavior of the world?

Of course! He probably likes it that way.

What “does his majority control over Facebook” have to do with the accusations about Facebook’s behavior? Would the behavior be ok if it were majority controlled by mutual funds?

> What “does his majority control over Facebook” have to do with the accusations about Facebook’s behavior? Would the behavior be ok if it were majority controlled by mutual funds?

It has to do with the fact that if you control something, you are directly responsible for it. By having sole control of FB, MZ is completely responsible for it, for better or worse.

So if it were controlled by mutual funds people would want mutual funds to be held responsible? Or would they turn to the CEO?

It also means if the board was comprised by a diverse set of people (which it is) they could oust him if they wanted (they can't). The public could put pressure on those people much easier than putting sole pressure on him.

So if Zuckerberg reinvested thru a mutual it would be ok?

Was the problem with Theranos that’s it’s board wasn’t diverse enough?

I wonder how a Facebook without Zuckerberg perform? Would it zip along for a while before slowing to irrelevance like the times Jobs left Apple?

The implicit assertion is that this behavior wouldn't happen if not for Zuckerberg personally causing the behavior.

As someone who has worked at large tech companies though, I find that to be an extremely questionable assertion.

FB has incentives. Zuckerberg didn't invent the dynamics surrounding their business, and I don't see how having a faceless bureaucracy in charge would lead to an organization that is more willing to reject its own incentives.

If anything it would seem like having more obscure and diffuse leadership would lead to less accountability, not more.

This week’s EconTalk talks about that concept a bit. It gets a little tedious in spitballing solutions but I guess someone has to start somewhere.

https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-reforming-governmen...

Nothing this “whistleblower” has said is revelatory… she’s stating things we already know. The question should be “why now?”.

Here's what's new: she is explaining the situation to politicians of both parties in terms of the perverse incentive structure at Facebook, and successfully diverting the conversation away from whether it should censor more Democratic or Republican content, toward the real issue: that no one has both the resources and the information to assess and improve safety on the platform.

Also, industry-leading research? Those leaked internal data about instagram are worse than an undergrad term paper. Look at those n values, for something as big as Fb that’s not even serious research.