by Freddie Sayers
Monday, 23
August 2021
Reaction
13:00

Why Facebook hid its ‘Transparency Report’

The company is embarrassed by the most popular shared content on its site
by Freddie Sayers
Is he transparent enough?. Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

“Transparency is an important part of everything we do at Facebook.” So begins the company’s first ever ‘Transparency Report’, covering Q1 2021, which details the most viewed posts, pages and shared links on the network.

Except when Facebook executives saw that the most shared link was a Chicago Tribune story about a doctor dying of a mysterious internal bleeding condition two weeks after his Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, they panicked. It was a credible mainstream source, but the article asserted that it was “possibly the nation’s first death linked to the vaccine”. Clearly, the reason for its popularity was as useful evidence for the anti-vax movement. Would Facebook be accused of spreading “misinformation”?

They decided to bury the report, and to begin the era of transparency from Q2 2021 instead.

As luck would have it, the New York Times managed to get a leaked copy of the report and revealed last Friday how it had been “shelved” — which then bounced Facebook into releasing it the following day.

Although the sequence of events is obviously embarrassing for the social network — mainly because it shows the limits of their so-called transparency drive and the degree to which they are terrified of a particular type of media opinion — it might turn out to be a useful development.

Publishing the most shared articles on any website is an interesting exercise, because it shows you what people are really interested in. At the time of writing, for example, the most read story on the BBC News website has nothing to do with developments in Kabul that cover most of the front page — it’s a story about queues on Mount Snowden being annoying for holidaymakers. If anything, it underscores the powerlessness of media editors, let alone social networks, to tell people what to find interesting.

The response from Facebook’s Communications Director Andy Stone (a former Democratic Party operative) was surprisingly forthright. In a Twitter thread he asked: what should they have done differently in this case? The New York Times had also covered the story about the deceased doctor, he pointed out. “Would it have been right to remove the Times story because it was Covid misinfo? Of course not. No one is actually suggesting this and neither am I. But it does illustrate how difficult it is to define misinformation.”

He goes on to quote approvingly from an essay by Joe Bernstein in Harpers, which concluded that “the terms misinformation and disinformation are tossed around so casually as to be almost meaningless, beyond being simply jargon for ‘things I disagree with.’”

This is a welcome, more realistic, tone from the company and could indicate an important shift in strategy. Instead of simply accepting the premise and censoring more and more material that might be deemed offensive or dangerous by the New York Times, they need to push back. They should be forceful in rejecting the notion that their job is to control or editorialise beyond removing actively dangerous and illegal material.

Keep an eye out for the “transparency reports” for Q3 and Q4 — if there is nothing awkward or offensive in the ‘most shared’ lists we will know which route the world’s most powerful social network has taken.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
15 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
11 months ago

Just an idea, but how about Facebook retire back behind section 230, leave people to publish what we want without their nannying interference and let us figure it all out for ourselves?

Jaden Johnson
Jaden Johnson
11 months ago

Do people still use Facebook? What for?

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
11 months ago
Reply to  Jaden Johnson

I do not use it – no account so cannot look at it – but my fishing friends go there to see how the fishing is, when a dog is lost that is where one goes to put the word out – and all business are there, and it seems most people too –

It and Twitter are the Town Square – so everyone goes there essentially, for views and thoughts – even if not themselves, it is where the discussions are held, and manipulated so discussions you have were formed by them, shaped by their evil algorithms.

Sam
Sam
11 months ago
Reply to  Jaden Johnson

I live abroad and I use it to join expat groups to find housing, buy stuff, read restaurant reviews, etc.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
11 months ago
Reply to  Jaden Johnson

Family.
Hobby groups.
Overall, it still works better than the alternatives for public groups or anything larger than 5 or 6 participants.

For smaller or more private groups WhatsApp is best. Owned by Facebook now but they haven’t messed with it too much.

Last edited 11 months ago by Brendan O'Leary
James Joyce
James Joyce
11 months ago
Reply to  Jaden Johnson

MANY people use FB to run small businesses. This actually amazes me, since Mark started FB as a way to meet girls. He was not interested in privacy….
But to your point, it is essential to many people around the world for business matters, often small businesses who do not easily have other options…..

Saul D
Saul D
11 months ago

The report, which was provided by Facebook according to The Verge, is now giving a 404 not found error on Dropbox.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
11 months ago

Evil man, evil company, and Vast power. Not a good combination.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
11 months ago

As we speak, Nick Clegg is practising his “Sorry” face in front of a mirror, now that he is become the professional apologist for the Zuckerburg menace.
I must say I haven’t missed Clegg’s sanctimony and that look of puzzled scorn he affects whenever talking about the British people – as if he’s truly baffled as to why we don’t all just fall into line with his way of thinking.
What a job – Facebook’s “Head of Global affairs” – trying to look sad on behalf of his boss (who appears genuinely incapable of projecting human emotion). 

Mark Knight
Mark Knight
11 months ago

It would be interesting, for transparency, to know the list of links/ stories that FB found to be ‘disinformation’.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
11 months ago
Reply to  Mark Knight

Just think:

Would this topic go against popular Liberalism, yet help the West overcome social problems and make it better? If so it is repressed.

Would this topic help make the West be a little bit worse wile seeming to be a good thing? If so it is advanced.

They are Cicero’s enemy within the gates. They are the bad shepherd, and you all the sheep being led astray.

LCarey Rowland
LCarey Rowland
11 months ago

That’s just funny. People need to lighten up. In this complex world matrix, nobody can figure it all out, not even Zuch.
The other thing is: people die every day, and not every death is a candidate for autopsy.

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
10 months ago

Excellent point Freddie. It speaks to the more fundamental question of whether these ‘platforms’ are in fact exerting editorial discretion. To the extent that they are (and they clearly are), how do they continue to benefit from protections against liable law?
After alll, their core argument has always been that they are mere platforms, not editors. Therefore liable law should not apply to them.
But the extent of political censorship clearly demonstrates that this is untrue.
Imposing liable law on social media would be like a hydrogen bomb – they would cease to operate overnight.