how can we share research findings that are inconvenient for facebook, e.g., research that shows fb is harmful

Raw text

Transcribed text as recorded, including headers and formatting fragments.

Exhibit 64 hflessage F rom: _[/o=THEFACEBOOK/0U=EXT£RNAL E "w F g} (FYDIBOHF25$PDLTVCN=RECHNENTS/CN=F7AS19DlBA3B4C229AE165ZBAFFA7ZDG] n 10/20/2021 3:59:05 PM 2"?"J'N29 PH h-. 58 : To=t Subject: Message summary [{"otherUserFbld"z100014182669366,"threadFbld":nul|}] '1 DAVIDSON ca. cmhceny c7 (10/20/2021 11:50:17 PDT): ' ' . Lafij n scheduling meetings w1th 1nd1v1duafifimm-que59151n. _ >50. >so. ere appears to be a team them about we11-being research. ii has a1ready done a one-hour meeting and it sounds like thgy want i'm afraid they are going to ask for a 1ot more of your t1me. i'm ligyers more. i just became aware of thi S, an trying to head them off and push for something that is more efficient, 1ike a group presentation. anyway, just heads up, and 1et me know if you need my support in protecting your time. (10/20/2021 11:51:03 PDT): >o ay, an s i aven een asked yet, but wi11 1et you know once it happens. >meanw i e in | (10/20/2021 11:51:37 PDT): e neveren ing review cyc1e on our interna] note, our comms person has now added two more comms peop1e to review before we can post internaily to c1osed groups. </comp1aining> (10/20/2021 11:54:05 PDT): (10/20/2021 11:56:48 PD ' >Yep. as e or step anie otway (her manager) and (another comms person). said: " i aiso want to share with abby and Stephanie otway for overa gut check. im so sorry to s1ow t is down but i really want to make sure this doesnt get shared in a way that harms the team's good work so you can if give us a coup1e of days to work through on the comms side, that wouid be much appreciated" (10/20/2021 11:57:26 PDT): e er ine, now a s ToughI'd appreciate wrapping up by EOD Thursday, though would understand if it needed to take longer. (10/20/2021 11:58:02 PDT): >Uu > an i'I n e 6 er i 8|" I 1 s), think giving others a heads up is reasonable, but not gating the document on a gut check from comms. (10/20/2021 12:01:03 PDT): > coo . ota vy aaree with you. I was thinking a lot about this as I lay (jetlagged) in bed early this morning. The ang e I'm thinking about. especially when comms gating, is is how can we share research findings that are inconvenient for facebook, e.g., research that shows fb is harmful. we've accepted the complexities of sharing such research externally, but if it can't be done or it needs to be sanitized to ha with people that need to know (i.e.. the people in focused, closed groups) then we've got a big pro bl em. 10/20/2021 12:03:09 PDT): > ing a 1ng w1 yesterday, he mentioned a comment from some "reviewer" on one of the note. They took issue with language describing a findin as applying to a general population instead of just survey responders. He explained this this is way we weight survey responses. The discussion that followed left him feeling that wouldn't want us to do that so that we could more easily dismiss inconvenient findings. This is a they u ge moral hazard. in my opinion. >agree > n t is case, ess l (10/20/2021 12:04:26 PDT): (10/20/2021 12:03:36 PDT): ad backchannel with that reviewer, I saw that comment and response. she un iust didn't understan just a we weight responses to reflect DAP, but I didn't get the impression that she didn't want us to not report weighted data. (But perhaps I didn't see the whole conversation.) (10/20/2021 12:05:37 PDT): >Url ar a e p us of the comments I've seen from XFN partners have been reaso Si e, so e points -- of clarification, requests to add the "positive" side right next to the "negative" side. questioned some of my interpretations about whether algorithms were at fault, but I pushed back and Cited data, so I'm hoping that won't be an issue. (10/20/2021 12:05:53 PDT): > ey a a mee 1ng about this. This was just his impression from the meeting though, and perhaps not what was intended. (10/20/2021 12:06:08 PDT): > , a n rea ize ey ad a meeting. CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTED BY CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT - MT-lG-AG-00062055 (10/20/2021 12:09:25 PDT): > a s great ear. i basically agree that a11 the feedback i've seen has been positive (especia11y comments from , which consistently have made the notes better) or neutra]. the on1y-downside has been 311 of the extra time needed to review and address comments. we're used to that in peer review, which supports the idea of moving more of our reporting away from the more casual interna1 notes of the past and more towards poIished pub1ications. (10/20/2021 12:12:23 PDT): >yep. l1 "3V8 ave no W'ltl! tI"?e feedback itself, issue wnt I'lO lSSUQ just the slowness. (10/20/2021 12:14:06 PDT): , a TPM can wor ling with the IG Support leads on the policy for sharing internal research; een WOI" o D as is going to share the policy to the IG mental well-being team on Thursday afternoon. 2:30-3:00. Any chance you can make it? I'll forward you the invitation. (But no worries if you can't.) It would just be great for you to be there to hear the policy as it's explained to us, and to help us ask good questions (just in case I'm too seething to think clearlyl). (10/20/2021 12:22:04 PDT): > es. e ere! er Not sure if your already forwarded or not, but I see it on my calendar and just acceptedl 14:5 (10/20/ fl PDT): - >I'l0 pressure !0 >no o work with and on these projects. just think about more foundational research you would want to do and wou be excited about. if there are ways that those ideas align with what they've sketched out (honestly. these proposals seems pretty broad and i could imagine using them to study many different things). then that's great and we'll work with them. not. we'll go ifalone. it (10/20/2021 14 : S 5: 33 PDT): >the only ene of aligning with them is that 1 it will probably make approvals and budget easier to come by. so. when we can, we should take advantage. but if there is more important research to be done. I wouldn't sacrifice it for the sake of that convenience. (10/20/2021 14:57:21 DDT): >yep -- llll Eeep tleir 1 proposals in mind and think about whether i'd want to collaborate (and agree eir proposa they're pretty broad; it depends more for me on which external researchers we decide to work with, though in general I haven't been as interested in studying young teens which is why i didn't jump on these). agree that there are a lot of benefits to coordinating with CWB! (10/20/2021 15:07:40 PDT): >yea , ey are pretty focused on teens. that was basically what pratiti asked for. so that's what they limited themselves to. if not teens, then what? i'd love to advocate for something different. we can either argue for broadening the scope of these, or just go it alone. give me the ammo i need to make those arguments z) (10/20/2021 15:56:56 PDT): > m COO I e externa WW res earchers making the scope decision (teens vs all ages) based on their expertise and interest. (10/20/2021 15:58:31 PDT): t0 d of study with an external collaborator I'd want to do mostly I'm currently focused on writin 9 up what we've already done internally and then am hoping I'll hear an awesome project idea that I ll want to jump on later. ' (10/20/2021 15:59:05 PDT): CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTED BY CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT - MT-lG-AG-00062056