Email: this sounds eerily similar to what tobacco companies and climate change deniers say

Raw text

Transcribed text as recorded, including headers and formatting fragments.

Exhibit 66 Message F [/O=THEFACEBOOK/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHFZBSPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=KYLEANDREWSCFO] Sent: 9/20/2021 11:54:19 PM Tor Subject -_ I Message summary [{"otherUserFbld":100021642675928,"threadFbld":nu|l)] (9/20/2021 16:44:00 PDT): > i raise something with you-was going to post this as a reply on Pratiti's post sharing Nick's letter, but decided to an e o prov1 e the feedback privately instead. I wonder if this is something we can raise with our comms team (or whoever writes those public- facing statements). > >while'I don't disagree with the intent or accuracy of the text from Nick's letter (snippet below), I wonder if we could work to be more spec1f1c going forward in theses types of responses? Pre-FB I spent a lot of time working on public health and environmental issues, and this sounds eerily similar to what tobacco companies and climate change deniers say. Uncertainty/doubt is a key component of the scientific method, but it can also be weaponized to push back on critics (e.g., "...but this one scientist thinks cigarettes don't cause cancer, "we .. need more research to know for sure whether climate change is man made," "evolution is just a theory," etc etc). I don't think that's what Nick was trying to do, but when we use language like this it puts us in very bad company.... > >"The truth is that research into the impact social media has on people is still relatively nascent and evolving, and social media itself is changing rapidly. Some researchers argue that we need more evidence to understand social media' 5 impact on people. Each study has 'limitations and caveats, so no single study is going to be conclusive." e (9/20/2021 16:46:50 PDT): (9/20/2021 16:45:43 PDT): feedback Kyle! Can you share an example of what you mean by "work to be more specific"? >Li e, prov1 lng a synopsis of what we think our internal research says, and what areas legitimately need more research. (9/20/2021 16:49:17 PDT): > imagine a one paragraph summary of Daisy--teens say 16 makes certain aspects of well-being worse, but when we run experimental cou tests of different features, etc., we don't see stat sig changes in well-being measures, indicating to us that we can't point to anything specific in the product, etc {9/20/2021 16:49:41 PDT): >go c a. ge your point. I don't know that we feel certain about wha the internal research says but I do get your point z) (9/20/2021 16:51:37 PDT): > ea disagreement internally in how to interpret the data. I know we wouldn't do this, but would be fascinating to sponsor a 0 s o 891 pointcounterpoint newsroom articles. Evidence for and against the idea that IG is bad for teens _is >0ur research (9/20/2021 16:53:47 pm): more nuanced and shows both good and challenging experiences for different people at diff times. I' a 'l shag the§edback if that' 5 ok (prob more to Kristin and comms for future). Interestingly I didn' t see nick' 5 post before went out it :- 0) r- Q 3' >soun s goo (9/20/2021 16:54:19 PDT): t an s! '27-? '2" H us , 9». N \D En'- 1' . q c234 mm Ir'0 :7§l ', 23:0 to '< m 2 \O CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTED BY CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT - MT-IG-AG-OO143575