"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 share with people that need to know (i.e., the people in focused, closed groups) then we've got a big problem."

████: "so, there appears to be a team of lawyers scheduling meetings with individual researchers to question them about well-being research. ████ has already done a one-hour meeting and it sounds like they want more. i just became aware of this, and i'm afraid they are going to ask for a lot more of your time. i'm trying to head them off and push for something that is more efficient, like a group presentation." ████: "meanwhile in the neverending review cycle on our internal note, our comms person has now added two more comms people to review before we can post internally to closed groups." ████: "Yep. ████ asked for Stephanie Otway (her manager) and ████ (another comms person). ████ said: 'i also want to share with abby and stephanie otway for overall gut check. im so sorry to slow this down but i really want to make sure this doesnt get shared in a way that harms the team's good work so if you can give us a couple of days to work through on the comms side, that would be much appreciated'" ████: "But (and I didn't tell her this), I think giving others a heads up is reasonable, but not gating the document on a gut check from comms." ████: "Ok cool. I totally agree with you. I was thinking a lot about this as I lay (jetlagged) in bed early this morning. The angle I'm thinking about, especially when comms is gating, 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 share with people that need to know (i.e., the people in focused, closed groups) then we've got a big problem." ████: "Talking with ████ yesterday, he mentioned a comment from some 'reviewer' on one of the note. They took issue with language describing a finding as applying to a general population instead of just survey responders. He explained this is why we weight survey responses. The discussion that followed left him feeling that they wouldn't want us to do that so that we could more easily dismiss inconvenient findings. This is a huge moral hazard, in my opinion." ████: "agreed!"