Mark Zuckerberg has hit again on the testimony of the Fb whistleblower Frances Haugen, saying her claims the corporate places revenue over individuals’s security are “simply not true”.
In a blogpost, the Fb founder and chief govt addressed some of the damaging statements in Haugen’s opening speech to US senators on Tuesday, that Fb places “astronomical income earlier than individuals”.
“On the coronary heart of those accusations is this concept that we prioritise revenue over security and wellbeing. That’s simply not true,” he mentioned.
He added: “The argument that we intentionally push content material that makes individuals indignant for revenue is deeply illogical. We earn a living from advertisements, and advertisers constantly inform us they don’t need their advertisements subsequent to dangerous or indignant content material.”
Zuckerberg mentioned lots of the claims made by Haugen – and within the Wall Road Journal, based mostly on paperwork she leaked – “don’t make any sense”. Essentially the most damaging reporting within the WSJ, reiterated at size by Haugen in testimony to the US Senate on Tuesday, was that Fb didn’t act on inner analysis exhibiting that its Instagram app was damaging youngsters’ psychological well being.
“Most of the claims don’t make any sense. If we wished to disregard analysis, why would we create an industry-leading analysis program to grasp these vital points within the first place?” he mentioned.
Responding to Haugen’s claims that Fb’s makes an attempt to restrict dangerous content material had been consistently hampered by a scarcity of workers, he mentioned: “If we didn’t care about preventing dangerous content material, then why would we make use of so many extra individuals devoted to this than some other firm in our house – even ones bigger than us? If we wished to cover our outcomes, why would we have now established an industry-leading normal for transparency and reporting on what we’re doing?”
Haugen’s testimony, and accompanying statements by US senators within the listening to, repeatedly questioned whether or not Fb might be trusted. “Fb has not earned a proper to only have blind belief in them,” mentioned Haugen, a former Fb worker who labored on the corporate’s unit monitoring electoral interference earlier than she give up in Might.
Zuckerberg mentioned a change to Fb’s Information Feed algorithm in 2018 was applied as a result of it elevated wellbeing. In keeping with Haugen, inner Fb analysis confirmed that the change to Information Feed – a customized scroll of content material that could be a core a part of Fb customers’ interplay with the platform – had amplified divisive content material.
Zuckerberg mentioned: “This modification confirmed fewer viral movies and extra content material from family and friends – which we did realizing it might imply individuals spent much less time on Fb, however that analysis prompt it was the best factor for individuals’s wellbeing. Is that one thing an organization targeted on income over individuals would do?”
Addressing firm workers within the Fb put up, made late on Tuesday, Zuckerberg mentioned he anticipated many staff wouldn’t recognise the enterprise portrayed within the WSJ protection and Haugen’s testimony.
“I’m certain a lot of you will have discovered the current protection arduous to learn as a result of it simply doesn’t replicate the corporate we all know,” he wrote. “We care deeply about points like security, wellbeing and psychological well being. It’s troublesome to see protection that misrepresents our work and our motives. On the most elementary degree, I believe most of us simply don’t acknowledge the false image of the corporate that’s being painted.”
Zuckerberg opened the put up with a reference to Monday’s platform outage when the corporate’s companies – together with Fb, Instagram and WhatsApp platforms – went offline for almost six hours. Fb has 3.5 billion month-to-month energetic customers throughout its platforms together with Instagram and WhatsApp.
“The deeper concern with an outage like this isn’t how many individuals swap to aggressive companies or how a lot cash we lose, however what it means for the individuals who depend on our companies to speak with family members, run their companies, or help their communities,” he mentioned.