Messenger Kids Advocates Were Facebook-Funded (fastcompany.com) 35
Fast Company: Facebook unveiled this kid-friendly version of its signature messaging service in December, while the YouTube Kids scandal was in full swing. Messenger Kids, Facebook said, had been designed to serve as a "fun, safer solution" for family communications. It would be available for children as young as 6, the company said. To forestall criticism, Facebook asserted that the app had been developed alongside thousands of parents and a dozen expert advisors. But it looks like many of those outside experts were funded with Facebook dollars. According to Wired, "At least seven members of Facebook 13-person advisory board have some kind of financial tie to the company." Those advisors include the National PTA, Blue Star Families, Connect Safely, and the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence.
Considering the false grassroots campaigns used (Score:3)
throughout lobbying, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. There are no depths to which those versed in averace will not sink in order to satiate their perverse desires. If it means having to prop up puppet groups, just like the far right has done numerous times, in order to find such "family friendly" advocates then let them. Let them do it so we can mock them and point out their lack of clothes.
It's that second part which is more important. There is no pity to spend here. Mocking laughter is the only cure for this ailment.
Zuck is Far Right? (Score:2)
Not sure I see that.
Re: (Score:2)
Any minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Seek help.
Why am I not surprised (Score:1)
More surprised that only 7 of the 13 are in their pockets and not 11 or 12.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since what they said was only that 7 out of 13 "have been shown" it's not that surprising. It could easily be 13 our of 13, and that would still be honest. It's like the ISP promise of a connection speed of "up to 10 mbps". It's perfectly honest even if you can't raise the carrier at all.
Religious Indoctrination? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Get 'em while they are young...
Well yeah, a consumer's a consumer. Kids steer $$ too so their data's valuable. If we keep down this road, I'm afraid we'll start seeing video games marketed toward children that INTENTIONALLY try to get them hooked.
Re: I mean... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bribing is ok as long as you don't bribe absolutely everyone? Maybe the first 7 were bribed, and the remaining 6 were just idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if over 50% had financial ties, if the rest didn't (6 out of 13), then I don't see an issue here as they participated willingly with no financial skin in the outcome.
Having said that, I still think Messenger Kids is a bad idea for kids in general.
Does that mean if over half a jury is bribed by the defendant that's ok?
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't use logic, it upsets a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly only uncompensated amateurs with no interest in Facebook should provide advice to Facebook.
The title of the Wired article is misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
Halfway through the article the author says they were unable to find any bias caused by the funding.
Funding from Facebook may not have affected the feedback or research around Messenger Kids. The Facebook advisers who spoke to WIRED offered thoughtful perspectives, based on personal experience or supported by research.
The title of the article could have just as easily been "Facebook Sought Expert Review for Messenger Kids"
Who else was going to pay for it? (Score:2)
If you're not getting funding from Facebook, how much time and money are you going to spend studying their upcoming products?
This is the universal problem with "independent" testing. Same problem for food, drugs, cars, etc. We require manufacturers to test their products, then doubt the results because they paid for it.
Just like tobacco companies (Score:2)
I am SHOCKED ... (Score:3)
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find astroturfing going on in this establishment.
{Your biased expert findings, sir.}
Thank you.
Not clear what the complaint is here... (Score:2)
Re: Not clear what the complaint is here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The experts were supposed to be advocates for the children. They had non-advisory panel connections to Facebook. It's a conflict. It's the same reason that, while we expect doctors working on human drug trials to be compensated, we certainly don't expect those doctors to own the drug they're testing.