Meta Has a 'Moral Obligation' To Make Its Mental Health Research Transparent, Scientists Say (theverge.com) 46
In an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg published Monday, a group of academics called for Meta to be more transparent about its research into how Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp affect the mental health of children and adolescents. The Verge reports: The letter calls for the company to allow independent reviews of its internal work, contribute data to external research projects, and set up an independent scientific oversight group. "You and your organizations have an ethical and moral obligation to align your internal research on children and adolescents with established standards for evidence in mental health science," the letter, signed by researchers from universities around the world, reads.
The open letter comes after leaks from Facebook revealed some data from the company's internal research, which found that Instagram was linked with anxiety and body image issues for some teenage girls. The research released, though, is limited and relied on subjective information collected through interviews. While this strategy can produce useful insights, it can't prove that social media caused any of the mental health outcomes. The information available so far appears to show that the studies Facebook researchers conducted don't meet the standards academic researchers use to conduct trials, the new open letter said. The information available also isn't complete, the authors noted -- Meta hasn't made its research methods or data public, so it can't be scrutinized by independent experts. The authors called for the company to allow independent review of past and future research, which would include releasing research materials and data.
The letter also asked Meta to contribute its data to ongoing independent research efforts on the mental health of adolescents. It's a longstanding frustration that big tech companies don't release data, which makes it challenging for external researchers to scrutinize and understand their products. "It will be impossible to identify and promote mental health in the 21st century if we cannot study how young people are interacting online," the authors said. [...] The open letter also called on Meta to establish an independent scientific trust to evaluate any risks to mental health from the use of platforms like Facebook and Instagram and to help implement "truly evidence-based solutions for online risks on a world-wide scale." The trust could be similar to the existing Facebook Oversight Board, which helps the company with content moderation decisions.
The open letter comes after leaks from Facebook revealed some data from the company's internal research, which found that Instagram was linked with anxiety and body image issues for some teenage girls. The research released, though, is limited and relied on subjective information collected through interviews. While this strategy can produce useful insights, it can't prove that social media caused any of the mental health outcomes. The information available so far appears to show that the studies Facebook researchers conducted don't meet the standards academic researchers use to conduct trials, the new open letter said. The information available also isn't complete, the authors noted -- Meta hasn't made its research methods or data public, so it can't be scrutinized by independent experts. The authors called for the company to allow independent review of past and future research, which would include releasing research materials and data.
The letter also asked Meta to contribute its data to ongoing independent research efforts on the mental health of adolescents. It's a longstanding frustration that big tech companies don't release data, which makes it challenging for external researchers to scrutinize and understand their products. "It will be impossible to identify and promote mental health in the 21st century if we cannot study how young people are interacting online," the authors said. [...] The open letter also called on Meta to establish an independent scientific trust to evaluate any risks to mental health from the use of platforms like Facebook and Instagram and to help implement "truly evidence-based solutions for online risks on a world-wide scale." The trust could be similar to the existing Facebook Oversight Board, which helps the company with content moderation decisions.
Scientists say (Score:1)
Unless what their saying is germaine to their area of technical expertise, the correct phrasing is "Some randos say"
I'll give you an example: I've got my real name on enough things in enough places to plausibly call myself a rocket scientist. If you squint a little.
When I opine on matters of politics, it's not "Rocket Scientist says," it's "RightwingNutjob says."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take my chances with "Research scientists working in fields and at institutions that are completely relevant to the subject of the letter, which is sponsored by Oxford University, say" over "some RightwingNutjob, who obviously didn't do his homework, says", any day. Especially one who can't spell "germane".
HAND.
Re: Scientists say (Score:1)
You can do that. Just be honest with yourself that you're conflating personal opinions with technical expertise.
Re: (Score:3)
The very first sentence of the letter that you dismiss out of hand reads thusly:
We are a global coalition of scholars with expertise at the intersection of psychology, online technology, and health. ...
Not exactly the "Some randos say" that you mischaracterise it as.
FOAD. HAND.
Re: Scientists say (Score:3)
Psychology and morality are distinct and separate things. I can recognize someone's expertise in the mechanics of psychological sciences without also subscribing to the entirety of their moral philosophy.
I too dismiss this letter out of hand (Score:3)
I'm in the camp of dismissing this "open letter" out of hand - not because of any credentials or lack of them in those that wrote it.
I dismiss it out of hand because Meta wanted to find out the answers to some questions. So they did their own research, paid for by them, in the way they wanted it conducted, to produce the data that they consumed.
Meta does not have any obligation, real or imagined, to do one damn thing any of this letters authors "demand". If they want research done that conforms to standar
Meta is a Company. It Doesn Not Have Morals. (Score:4, Informative)
Ya, I know the US is big on corporate personhood, but we could be a bit more rational by referring to the people behind companies when it comes to discussions of "morality".
Additionally, ultra-rich mega corporations rarely even respond to any inclination of obligation to anything except business continuity, profits, and shareholders. If you don't speak their language, don't expect them to respond.
Re: (Score:2)
They do actually respond on a personal level from time to time, but results may vary as they might not have the best of the ideas.
Having a board of directors decide on a good deed ends weirdly.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Meta has no moral obligations of any kind - it is just a construct. The people running it may have morals (or not).
Regardless, at the level of zillion-dollar corporations, it is naive to expect any response to anything except laws, regulations and money. Morals and ethics play a role only insofar as they may affect public perception. Facebook/Meta has long since shown that it doesn't care about public perception.
tl;dr: Want something from Meta? Find a way to hit their bottom line. Nothing else mat
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe we expect companies to behave somewhat morally. The degree varies from country to country, being strongest in the Nordic states.
The lack of that expectation is why companies get away with so much exploitation and bad behaviour in the US. It's expected and people act like there is nothing they can do about it, like it's a force of nature or something.
Stop calling it Meta (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop calling it Meta. Keep calling it Facebook. We still use Google instead of Alphabet, right!? Don't let these Facebook asshats get away with this stupid branding change.
Re: (Score:2)
What popular product does Google have that isn't called Google ?
Your personal data?
Re: (Score:2)
Instagram is to Facebook the same as YouTube is to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fecalbook Facesmack and 'The Borg' for the company.
And ZuckFart for their dear leader.
An unusual juxtapositon (Score:2)
No it doesn't... (Score:3)
Admittedly, not an expert (Score:2)
...a group of academics called for Meta to be more transparent about its research into how Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp affect the mental health of children and adolescents.
I'm certain on the order of tomorrow's negatively-slanted news cycle that social media and its constant presence are a bad outcome for a significant number of adolescents (children seems redundant). Despite our incredible ability to positively wash the past, school was a gauntlet for the luckiest, and a trial by fire for the most unfortunate.
Lol ok (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All sorts of competive-advantage corporate research over the years would have been useful in the public domain too, from basic advertising-vs-consumer discoveries to nicotine uptake to 737 training needs. But why would any of them?
Re: (Score:3)
Wuzzat? (Score:2)
Wuzzat? Metastabook says?
One Word (Score:3)
Blipverts.
Moral Obligation? (Score:2)
How many divisions does that have?
Morality? (Score:2)
They seem to be ignoring an important data source. (Score:3)
You don't need data from Facebook to determine that, you just need to ask those same young people.
Moral obligation? (Score:3)
"Moral obligation?"
I thought we were just evolved blobs of self-reproducing matter? "Moral obligation?" Sheesh, what is with you techies and your "primitive sky god"?
Mo... ral? (Score:2)
Sounds like some kind of detergent. Did they call and wanted to run some ads on our platform?
There is no moral in big business (Score:2)
this approach doesn't make sense to me (Score:3)
picture a group of antelopes appealing to the lion about the morality of eating of their young and weak; of course the antelopes feel aggrieved, but to the lion they're nothing but food; neither is right nor wrong, that's just the reality of the world
the naivete of such an approach belies the truth that just because one is smart and competent in one area, in no way does that necessarily mean those skills transfer into another, unrelated field
if one wants to influence such matters, one must know/accept how things really are, speak the languange and know how to use the right stick
ultimately, it's money that needs to do the talking; to use yet another analogy, if I don't have a big gun to destroy the tank, removing it's fuel supply is the more realistic tactic
lobbying for legislation and persuading public opinion are really the only options at hand -- buttressed with facts and whatever else they can bring as experts... but morality?!? oy, talk about tilting at windmills
anyway, that's my part in solving all the world's problems, time to hand the baton over to the rest of y'all
Who Decides? (Score:1)
scientists and ... morality? (Score:3)
But should we trust them to tell us what morality is after they have been found to be growing human brains they developed eyes?
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2... [cgtn.com].
Re: (Score:1)
very important (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)