Fb criticizes WSJ collection for “deliberate mischaracterization” – CNET

168 0

Facebook denies a Wall Street Journal series about the “bad effects” of the social media platform.

James Martin / CNET

Facebook on Saturday criticized a series of Wall Street Journal articles about the negative impact the social media platform had on users, saying the articles contained “deliberate misrepresentations” and “gave outrageously misleading motives to the leadership and employees of Facebook.”

The series, which is based on information from internal Facebook documents and online employee interviews, reported that the company was aware of the “harmful effects of the platform” but did nothing to correct it.

Get the CNET Daily News newsletter

Find out about the biggest news in minutes. Delivered on working days.

WSJ found that Facebook exempted millions of high profile users from some or all of its rules, ignored research on Instagram’s negative impact on teenage girls, and made an algorithm change to improve interaction on the platform that users actually ” angrier “made.

In a blog post on Saturday titled What the Wall Street Journal Got Wrong, Vice President Global Affairs Nick Clegg wrote, “These are serious and complex issues and it is perfectly legitimate that we should be held accountable for our dealings with them will. But these stories contain deliberate misrepresentations of what we are trying to do and have given the leadership and staff of Facebook enormously wrong motives. “

He called the claim that the company deliberately ignored its own research “simply wrong”.

“This challenges the motives and hard work of thousands of researchers, policy experts and engineers at Facebook trying to improve the quality of our products and understand their wider impacts (positive and negative),” said Clegg. “It is an assertion that could only be made by cherry-picking individual pieces of leaked material in a way that presents complex and nuanced problems as if there were always only one correct answer.”

The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Leave a Reply