Co-founder of Mpumalanga’s newest political party SANCOTA and estranged friend of deputy president DD Mabuza has this week claimed to be someone who knows the ANC leader’s skeletons in the closet.
Facebook has a corporate culture of revering researches and that’s just where its successes lie.
Professor David Craig had been studying the rise of entertainment on social media for several years when a Facebook Inc.Â employee he didnâ€™t know emailed him last December, asking about his research. â€œI thought I was being pumped,â€ Craig said. The company flew him to Menlo Park and offered him $25,000 to fund his ongoing projects, with no obligation to do anything in return. This was definitely not normal, but after checking with his school, University of Southern California, Craig took the gift. â€œHell, yes, it was generous to get an out-off-the-blue offer to support our work, with no strings,â€ he said. â€œItâ€™s not all so black and white that they are villains.â€
Other academics got these gifts, too. One, who said she had $25,000 deposited in her research account recently without signing a single document, spoke to a reporter hoping maybe the journalist could help explain it. Another professor said one of his former students got an unsolicited monetary offer from Facebook, and he had to assure theÂ recipient it wasnâ€™t a scam. The professor surmised that Facebook uses the gifts as a low-cost way to build connections that could lead to closer collaboration later. He also thinks Facebook â€œhappily lives in the ambiguityâ€ of the unusual arrangement. If researchers truly understood that the funding has no strings, â€œpeople would feel less obligated to interact with them,â€ he said.
The free gifts are just one of the little-known and complicated ways Facebook works with academic researchers. For scholars, the scale of Facebookâ€™s 2.2 billion users provides an irresistible way to investigate how human nature may play out on, and be shaped by, the social network. For Facebook, the motivations to work with outside academics are far thornier, and itâ€™s Facebook that decides who gets access to its data to examine its impact on society.
â€œJust from a business standpoint, people won’t want to be on Facebook if Facebook is not positive for them in their lives,â€ said Rob Sherman, Facebookâ€™s deputy chief privacy officer. â€œWe also have a broader responsibility to make sure that weâ€™re having the right impact on society.â€
The companyâ€™s long been conflicted about how to work with social scientists, and now runs several programs, each reflecting the contorted relationship Facebook has with external scrutiny. The collaborations have become even more complicated in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which was set off by revelations that a professor who once collaborated with Facebookâ€™s in-house researchers used data collected separately to influence elections.
â€œHistorically the focus of our research has been on product development, on doing things that help us understand how people are using Facebook and build improvements to Facebook,â€ Sherman said. Facebookâ€™s heard more from academics and nonprofitsÂ recently who sayÂ â€œbecause of the expertise that we have, and the data that Facebook stores, we have an opportunity to contribute to generalizable knowledge and to answer some of these broader social questions,â€ he said. â€œSo youâ€™ve seen us begin to invest more heavily in social science research and in answering some of these questions.â€
Facebook has a corporate culture that reveres research. The company builds its product based on internal data on user behavior, surveys and focus groups. More than a hundredÂ Ph.D.-level researchers work on Facebookâ€™s in-house core data science team, and employees say the information that points to growth has had more of an impact on the company’s direction than Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerbergâ€™s ideas.
Facebook is far more hesitant to work with outsiders; it risks unflattering findings, leaks of proprietary information, and privacy breaches. But Facebook likes it when external research proves that Facebook is great. And in the fierce talent wars of Silicon Valley, working with professors can make it easier to recruit their students.
It can also improve the bottom line. In 2016, when FacebookÂ changedÂ the â€œlikeâ€ buttonÂ into a set of emojisÂ that better captured user expressionâ€”and feelings for advertisersâ€”Â it did soÂ with the helpÂ of Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, whoâ€™s an expert in compassion and emotions. Keltnerâ€™s Greater Good Science Center continues to work closely with the company. And thisÂ January, Facebook made research the centerpiece of a major change to its news feed algorithm. In studies published with academics at several universities, Facebook found that people who used social media activelyâ€”commenting on friends’ posts, setting up eventsâ€”were likely to see a positive impact on mental health, while those who used it passively may feel depressed. In reaction, Facebook declared it would spend more time encouraging “meaningful interaction.” Of course, the more people engage with Facebook, the more data it collects for advertisers.
The company has stopped short of pursuing deeper research on potentially negative fallout of its power. According to its public database of published research, Facebookâ€™s writtenÂ more than 180Â public papersÂ about artificial intelligence butÂ justÂ one studyÂ about elections, based on an experiment Facebook ran on 61 million users to mobilizeÂ votersÂ in theÂ Congressional midterms back in 2010. Facebookâ€™s Sherman said, â€œWeâ€™ve certainly been doing a lot of work over the past couple of months, particularly to expand the areas where weâ€™re looking.â€
Facebookâ€™s first peer-reviewed papersÂ with outside scholarsÂ were published in 2009, and almost a decade into producing academic work, it still wavers over how to structure the arrangements. Itâ€™s given out the smaller unrestricted gifts. But those gifts donâ€™t come with access to Facebookâ€™s data, at least initially. The company is more restrictive about who can mine or survey its users. It looks for research projects that dovetail with its business goals.
Some academics cycle through one-year fellowships while pursuing doctorate degrees, and others get paid for consulting projects, which never get published.
When Facebook does provide data to researchers, it retains the right to veto or edit the paper before publication. None of the professors Bloomberg spoke with knew of cases when Facebook prohibited a publication, though many said the arrangement inevitably leads academics to propose investigations less likely to be challenged. â€œResearchers focus on things that donâ€™t create a moral hazard,â€ said Dean Eckles, a former Facebook data scientist now at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Without a guaranteed right to publish, Eckles said, researchers inevitably shy away from potentially critical work. That means some of the most burning societal questions may go unprobed.
Facebook also almost always pairs outsiders with in-house researchers. This ensures scholars have a partner whoâ€™s intimately familiar with Facebookâ€™s vast data, but some whoâ€™ve worked with Facebook say this also creates a selection bias about what gets studied. â€œStuff still comes out, but only the immensely positive, happy storiesâ€”the goody-goody research that they could show off,â€ said one social scientist who worked as a researcher at Facebook. For example, he pointed out that the companyâ€™s published widely on issues related to well-being, or what makes people feel good and fulfilled, which is positive for Facebookâ€™s public image and product. “The question is: â€˜Whatâ€™s not coming out?,â€™â€ he said.
Facebook argues its body ofÂ work on well-beingÂ does haveÂ broad importance. â€œBecause we are a social product that has large distribution within society, it is both about societal issues as well as the product,â€ said David Ginsberg,Â Facebookâ€™s director of research.
Other social networks have smaller research ambitions, but have tried more open approaches. This spring, Twitter Inc.Â Â asked forÂ proposals to measure the health of conversations on its platform, and Microsoft Corp.â€™s LinkedIn isÂ running aÂ multi-year programÂ to have researchers use its data to understand how to improve the economic opportunities of workers. Facebook has issued public calls for technical research, but until the past few months,Â hasnâ€™t done so for social sciences. Yet it has solicited in that area, albeit quietly: Last summer, one scholarly association begged discretion when sharing information on a Facebook pilot project to study techâ€™s impact in developing economies. Its email read, â€œFacebook is not widely publicizing the program.â€