Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
Eric Smalley, Science + Technology Editor
Tony Avelar
Facebook renamed itself Meta in 2021, but the year was more notable for revelations about the company's bad behavior. (AP Photo/Tony Avelar, File)
Meta, née Facebook, had a rough year in 2021, in public opinion if not financially. Revelations from whistleblower Frances Haugen, first detailed in a Wall Street Journal investigative series and then presented in congressional testimony, show that the company was aware of the harm it was causing.
Growing concerns about misinformation, emotional manipulation and psychological harm came to a head this year when Haugen released internal company documents showing that the company’s own research confirmed the societal and individual harm its Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp platforms cause.
The Conversation gathered four articles from our archives that delve into research that explains Meta’s problematic behavior.
This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.
1. Addicted to engagement
At the root of Meta’s harmfulness is its set of algorithms, the rules the company uses to choose what content you see. The algorithms are designed to boost the company’s profits, but they also allow misinformation to thrive.
The algorithms work by increasing engagement – in other words, by provoking a response from the company’s users. Indiana University’s Filippo Menczer, who studies the spread of information and misinformation in social networks, explains that engagement plays into people’s tendency to favor posts that seem popular. “When social media tells people an item is going viral, their cognitive biases kick in and translate into the irresistible urge to pay attention to it and share it,” he wrote.
One result is that low-quality information that gets an initial boost can garner more attention than it otherwise deserves. Worse, this dynamic can be gamed by people aiming to spread misinformation.
“People aiming to manipulate the information market have created fake accounts, like trolls and social bots, and organized fake networks,” Menczer wrote. “They have flooded the network to create the appearance that a conspiracy theory or a political candidate is popular, tricking both platform algorithms and people’s cognitive biases at once.”
Some of the most disturbing revelations concern the harm Meta’s Instagram social media platform causes adolescents, particularly teen girls. University of Kentucky psychologist Christia Spears Brown explains that Instagram can lead teens to objectify themselves by focusing on how their bodies appear to others. It also can lead them to make unrealistic comparisons of themselves with celebrities and filtered and retouched images of their peers.
Even when teens know the comparisons are unrealistic, they end up feeling worse about themselves. “Even in studies in which participants knew the photos they were shown on Instagram were retouched and reshaped, adolescent girls still felt worse about their bodies after viewing them,” she wrote.
The problem is widespread because Instagram is where teens tend to hang out online. “Teens are more likely to log on to Instagram than any other social media site. It is a ubiquitous part of adolescent life,” Brown writes. “Yet studies consistently show that the more often teens use Instagram, the worse their overall well-being, self-esteem, life satisfaction, mood and body image.”
Meta has, not surprisingly, pushed back against claims of harm despite the revelations in the leaked internal documents. The company has provided research that shows that its platforms do not cause harm in the way many researchers describe, and claims that the overall picture from all research on harm is unclear.
University of Washington computational social scientist Joseph Bak-Coleman explains that Meta’s research can be both accurate and misleading. The explanation lies in averages. Meta’s studies look at effects on the average user. Given that Meta’s social media platforms have billions of users, harm to many thousands of people can be lost when all of the users’ experiences are averaged together.
“The inability of this type of research to capture the smaller but still significant numbers of people at risk – the tail of the distribution – is made worse by the need to measure a range of human experiences in discrete increments,” he wrote.
Just as evidence of emotional and psychological harm can be lost in averages, evidence of the spread of misinformation can be lost without the context of another type of math: fractions. Despite substantial efforts to track misinformation on social media, it’s impossible to know the scope of the problem without knowing the number of overall posts social media users see each day. And that’s information Meta doesn’t make available to researchers.
The overall number of posts is the denominator to the misinformation numerator in the fraction that tells you how bad the misinformation problem is, explains UMass Amherst’s Ethan Zuckerman, who studies social and civic media.
The denominator problem is compounded by the distribution problem, which is the need to figure out where misinformation is concentrated. “Simply counting instances of misinformation found on a social media platform leaves two key questions unanswered: How likely are users to encounter misinformation, and are certain users especially likely to be affected by misinformation?” he wrote.
This lack of information isn’t unique to Meta. “No social media platform makes it possible for researchers to accurately calculate how prominent a particular piece of content is across its platform,” Zuckerman wrote.
Over 140,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world.Sign up today.
___
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
Prostock-studio // // Shutterstock
Corporate transparency has been shown to reduce work-related stress for employees and help with morale within a company. At its core, corporate transparency is the action of a workplace openly sharing information as a means of elevating the business and its workers. This transparency can be exercised on an individual or team level, company-wide, or even be made public.
Using news reports, studies, and expert opinion, Assemble compiled a list of 20 ways corporate transparency has changed the workplace in recent years.
Business transparency used to be a rarity, whether in terms of openness about salary bands or clarity around harassment complaints. But times are changing: Today, nearly 90% of workers hope for more transparency at their next job, according to a 2018 Future of Work study conducted by Slack. That’s because corporate transparency empowers employees. The more access to information they are given, the more likely employees are to come up with big ideas to benefit the company. And this doesn’t just apply to mid-level employees: Any level of employee who is given access to important information and company objectives can come up with a company’s next great big idea.
What comes to mind when you think of your own workplace? Is it a rigid hierarchy, with corner offices and once-yearly reviews? Or do you think of collaborative floor plans, weekly one-on-ones with your manager, and regular reports on company financials?
Keep reading to discover how corporate transparency has changed over time.
Prostock-studio // // Shutterstock
Corporate transparency has been shown to reduce work-related stress for employees and help with morale within a company. At its core, corporate transparency is the action of a workplace openly sharing information as a means of elevating the business and its workers. This transparency can be exercised on an individual or team level, company-wide, or even be made public.
Using news reports, studies, and expert opinion, Assemble compiled a list of 20 ways corporate transparency has changed the workplace in recent years.
Business transparency used to be a rarity, whether in terms of openness about salary bands or clarity around harassment complaints. But times are changing: Today, nearly 90% of workers hope for more transparency at their next job, according to a 2018 Future of Work study conducted by Slack. That’s because corporate transparency empowers employees. The more access to information they are given, the more likely employees are to come up with big ideas to benefit the company. And this doesn’t just apply to mid-level employees: Any level of employee who is given access to important information and company objectives can come up with a company’s next great big idea.
What comes to mind when you think of your own workplace? Is it a rigid hierarchy, with corner offices and once-yearly reviews? Or do you think of collaborative floor plans, weekly one-on-ones with your manager, and regular reports on company financials?
Keep reading to discover how corporate transparency has changed over time.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
GaudiLab // Shutterstock
A 2016 study from Robert Half Management Resources found 56% of private organizations share financial records with workers. That number represents a jump of 32 percentage points from 2012. The thinking goes that sharing this information empowers employees to make decisions that may bolster the company and makes workers feel like stakeholders in the business. It also provides employees a bigger-picture look at the company, allowing them to connect their individual duties with the financial health of the business.
GaudiLab // Shutterstock
A 2016 study from Robert Half Management Resources found 56% of private organizations share financial records with workers. That number represents a jump of 32 percentage points from 2012. The thinking goes that sharing this information empowers employees to make decisions that may bolster the company and makes workers feel like stakeholders in the business. It also provides employees a bigger-picture look at the company, allowing them to connect their individual duties with the financial health of the business.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
Jacob Lund // Shutterstock
In traditional office structures, everyone knows who’s the boss. But in recent years, decentralizing where employees have more of a say in decisions has become more popular. Decentralized decision-making also means more transparency as employees are granted more access to information. One reason offices have moved to flatten traditional hierarchies? The belief their employees will be more engaged if given the ability to make decisions.
Photo-sharing and video-editing app VSCO, featured in a 2019 Slack piece about corporate transparency, embodies this decentralization with all-public Slack channels (besides budget planning or HR topics), internal wikis, and giving employees the autonomy to make decisions without leadership approval.
Jacob Lund // Shutterstock
In traditional office structures, everyone knows who’s the boss. But in recent years, decentralizing where employees have more of a say in decisions has become more popular. Decentralized decision-making also means more transparency as employees are granted more access to information. One reason offices have moved to flatten traditional hierarchies? The belief their employees will be more engaged if given the ability to make decisions.
Photo-sharing and video-editing app VSCO, featured in a 2019 Slack piece about corporate transparency, embodies this decentralization with all-public Slack channels (besides budget planning or HR topics), internal wikis, and giving employees the autonomy to make decisions without leadership approval.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
Flamingo Images // Shutterstock
Email has increased corporate transparency in several ways. Companies and executives could previously conduct business through handshake deals and over the phone, but now email serves as a permanent record. Companies and leaders know they may be held to account for anything they put in an email. The benefit of such transparency? This means they may be more likely to consider their behavior before engaging in unethical business.
Flamingo Images // Shutterstock
Email has increased corporate transparency in several ways. Companies and executives could previously conduct business through handshake deals and over the phone, but now email serves as a permanent record. Companies and leaders know they may be held to account for anything they put in an email. The benefit of such transparency? This means they may be more likely to consider their behavior before engaging in unethical business.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
GaudiLab // Shutterstock
From monthly Google surveys to a host of new softwares and programs that facilitate specific kinds of communication, more companies are seeking consistent and honest feedback from their employees. New strategies are being used to encourage honest assessments, like the ability to send anonymous feedback, targeted questions to tease out specific areas for room for improvement, and facilitating strong relationships with managers so employees feel comfortable communicating honestly. Digital means of communication go beyond Slack, with a crop of platforms designed to act as a centralized hub for team collaboration, human resources work, and implementing feedback. Platforms like Nectar, Lattice, and Monday.com are just a few of the offerings companies are using.
GaudiLab // Shutterstock
From monthly Google surveys to a host of new softwares and programs that facilitate specific kinds of communication, more companies are seeking consistent and honest feedback from their employees. New strategies are being used to encourage honest assessments, like the ability to send anonymous feedback, targeted questions to tease out specific areas for room for improvement, and facilitating strong relationships with managers so employees feel comfortable communicating honestly. Digital means of communication go beyond Slack, with a crop of platforms designed to act as a centralized hub for team collaboration, human resources work, and implementing feedback. Platforms like Nectar, Lattice, and Monday.com are just a few of the offerings companies are using.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
mentatdgt // Shutterstock
If an employee senses a pay gap—whether or not one exists—the result is a 16% drop in that worker’s intent to stay at the company, according to a 2019 pay and gender gap survey by Beqom that was sponsored by Microsoft. Beqom’s co-founder Tanya Jansen further explained to Inc. that the report showed 58% of employees were open to the possibility of changing jobs in pursuit of more pay transparency. Among Gen-Zers, that number is 70%.
As calls increase for more pay transparency, workers have been talking to one another about how much they make. Two reasons for the shift? The first may be the internet, which has made salaries for various positions open knowledge on sites like Glassdoor. Another is because women have been encouraged by leaders in their communities to compare notes with male peers on salaries. Thus, what was once a taboo topic has become something many experts encourage.
Many tech companies and startups have led the way on this effort, while others have fallen short; by early August, Apple had shut down three informal surveys that were circulated asking employees about their salaries.
mentatdgt // Shutterstock
If an employee senses a pay gap—whether or not one exists—the result is a 16% drop in that worker’s intent to stay at the company, according to a 2019 pay and gender gap survey by Beqom that was sponsored by Microsoft. Beqom’s co-founder Tanya Jansen further explained to Inc. that the report showed 58% of employees were open to the possibility of changing jobs in pursuit of more pay transparency. Among Gen-Zers, that number is 70%.
As calls increase for more pay transparency, workers have been talking to one another about how much they make. Two reasons for the shift? The first may be the internet, which has made salaries for various positions open knowledge on sites like Glassdoor. Another is because women have been encouraged by leaders in their communities to compare notes with male peers on salaries. Thus, what was once a taboo topic has become something many experts encourage.
Many tech companies and startups have led the way on this effort, while others have fallen short; by early August, Apple had shut down three informal surveys that were circulated asking employees about their salaries.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
GaudiLab // Shutterstock
Facing mounting pressure from workers and advocates and the scrutiny of the #MeToo movement, some workplaces are ending the practices of forced arbitration and confidentiality clauses. These have become widespread since the 1990s, with employers mandating employees waive the right to sue as a condition of their employment. This is good for companies and bad for workers, effectively stopping employees facing discrimination from taking action, especially women and people of color—the very demographics at heightened risks of facing workplace discrimination in the first place.
Google in 2018 transformed its harassment policies in the wake of a global employee walkout. Among those revisions was an end to forced arbitration following reports of sexual harassment in the workplace. Organizers had pushed for the move in light of the fact that forced arbitration in workplace culture has historically been tied to confidentiality clauses that make tracking reports or outcomes impossible. Similarly, in 2019, Microsoft announced a new tack in discrimination cases for the following year, including growing internal-investigation infrastructure and publishing a report at least annually on the violations and reports of the year prior.
GaudiLab // Shutterstock
Facing mounting pressure from workers and advocates and the scrutiny of the #MeToo movement, some workplaces are ending the practices of forced arbitration and confidentiality clauses. These have become widespread since the 1990s, with employers mandating employees waive the right to sue as a condition of their employment. This is good for companies and bad for workers, effectively stopping employees facing discrimination from taking action, especially women and people of color—the very demographics at heightened risks of facing workplace discrimination in the first place.
Google in 2018 transformed its harassment policies in the wake of a global employee walkout. Among those revisions was an end to forced arbitration following reports of sexual harassment in the workplace. Organizers had pushed for the move in light of the fact that forced arbitration in workplace culture has historically been tied to confidentiality clauses that make tracking reports or outcomes impossible. Similarly, in 2019, Microsoft announced a new tack in discrimination cases for the following year, including growing internal-investigation infrastructure and publishing a report at least annually on the violations and reports of the year prior.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
Monkey Business Images
Employee stock ownership plans, called ESOPs, provide a way for employees to get ownership interest in a company. This is a way for employees to both benefit from their company’s profitability, and acts as a carrot toward that end of profitability. When employees are also shareholders, the reasoning goes, they’ll be more invested in profitability, and ESOPs can help align employees with bigger shareholders. Unsurprisingly, these plans are good for business: According to a 2000 Rutgers study, ESOP companies grow faster after setting up ESOP programs than would have been projected without the programs. A different study found a correlation between shares owned and commitment to the company, with employees reporting greater job satisfaction.
Monkey Business Images
Employee stock ownership plans, called ESOPs, provide a way for employees to get ownership interest in a company. This is a way for employees to both benefit from their company’s profitability, and acts as a carrot toward that end of profitability. When employees are also shareholders, the reasoning goes, they’ll be more invested in profitability, and ESOPs can help align employees with bigger shareholders. Unsurprisingly, these plans are good for business: According to a 2000 Rutgers study, ESOP companies grow faster after setting up ESOP programs than would have been projected without the programs. A different study found a correlation between shares owned and commitment to the company, with employees reporting greater job satisfaction.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
OPOLJA // Shutterstock
Many white-collar workers are familiar with the idea of an “open-door” policy: simply, that a manager’s door is always open—literally or metaphorically—so employees can enter and chat any time. Such a practice can be more easily said than done, however, and without commitment from management, employees may feel too daunted to stride boldly in to give a manager direct feedback. Proactive approaches will make open-door policies yield better outcomes. That can include establishing regular open-office hours, where time is set aside specifically for employees to walk through the open door. Working to build trust is an important step in employees making use of open doors.
And importantly for managers to remember, they must set up protocols for dealing with the issues their employees might bring to them. They should work to ensure the meetings are productive and don’t become a conduit for certain managers receptive to issues being the go-to person employees talk to instead of their own management. In such cases, open-door policies can shed light on workplace dysfunction.
OPOLJA // Shutterstock
Many white-collar workers are familiar with the idea of an “open-door” policy: simply, that a manager’s door is always open—literally or metaphorically—so employees can enter and chat any time. Such a practice can be more easily said than done, however, and without commitment from management, employees may feel too daunted to stride boldly in to give a manager direct feedback. Proactive approaches will make open-door policies yield better outcomes. That can include establishing regular open-office hours, where time is set aside specifically for employees to walk through the open door. Working to build trust is an important step in employees making use of open doors.
And importantly for managers to remember, they must set up protocols for dealing with the issues their employees might bring to them. They should work to ensure the meetings are productive and don’t become a conduit for certain managers receptive to issues being the go-to person employees talk to instead of their own management. In such cases, open-door policies can shed light on workplace dysfunction.
Facebook became Meta – and the company’s dangerous behavior came into focus in 2021: 4 essential reads
Jacob Lund // Shutterstock
“Town halls,” also called “all-hands meetings,” can have a range of functions, including fostering transparency. At their most basic, these meetings get everyone at the company on the same page—with company updates, new policies, or simply as a forum to share news, progress, and goals. But they also present an excellent opportunity for company decision-makers to open up, explaining why they’re making the decisions they’re making, especially by sharing the data and thought processes that go into their choices. This can help employees feel more in the loop and can increase commitment to shifts in strategy if they feel they understand the reasoning. As more companies moved to online work, virtual town halls have grown, with technology providing both more challenges and more rewards for facilitating communication. Preparation goes into a good town hall, and asking employees to submit questions ahead of time can keep meetings within allotted time.
Jacob Lund // Shutterstock
“Town halls,” also called “all-hands meetings,” can have a range of functions, including fostering transparency. At their most basic, these meetings get everyone at the company on the same page—with company updates, new policies, or simply as a forum to share news, progress, and goals. But they also present an excellent opportunity for company decision-makers to open up, explaining why they’re making the decisions they’re making, especially by sharing the data and thought processes that go into their choices. This can help employees feel more in the loop and can increase commitment to shifts in strategy if they feel they understand the reasoning. As more companies moved to online work, virtual town halls have grown, with technology providing both more challenges and more rewards for facilitating communication. Preparation goes into a good town hall, and asking employees to submit questions ahead of time can keep meetings within allotted time.
