[freewilly1040]

I see a lot defending the researchers involved, talking about how great they are and how none of Facebook’s misdeeds are their fault.

At some point though, when data is consistently not shared, and any findings not favorable to the company are buried, what these people do is not “research”. It’s propaganda. They serve to give Facebook the appearance of valuing neutral judgement on the impact of their platform, and to provide credible sounding findings that can be spun to the benefit of the company.

None of this should surprise, of course. They are a for profit company after all. But at some point these “researchers” are complicit in the scheme.

[belorn]

Which comment are you referring to?

The only comment here on HN that seems to be directly dismissive is the one that claims about the study being made with a total size of 25 people, of which a final 7 people were selected for the in-depth interview.

Everything about this study seems to be terrible. How the study was made, the reaction by Facebook of the result, the researcher who conducted the study. It seems that rather than go with a establish company that do professional surveys they went with a small scale internal study that did not show favorable results and so they hide it and here we are.

[vosper]

They said "I see a lot defending the researchers involved", they didn't say they'd seen it in this HN comment thread :)

[Manuel_D]

I feel like many of the same criticisms can be said of the coverage of this research. Like pointing out that the study showed a portion of teens said Instagram made them feel worse, but conspicuous omitting that twice as many reported that Instagram made them feel better.

I can understand the desire for discrete research when they (correctly) suspect that media coverage will have negative slant.

[bawolff]

That describes how a lot of research gets done. Its not just fb, oil companies are notorious for that sort of thing as well.

[RNCTX]

An apt comparison, considering Steven Donziger is in court again this week, after having basically endured a corporate-funded prosecution that has drawn on for almost three years, for the crime of winning a civil pollution suit against Chevron.

The children of every fed-level elected and appointed official in his jurisdiction and/or related to the case (house of reps member, both senators, judge, prosecutor) work for the law firm representing Chevron. No one forced any of these judges, politicians, and prosecutors to be complicit in a malicious/fraudulent prosecution. They chose complicity.

[asdff]

It happens in all forms of government everywhere, large city or small. Especially in southern california I find local city halls to be rife with corruption. The FBI has been probing Los Angeles city hall and has already arrested two former councilmen, Huizar was arrested while in office, for racketeering. In Huizars case hollywood couldn't have written a cheesier plot, it was literally cash in brown paper bags and hookers in vegas from developers. quid pro quo. That good old fashioned cronyism stuff has never left, because literally so many people are doing this stuff. Sanitation department. Water and Power. Building and Safety. LASD. Rife with open, overt corruption, and I honestly believe the press is scared to go after these agencies harder than they have with their union lawyers.

[atdrummond]

Where can I read more about this?

[RNCTX]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/574921-former-...

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/29/steven-donziger-sentenci...

[BrianOnHN]

Why haven't humans designed a better ethics system for attorneys?

[RNCTX]

People like Jerry Nadler, Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand cashing Chevron checks probably would probably argue that it is better... for them.

[robbedpeter]

It's been a problem since lawyers were invented. If you have a system of rules encoded in language subject to interpretation by fallible humans, you have a recipe for conflict and recrimination.

The problem these days seems to be the bloat and unnecessary complexity such that lawyers are now the only people who can play the game encoded by the rules. The rest of us peons are pieces on a game board.

[jcranberry]

Here is a fairly deep dive into the case by a lawyer on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7d2KoXmPXk

[GhettoComputers]

Reminds me of doctors that studied cigarettes and suggested smoking with asbestos filters.

[coolgeek]

OMG. I thought this was a joke/hyperbole.

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/10/lorillard-ke...