Transparency can help fix social media — if anyone can define it

The latest buzzword in tech policy promises to give users more insight into and power over social media services, but mainly signals just how much more we need to figure out.

Images of social media app icons blurred out behind translucent white text that reads "TRANSPARENCY"

Social media companies, lawmakers and tech skeptics all say they want more visibility into how the sites work.

Image: dole777/Unsplash; Protocol

It's the one and only thing nearly everyone in tech and tech policy can agree on. Facebook and Twitter want it, as does the Facebook Oversight Board. Whistleblower Frances Haugen suggested it to Congress, and several lawmakers who heard her testimony agreed. Even the FTC is on board.

The vogue in tech policy is "transparency," the latest buzzword for addressing concerns about social media's reach, breadth and social effects. Companies, academics, regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle all embrace transparency as a cure-all, or at least a necessary first step. But that agreement obscures a deeper problem: The various camps all have widely differing notions both of what the vague term actually means, and also what the public should do with any insights increased transparency might lead to.

The idea that we should have more visibility into how companies such as Facebook and Google make their decisions has gone through periods of popularity before, especially after the Snowden revelations about government surveillance became public in 2013. Haugen's testimony that Facebook suppressed conclusions about its effect on a range of real-world problems, however, has put the term back in the spotlight — even as Congress continues its years-long struggle to come to agreement on more comprehensive regulations such as privacy.

The case for transparency basically goes like this: Powerful institutions, from countries to giant companies, should be held accountable as they deal with citizens and customers, particularly around individuals' ability to express themselves. Transparency seems like it would lead to that, as well as to create a path toward redress when these mega-actors do something untoward. After all, social media services can face legal consequences from government regulators like the FTC or SEC for misleading consumers or investors. While enforcement has often been uneven, many tech skeptics say the possibility of these consequences is particularly vital as opaque algorithms drive more of our digital lives. Increased transparency potentially could clarify which online problems are most urgent and how they can be fixed.

"Transparency becomes a building block under which you enable people to understand what's happening, to build trust," Nick Pickles, Twitter's senior director for global public policy strategy, development and partnerships, told Protocol. "You give people an understanding of what's happening on a service so that they can make decisions about appropriate policies."

Twitter recently issued what it called "guiding principles for regulation," which addressed issues like competition but said users should be able to understand platforms' rules and lawmakers should guide social media by providing "suitable flexibility for valuable disclosures," including to researchers.

Several major companies have already enacted reforms meant to increase transparency, after a fashion. Facebook discloses aggregate figures about takedowns of some harmful content and bot networks. It also has called for the reform of website liability shields, saying such reform would incentivize transparency. Facebook, Google and other sites allow users to see why they were served a particular ad. Twitter's Transparency Center puts out an array of data, including aggregate information on COVID-19 misinformation. And all major social media companies publish terms of service, often including separate community standards documents.

Yet Facebook's Oversight Board, which the company set up but which operates independently, complained about Facebook's "opaque rules" in the wake of Haugen's disclosures. The board in a blog post discussed users' need to access more information about what specific rules they may have broken and takedown requests by international governments. The general public should also have access to terms of service accurately translated into more languages and insight into the "whitelisting" of prominent and newsworthy accounts to exempt them from certain content moderation decisions.

The board titled its post: "To treat users fairly, Facebook must commit to transparency."

Nate Persily, the co-director of Stanford Cyber Policy Center, said being able to check the platforms' work will mean they can't lie to the public, and could prompt them to pull back from actions they felt the need to hide.

"If you force the platforms to open themselves to outside review, it will change their behavior," said Persily, who has proposed legislation to let scholars access information companies such as Facebook hold. "They will know they're being watched."

Persily also resigned last year from leading the independent effort to get Facebook to open up more data to researchers. The company eventually did so, but the data was flawed.

Sara Collins, policy counsel at tech policy advocacy group Public Knowledge, argued, however, that while offering the public a look into how Facebook, Twitter and other companies function can be useful for studying the sites, it may do little to combat individual users' concerns over issues like extremism online.

"I don't know that that meaningfully changes behaviors," Collins said. "I don't know that it reduces harm in any significant way, and it sure doesn't incentivize the companies to change anything about what they're doing."

Collins compared transparency measures to privacy notices, which users rarely read and even more rarely understand. With few choices, users usually just click whatever they need to in order to install an app or use a service. Collins noted, however, "transparency" goes beyond how social media companies handle individuals' posts.

Lawmakers, researchers and advocates often push for deeper information about the advertising that generates revenue and the algorithms that structure everything from users' feeds to checking for copyrighted material. One bill from earlier this year, for instance, would require online platforms "to maintain detailed records describing their algorithmic process for review" by the FTC. Another bill would force large platforms to give researchers and the FTC access to more detailed ad libraries than companies currently put out, including a description of the target audience and information about how many people interacted with the ad.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who led the hearings where Haugen testified, echoed her suggestion that policy-makers should have access to the kinds of internal research she disclosed, which looked into the effects of Instagram on young users, among other issues. At the hearing, Blumenthal said he planned to pursue "compelling recommendations about requiring disclosures of research and independent reviews of these platforms' algorithms."

All the buzz about transparency reflects several concerns bubbling up at once, with some as small as a single post taken down for hate speech and others as momentous as how algorithms might drive political polarization and violence around the world.

"All of these conversations are kind of happening in parallel to each other," said Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology. "They're all different strains of transparency, but the devil is in the details."

Many of the definitions of transparency could require companies to hand over vast amounts of data, some of it proprietary. Twitter allows researchers to gather huge datasets and has considered a shift to open-source ranking algorithms, but said privacy safeguards are necessary in any transparency offering and burdensome disclosure mandates could hurt small businesses.

In some cases, social media sites have already balked at disclosing more, particularly when the information ends up in the hands of people with little incentive to portray the companies in a positive light.

Over the summer, for instance, Facebook suspended the accounts of New York University researchers who had been studying disinformation and political ads on the platform. The move prompted accusations that the company was trying to squash unflattering conclusions. Facebook claimed its $5 billion settlement with the FTC, for privacy violations in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, required it to block the research .

The FTC eventually weighed in, blasting Facebook's rationale and siding with the academics in favor of more transparency.

"The consent decree does not bar Facebook from creating exceptions for good-faith research in the public interest," Samuel Levine, the acting director of the bureau of consumer protection, wrote in a letter to Mark Zuckerberg. "Indeed, the FTC supports efforts to shed light on opaque business practices, especially around surveillance-based advertising."

As the FTC suggested, access for researchers to the inner workings of companies has become the version of transparency that many tech skeptics hope for. They say that groups of specially vetted academics — or even a new U.S. government regulator — could bring expertise to examining massive, complex algorithms or working on cross-platform problems like the spread of disinformation. Limiting access to researchers or the government could also lessen concerns about the privacy of so much data and analysis circulating in the world.

Yet even when offering more data to researchers, penetrating visibility can only go so far to "solve" social media's problems. Rather, advocates for transparency say the clarity can help hold companies to account, but doesn't replace the process of further action, such as a federal privacy law.

"We need this transparency so lawmakers actually know what's going on," Vogus said.

Issie Lapowsky contributed reporting.


Everything you need to know about tech layoffs and hiring slowdowns

Will tech companies and startups continue to have layoffs?

It’s not just early-stage startups that are feeling the burn.

Photo: Kirsty O'Connor/PA Images via Getty Images

What goes up must come down.

High-flying startups with record valuations, huge hiring goals and ambitious expansion plans are now announcing hiring slowdowns, freezes and in some cases widespread layoffs. It’s the dot-com bust all over again — this time, without the cute sock puppet and in the midst of a global pandemic we just can’t seem to shake.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Sustainability. It can be a charged word in the context of blockchain and crypto – whether from outsiders with a limited view of the technology or from insiders using it for competitive advantage. But as a CEO in the industry, I don’t think either of those approaches helps us move forward. We should all be able to agree that using less energy to get a task done is a good thing and that there is room for improvement in the amount of energy that is consumed to power different blockchain technologies.

So, what if we put the enormous industry talent and minds that have created and developed blockchain to the task of building in a more energy-efficient manner? Can we not just solve the issues but also set the standard for other industries to develop technology in a future-proof way?

Keep Reading Show less
Denelle Dixon, CEO of SDF

Denelle Dixon is CEO and Executive Director of the Stellar Development Foundation, a non-profit using blockchain to unlock economic potential by making money more fluid, markets more open, and people more empowered. Previously, Dixon served as COO of Mozilla. Leading the business, revenue and policy teams, she fought for Net Neutrality and consumer privacy protections and was responsible for commercial partnerships. Denelle also served as general counsel and legal advisor in private equity and technology.


Sink into ‘Love, Death & Robots’ and more weekend recs

Don’t know what to do this weekend? We’ve got you covered.

Our favorite picks for your weekend pleasure.

Image: A24; 11 bit studios; Getty Images

We could all use a bit of a break. This weekend we’re diving into Netflix’s beautifully animated sci-fi “Love, Death & Robots,” losing ourselves in surreal “Men” and loving Zelda-like Moonlighter.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt

Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.


This machine would like to interview you for a job

Companies are embracing automated video interviews to filter through floods of job applicants. But interviews with a computer screen raise big ethical questions and might scare off candidates.

Although automated interview companies claim to reduce bias in hiring, the researchers and advocates who study AI bias are these companies’ most frequent critics.

Photo: Johner Images via Getty Images

Applying for a job these days is starting to feel a lot like online dating. Job-seekers send their resume into portal after portal and a silent abyss waits on the other side.

That abyss is silent for a reason and it has little to do with the still-tight job market or the quality of your particular resume. On the other side of the portal, hiring managers watch the hundreds and even thousands of resumes pile up. It’s an infinite mountain of digital profiles, most of them from people completely unqualified. Going through them all would be a virtually fruitless task.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.


A crypto advocate’s plea: Cool the Twitter trash talk

A top blockchain advocate says the SEC is wrong in its efforts to regulate crypto, but crypto advocates’ personal attacks aren’t helping.

Chamber of Digital Commerce founder Perianne Boring spoke with Protocol about how crypto can strike a better tone.

Photo: Chamber of Digital Commerce

Chamber of Digital Commerce founder Perianne Boring cites a Bible verse to sum up her philosophy about how the crypto trade group should take on the industry’s many critics.

Her Twitter page refers to Ephesians 4:29, which says — oh, let’s use the King James version, it’s more fun: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” For her, it’s a reminder that trash talk in defense of crypto is unacceptable.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Latest Stories