What Do the "Facebook Files" Tell Us? | Psychology Today

Over the last week, apparently leaked internal documents from Facebook, the technology and social media company, were discussed by The Wall Street Journal. The information about how the company operates and what the company knew about the apparent harms of its social media platforms has been discussed widely in the media and at the governmental level. The allegations of suppression of important information that was in the public interest to release have prompted comparisons between the social media company and previous behaviors of tobacco companies. However, even if these documents reflect the truth, would they really tell us anything we did not know already? And is the focus on one company helpful?

For those who haven’t been keeping up with current events in the digital world, the as-yet-unproven allegations made against Facebook are that they: allowed some “VIP” users exemption from the usual ethical standards regarding posting; knew and suppressed information that posting (especially photo-editing) was harmful to the mental health of young women (especially teenaged girls); facilitated negative emotions, like anger, in their users to provoke greater usage of the platform; ignored possible use of their platform for illegal purposes by drug and human traffickers and by slavery cartels; could not stop COVID vaccine misinformation. Clearly, the first four of these allegations, if true, would be extremely serious and damaging for any company (I’m not sure what they could have done about the last one). However, if we are being honest with ourselves—should we really be surprised by any of this, either about the nature of the information that was allegedly suppressed or about the behavior of large companies?

The Ethical Behavior of Large Companies

Taking the latter of these issues first, as this is the topic for another blog on the factors driving the behaviors of digital platform companies, clearly, we theoretically expect better from organizations—but do we ever really get it? If this is the way in which Facebook has conducted its business, then it should not have behaved in this way, especially as such behaviors incite law-breaking for profit. However, it is the phrase “for-profit” that shows why companies often end up behaving in this way.

Multinational companies and corporations are set up for a clear purpose—to make money. The rest, such as facilitating expression and communication between people, is just advertising and marketing. The reinforcement of profit will override other considerations—hence, companies will tend to end up disappointing. The parallels to tobacco companies’ previous exploits are clear, but that is just because they are operating in the same financial environment.

We should not be surprised at this—but we should be careful not to think that Facebook may be the sole perpetrator. To believe that would be to avoid a bigger issue: All social media companies may be doing this, for all we know. As the past behavior of companies is the best predictor of their current and future behavior, given the somewhat sordid history of such “public-service providing” businesses, such a focus on one company may just blindside society to a larger problem. There is nothing wrong with making money, in itself, but the difficulty comes when money-making is at the expense of people’s health, safety, and well-being.

The question then turns to the issue of harms and whether Facebook knew that these harms were real and suppressed that information. In terms of the general harms of social media, Facebook included, these have been well-rehearsed in the scientific literature, in the media, and by ex-employees of social media companies. These known problems include disruptions to people’s social and work lives, increased loneliness, negative impacts on mental health, and some evidence of damage to neurological structures and to the immune system. There is also evidence of addictions to social media and suggestions that the means by which social media operates facilitates the development of these addictions. Given all of this information, it cannot truly be said that Facebook would be unaware of such harms, nor can it be believed that the alleged suppression of their own research would have prevented information regarding general harms from being known by the public.

The specific claim that Facebook knew that young women were especially susceptible to harm from the effects of photo-editing services and suppressed those data is possibly more troubling. There is growing evidence that women, especially younger women, are at increased risk of harm from social media and that use of social media does impact thoughts and behaviors for this group to a striking degree. Not only increased risk of body-image issues and associated mental health problems but also changes in aggression levels have been noted for this particular group, connected with social media usage. However, these data are still few and far between, and extra data would help our understanding of these risks. If such findings had been suppressed, it is more serious, but not truly something that would be a shocking, new revelation.

Key Takeaways

The “Facebook Files,” if they are an accurate representation of the operating procedures of that company, appear to show that Facebook suppressed some information, but this information was already well-known in scientific circles and, in honesty, was in the public domain through other media. Any alleged specific suppression of information by Facebook would not have really prevented people from knowing about the potential harms of using social media.

If true, these allegations would speak more to the business practices of Facebook. That it is The Wall Street Journal airing the “Facebook Files” attests to the main issue being one of business ethics and not of science or public information. Should the allegations prove correct, they speak of severe problems with business ethics, company responsibility, and maybe due diligence by company officers who should have stopped these practices. Such problems have occurred previously in many businesses: witness the issue with tobacco companies some years ago.

Ultimately, the “Facebook Files” do not reveal anything that could not have been found out or inferred from elsewhere. They do raise a number of questions about what drives the behaviors of digital companies and of digital users—but these questions were there beforehand. However, the questions that stand out for me as a result of the “Facebook Files” are: Why are people surprised, and why is the message that digital technology produces problems for some users still not commonplace enough for this story not to have made the headlines?