Kurt Wagner, Recode; Facebook’s board is throwing public support behind Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg — who are on Facebook’s board

[Kip Currier: Take note of the deliberate choice of words in the Facebook Board's statement copied below: 

"grossly unfair"

The Board doesn't say that allegations that Zuckerberg and Sandberg "knew about Russian interference and either tried to ignore it or prevent investigations into what had happened" were untrue. It says that the allegations were "grossly unfair". Those are two different things. The former is of a more objective nature. The latter is more subjective--and self-serving. 

That "grossly unfair" phrasing telegraphs oodles of insight into the exculpatory mindset and run-the-clock-out public relations positioning of Facebook leaders: in the words of the New York Times' 11/14/18 bombshell behind-the-scenes reporting, "Delay, Deny and Deflect". 

And that "they're-doing-this-to-us" mindset is also evident in the 11/17/18 New York Times-reported words of Elliot Schrage, Facebook's former vice president of global communications and public policy, who--at an 11/14/18 Q & A for employees with Zuckerberg and Sandberg--said that "Facebook was in a difficult news cycle, and that things would eventually calm down".

Oh, and the actual makeup of the Board? You guessed it...Zuckerberg and Sandberg are "both on Facebook’s board". So, as this Recode article wryly observes, "it looks like Facebook’s executives are throwing public support behind ... themselves."

In a sense, the well-documented history of half-truths and obfuscations (see here and here) of these conflicts of interest-riven Facebook Heads shouldn't surprise us (--read Helaine Olen's 11/15/18 WaPo piece The moral and ethical rot at Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg's Facebook): they're adhering to their long-standing Utilitarianism-derived principle that "the needs of the few (i.e. anyone employed by or enriched by Facebook) outweigh the needs of the many" (i.e. the world's billions of users AND non-users who have been and continue to be impacted by Facebook's relentlessly revenue-driven, public good-eschewing practices).

The incoming House of Representatives must hold Facebook and its leaders accountable for its actions and inaction. Bring Facebook's leaders in front of Congress, under Oath, and get the answers and remedies the American people and the World are owed. That's the rightly fair thing to suggest demand from Facebook and the elected officials who represent us.

#FacebookAccountability] 

"That story got us asking: Who from Facebook might be fired for the company’s missteps?

Whoever it is, it doesn’t look like it’ll be Zuckerberg or Sandberg. At least not right now.

Facebook’s board of directors issued a public statement defending the company’s efforts in fighting Russian election meddling efforts following the 2016 presidential election. It also called the story “grossly unfair.” Here’s the full statement.

“As Mark and Sheryl made clear to Congress, the company was too slow to spot Russian interference, and too slow to take action. As a board we did indeed push them to move faster. But to suggest that they knew about Russian interference and either tried to ignore it or prevent investigations into what had happened is grossly unfair. In the last eighteen months Facebook, with the full support of this board, has invested heavily in more people and better technology to prevent misuse of its services, including during elections. As the U.S. mid-term showed, they have made considerable progress and we support their continued to efforts to fight abuse and improve security.”"

How Plato Foresaw Facebook’s Folly; The New York Times, November 16, 2018

Bret Stephens, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times; How Plato Foresaw Facebook’s Folly

[Kip Currier: A must-read opinion piece by Bret Stephens. Bookmark and pass on to others! 

Facebook's interminable ethics failures and catastrophic abdication of any semblance of moral leadership offer glaring case studies for the essential role of ethical decision-making and accountability in organizations--not only in the technology sector but in ALL areas of civic life.

Moreover, where is Facebook’s Board amidst this moral morass? If corporate leaders will not “do the right things”, it is ethically incumbent upon Boards of Trustees to exercise the moral oversight and fiduciary responsibility with which they have been entrusted.]

"The story of the wildly exaggerated promises and damaging unintended consequences of technology isn’t exactly a new one. The real marvel is that it constantly seems to surprise us. Why? 

Part of the reason is that we tend to forget that technology is only as good as the people who use it. We want it to elevate us; we tend to degrade it. In a better world, Twitter might have been a digital billboard of ideas and conversation ennobling the public square. We’ve turned it into the open cesspool of the American mind. Facebook was supposed to serve as a platform for enhanced human interaction, not a tool for the lonely to burrow more deeply into their own isolation.

It’s also true that Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants have sold themselves not so much as profit-seeking companies but as ideal-pursuing movements. Facebook’s mission is “to make the world more open and connected.” Tesla’s goal is “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.” Google’s mantra was “Don’t Be Evil,” at least until it quietly dropped the slogan earlier this year. 

But the deeper reason that technology so often disappoints and betrays us is that it promises to make easy things that, by their intrinsic nature, have to be hard...

Start over, Facebook. Do the basics. Stop pretending that you’re about transforming the state of the world. Work harder to operate ethically, openly and responsibly. Accept that the work will take time. Log off Facebook for a weekend. Read an ancient book instead."

‘Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself’; The New York Times, November 15, 2018

The Editorial Board. The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section., The New York Times;

‘Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself’

"Real accountability is not forthcoming. Even in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was no shake-up in the upper echelons of the company — the most high-profile departure was that of Alex Stamos, the chief security officer who — according to The Times — independently chose to investigate Russian operations on the platform, and clashed with top brass as a result. As for Mr. Zuckerberg, he is unlikely to be ousted as CEO — he is both the majority shareholder and the chairman of the board. As a result, meaningful corporate oversight does not exist at the company.

Meaningful oversight of the tech industry from the executive branch is equally absent.

That’s why the incoming House, newly in Democratic hands, should make serious oversight a priority. If the House is looking to set the agenda for the next two years, Facebook should be near the top. What ambiguities remain about what Facebook knew and when are prime subjects for hearings."

‘No Morals’: Advertisers React to Facebook Report; The New York Times, November 15, 2018

Sapna Maheshwari, The New York Times; ‘No Morals’: Advertisers React to Facebook Report

"The revelations may be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said Rishad Tobaccowala, chief growth officer for the Publicis Groupe, one of the world’s biggest ad companies. “Now we know Facebook will do whatever it takes to make money. They have absolutely no morals.”

Marketers have grumbled about Facebook in the past, concerned that advertisements could appear next to misinformation and hate speech on the platform. They have complained about how the company handles consumer data and how it measures ads and its user base. But those issues were not enough to outweigh the lure of Facebook’s vast audience and the company’s insistence that it was trying to address its flaws.

 

And after this article was published online, Mr. Tobaccowala called The New York Times to add to his comments.

 

“The people there do,” he said, referring to possessing morals, “but as a business, they seem to have lost their compass.”"

Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis; The New York Times, November 14, 2018

Sheera Frenkel, Nicholas Confessore, Cecilia Kang, Matthew Rosenberg and Jack Nicas, The New York Times; Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis

"Like other technology executives, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg cast their company as a force for social good. Facebook’s lofty aims were emblazoned even on securities filings: “Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.”

But as Facebook grew, so did the hate speech, bullying and other toxic content on the platform. When researchers and activists in Myanmar, India, Germany and elsewhere warned that Facebook had become an instrument of government propaganda and ethnic cleansing, the company largely ignored them. Facebook had positioned itself as a platform, not a publisher. Taking responsibility for what users posted, or acting to censor it, was expensive and complicated. Many Facebook executives worried that any such efforts would backfire."

Stan Lee Spoke Out Against Bigotry, Again And Again; Comic Book Resources, November 13, 2018

Hannah Collins, Comic Book Resources; Stan Lee Spoke Out Against Bigotry, Again And Again

""None of us live our lives in a vacuum," Lee wrote in 1970, "none of us is untouched by the everyday events about us -- events which shape our stories just as they shape our lives." Here, Lee directly addressed readers who had been disgruntled by his "moralizing," a bell continues to be rung to this day. "They [Marvel comics readers] take great pains to point out that comics are supposed to be escapist reading and nothing more. But somehow, I can't see it that way. It seems to me that a story without a message, however subliminal, is like a man without a soul."

It's alarming and disappointing that so much of what Lee railed against over 50 years ago still feels so prescient in 2018. He also made mention in the same column of his talks at college campuses where "there's as much discussion of war and peace, civil rights, and the so-called youth rebellion as there is of our Marvel mags per se," and Lee continued to connect with people, face-to-face, as recently as last year. A 94-year-old Lee recorded a video message for Marvel's YouTube channel in response to the violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, reaffirming that Marvel's stories "have room for everyone, regardless of their race, gender, religion or color of their skin. The only things we don't have room for are hatred, intolerance or bigotry.""

Stan Lee’s Radical Fight Against Racists: ‘The Only Way to Destroy Them Is to Expose Them’; The Daily Beast, November 13, 2018

Stereo Williams, The Daily Beast; Stan Lee’s Radical Fight Against Racists: ‘The Only Way to Destroy Them Is to Expose Them’

[Kip Currier: Inspiring and powerful example of the ways every person can make a choice to stand against hatred of the "other" and bigotry, in all its forms.]

"Regardless of ongoing controversy surrounding the contributions of Kirby and others, Lee should be remembered for being an agent of change in his medium. A 1968 post from Lee’s mail column has been making the rounds in the wake of his death. In it, Lee makes plain his stance on racism.

“Let’s lay it right on the line. Bigotry and racism are among the deadliest social ills plaguing the world today. But, unlike a team of costumed super-villains, they can’t be halted with a punch in the snoot, or a zap from a ray gun. The only way to destroy them is to expose them—to reveal them for the insidious evils they really are. The bigot is an unreasoning hater—one who hates blindly, fanatically, indiscriminately. If his hang-up is black men, he hates ALL black men. If a redhead once offended him, he hates ALL redheads. If some foreigner beat him to a job, he’s down on ALL foreigners. He hates people he’s never seen—people he’s never known—with equal intensity—with equal venom.

“Now, we’re not trying to say it’s unreasonable for one human being to bug another. But, although anyone has the right to dislike another individual, it’s totally irrational, patently insane to condemn an entire race—to despise an entire nation—to vilify an entire religion. Sooner or later, we must learn to judge each other on our own merits. Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our hearts with tolerance. For then, and only then, will we be truly worthy of the concept that man was created in the image of God—a God who calls us ALL—His children.”

Stan Lee’s creative voice helped reshape the role of comics in American society and helped affect how American society saw comics. In doing so, Lee helped challenge his readers and his peers. His characters live now as part of the fabric of our culture—in blockbuster movies, acclaimed TV shows, video games and a host of other media. Generations of comic-book lovers saw themselves in those characters, and that was what he’d wanted all along. As some quarters of America tell themselves that politics have no place in pop art, the proof in Stan Lee’s history reminds us that the message has always been a part of the medium. Those who believe otherwise maybe have to consider that they aren’t the “good guy” in the story. After all—you can’t be a hero if you don’t stand for anything."

Customizable ethics checklists for Big Data researchers; BoingBoing, October 29, 2018

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; Customizable ethics checklists for Big Data researchers

"Deon is a project to create automated "ethics checklists" for data science projects; by default, running the code creates a comprehensive checklist covering data collection and storage, modeling and deployment: the checklist items aren't specific actions, they're "meant to provoke discussion among good-faith actors who take their ethical responsibilities seriously. Because of this, most of the items are framed as prompts to discuss or consider. Teams will want to document these discussions and decisions for posterity."

The lists can be customized for your own purposes, and if you think the default list needs revising, there's a democratic process for amending it."

A Rising Crescendo Demands Data Ethics and Data Responsibility; Forbes, October 29, 2018

Randy Bean, Forbes; A Rising Crescendo Demands Data Ethics and Data Responsibility

"It is against this backdrop that data ethics has rapidly moved to the forefront of any meaningful discussion about data. A spate of recent articles -- Never Heard of Data Ethics? You Will Soon, It’s Time to Talk About Data Ethics, Data Ethics: The New Competitive Advantage, Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence – underscore the increasing urgency and highlight the ethical considerations that organizations must address when managing data as an asset, and considering its impact on individual rights and privacy.

I recently convened two thought-leadership roundtables of Chief Data Officers and executives with responsibility for data initiatives within their organizations. The increased focus and concern for the ethical use of data is born out of widespread reaction to recent and highly publicized misuses of data that represent breaches of public trust -- whether this be unauthorized data sharing by social media platforms, reselling of customer information by businesses, or biased algorithms that reinforce social inequalities.

It is within this context that we are now witnessing increased corporate attention to data for good initiatives. Companies are increasingly recognizing and acknowledging that ethical action and doing well can be synonymous with doing good. A few corporations, notably Mastercard through their Center for Inclusive Growth, Bloomberg through Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Data for Good Exchange, and JP Morgan through the JP Morgan Institute have been among those corporations at the forefront of ethical data use for public good...

Increasingly, corporations are focusing on issues of data ethics, data privacy, and data philanthropy. An executive representing one of the nation’s largest insurance companies noted, “We are spending more hours on legal and ethical review of data than we are on data management”."

NDAs Are Out of Control. Here’s What Needs to Change; Harvard Business Review, January 30, 2018

Orly Lobel, Harvard Business Review; NDAs Are Out of Control. Here’s What Needs to Change

[Kip Currier: Came across this article about Nondisclosure Agreements (NDAs) while updating a Trade Secrets lecture for this week. The author raises a number of thought-provoking ethical and policy issues to consider. Good information for people in all sectors to think about when faced with signing an NDA and/or managing NDAs.]

"Nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, which are increasingly common in employment contracts, suppress employee speech and chill creativity. The current revelations surfacing years of harassment in major organizations are merely the tip of the iceberg.

New data shows that over one-third of the U.S. workforce is bound by an NDA. These contracts have grown not only in number but also in breadth. They not only appear in settlements after a victim of sexual harassment has raised her voice but also are now routinely included in standard employment contracts upon hiring. At the outset, NDAs attempt to impose several obligations upon a new employee. They demand silence, often broadly worded to protect against speaking up against corporate culture or saying anything that would portray the company and its executives in a negative light. NDAs also attempt to expand the definitions of secrecy to cover more information than the traditional bounds of trade secret law, in effect preventing an employee from leaving their employer and continuing to work in the same field."