You know, if you think the corporation behind Facebook is likely to be a good partner for your open science endeavors, you may wish to have a conversation with some folks in the social sciences who have found this path less than satisfactory. Or, perhaps consider any other action that corporation has ever taken across its entire history. Just saying. #subtoot
@kfitz Indeed, the history is not great, but that doesn't obviate the need to advance greater openness by social media companies. We will see if incremental or better improvements are possible!
@briannosek@kfitz but may I ask why partner with for-profit private social media companies? why not partner with not-for-profit social media companies and funders which would be more aligned with Open Science principles?
@manisha@kfitz We also wish to partner with groups that are more aligned across the board with COS mission. But, we do lean-in for places where we can find mission-alignment with orgs that otherwise are less open, especially those for which greater openness could be of substantial societal benefit. In other words, it is worth it to us to try, recognizing the risks are higher and the ceiling may be lower. Like with commercial publishers, our collabs are limited to where we can align on mission.
@briannosek@manisha@kfitz Has any other org had success trying to do with Meta what you are trying to do?
If not, why do you think you will succeed where others have failed?
Or is it more likely that you will waste a ton of money that could have been spent on more successful endeavors?
@briannosek@manisha@kfitz Have you considered the risk that your org is being used by Meta for whitewashing, and the damage to society that could result from your being used by Meta to bolster its own reputation without actually improving its practices in any substantive way?
@jik@manisha@kfitz Hi Jonathan. Yes, we have a risk assessment process that is part of our partnership framework https://www.cos.io/about/partnership-framework. A key part for our managing risk is to only agree to partner with commitments to transparency of the process and outcome. For example, we do not typically sign NDA's except under special circumstances for protecting user privacy data or something that we can't help but be exposed to. Also, we only enter agreements if we believe that the potential impact is..
@jik@manisha@kfitz worth the effort. When the risk of failure is higher, the benefits of success likewise need to be higher. This case is high on both. We are willing to try things on the high risk-reward spectrum, particularly with an orientation to learn from either outcome as use that to improve for the next opportunities to advance our mission.
@briannosek@manisha@kfitz Brian, it sounds an awful lot like you're saying, "We believe we can succeed where everyone else has failed." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What reason do you have to believe you can succeed where everyone else has failed?
@jik@manisha@kfitz I would revise to "I believe we have sufficient buy-in on a mission-aligned approach to make it worth trying."
I have failed enough times to avoid defaulting to the arrogance that I will succeed where others have not. And, I have failed enough times to be willing to do it when the purpose is important enough, and the upside of success is high enough. (An operational definition of entrepreneurship?)
We shall learn soon enough if we can make productive headway.
@briannosek@manisha@kfitz Do you think the other institutions and researchers who have attempted in the past to do what you're doing with Meta and failed did not have "sufficient buy-in on a mission-aligned approach"?
I am not trying to be snarky here. What I am seeing, as an observer, is a whole bunch of people who have first-hand experience trying this and failing, saying to you, "We've tried this and it failed," and all you seem to be saying in response is, "It'll be different this time."
@briannosek@jik@kfitz this https://mastodon.green/@gcluley/111863959010356342 showed up in my timeline and I think it's a wonderful reminder of how FB's founder has operated in the past and how Meta continues to operate because ... people just keep trusting them. smh. when we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.
I urge @CenterforOpenScience to rethink this decision of partnering with Meta. Hope you haven't signed any NDAs yet. Privacy and user well-being has not been Meta's goal in the past. What's Meta's end goal behind this pilot? See valid concerns raised by @ansuz (who's a privacy researcher) here https://social.cryptography.dog/@ansuz/111841085610968642
Add comment