Lots Of Big Media Companies Had Access To The Facebook Files; Only Gizmodo Decided To Put In The Work To Make Them Public

from the good-for-them dept

Over the last month or so, you've probably heard a lot about the Facebook Files or the Facebook Papers, which are the documents shared by former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen with the media, starting with the Wall Street Journal, and then a rather reluctant "consortium" of seventeen big name US-based news organizations. The reluctance was apparent in the name of the Slack group created for all of the reporters working on the project: "Apparently We're A Consortium Now."

While I've been skeptical of some of the framing of the reporting on the papers, I still do generally believe it was a good thing to get this research out to the world -- even if I have little confidence that the media could ever do a good job conveying the story.

As news of the consortium broke, many people called out the fact that all of these big journalism organizations weren't actually releasing the documents they were going through themselves, often only describing them or quoting parts of them. Given that in a few cases where we've been able to see the full documents, it has appeared that some of the reporting was misleading or confused, this was a concern. And, of course, there were other concerns about the makeup of the consortium, and the fact that it was entirely based in the US.

That doesn't mean that it made sense to freely release all the documents to the public. There are plenty of reasonable concerns about privacy when you have a giant cache of internal documents. That's why it's a good thing to find out that Gizmodo has now taken on the task of making the Facebook Papers public, and doing so in partnership with a bunch of independent experts who will help Gizmodo's reporters sift through the documents and make sure that they're okay to be released:

Today, we see a strong public need can be served by making as many of the documents public as possible, as quickly as possible. To that end, we’ve partnered with a small group of independent monitors who are joining us to guide our work in preparing the papers for public release. The mission is to minimize any costs to individuals’ privacy or the furtherance of other harms while ensuring the responsible disclosure of the greatest amount of information in the public interest.

As Gizmodo notes, there are many reasons to carefully review the documents before releasing them:

More than for privacy, the documents require extra review to ensure we aren’t just handing groups of criminals and spies a roadmap to undermining the controls Facebook does have in place to detect propaganda aimed at spreading lies, hate, and fear. That would undermine any benefit the world stands to reap from this act of whistleblower justice.

The work is just beginning but we’re eager to start releasing documents as as possible. The first batch will likely consist of documents that warrant the least amount of redactions, just to get the ball rolling.

This is all good news. But it's a bit crazy that it's Gizmodo doing all this work. Gizmodo wasn't even a member of the original consortium and only joined after the first batch of stories went out. Also, Gizmodo is way smaller and with way fewer resources than many of the other members of the consortium, which includes the flush NY Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CNN, the Associated Press, Politico, Wired and more.

The fact that it took a month for any of the members, let alone one of the smaller ones, to actually decide to put together the effort to release the papers is a damning statement on how many members of the consortium see their role in the media to be a gatekeeper to information, rather than providing the public access to information.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: facebook files, facebook papers, reporting, transparency
Companies: facebook, gizmodo


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Designerfx (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 12:08pm

    Are they afraid?

    To me, this reads like a distinct possibility that the consortium is fearful of facebook/losing traffic to facebook.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 1:08pm

    So, while stating that they (the whistleblower) must'nt give criminals and propagandaists the keys to the kingdom, they chose to share it with a consortium of news organisations, who then chose to keep it secret until an interloper chose to share it in a controlled way.

    Sorry, I'm losing track of whom to trust. The platform? The establishment? The whistleblower? The curator? I feel that is all part of the meticulous plan

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 3:28pm

      Re:

      Trust is such an outdated concept. I've got a seminar on what is going to replace it, though, and the fee is quite reasonable...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    freelunch (profile), 23 Nov 2021 @ 1:47pm

    openness is better here

    Reporters can struggle to understand the documents they are reading and excerpting, especially technical documents. Publishing the originals will let alternative, sometimes better, understandings emerge. Thank you to Gizmodo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Paul, 23 Nov 2021 @ 2:35pm

    A consortium? Perhaps you meant a cartel.

    DITTO.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 2:55pm

      Re: A consortium? Perhaps you meant a cartel.

      Might look like Edward Snowden, but feels just like political and traditional media grandstanding.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2021 @ 7:04pm

    Quick! Look over there! Nothing to see here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisment

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.