Facebook's botched V.I.P. system shows that even tech superstars can suffer from bureaucratic quagmires.
|  |  | September 14, 2021 | |
Beginning next week, the On Tech newsletter will be available only to Times subscribers. Subscribe to The Times to continue receiving it. |
A selection of our newsletters will soon be reserved for Times subscribers. Subscribe now for $1/week for access to Times journalism and all of our newsletters — to follow your interests and discover new ones. |
The myth of Big Tech competence |
Facebook's botched V.I.P. system shows that even tech superstars can suffer from bureaucratic quagmires. |
 | | Timo Lenzen |
|
We expect a lot from rich, smart and powerful technology companies, but they aren't immune to mismanagement. And when genius fails, it can be jarring to those companies' employees and destructive to the people left in the wake of the mistakes. |
A Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) yesterday detailed the ways that Facebook essentially lets influential people flout the company's rules, which apply to everyone else. In one example cited in the article, Facebook initially allowed the soccer star Neymar to post nude photos of a woman without her permission, despite its rules against such behavior. |
It has been clear for some time that Facebook has given preferential treatment to some high-profile people, including Donald Trump. What The Journal's reporting shows is that Facebook's use of kid gloves for V.I.P.s is a systemic practice that affected millions of people, that Facebook mismanaged the execution of this policy and that the special treatment has resisted attempts inside Facebook to dismantle it. |
Anyone who has worked for a large organization has probably had a taste of what seems to have happened at Facebook: The company laid out a logical plan for influential users that was bungled when enforced — and then the company was unwilling or incapable of fully fixing what went wrong. |
What's different about the tech giants is that those companies seem to believe in their own supreme competence — and so does much of the public. That makes their missteps more glaring, and perhaps makes the companies more reluctant to own up to their mistakes. |
The basic idea of Facebook's V.I.P. policy — giving a second look at decisions that affect high-profile accounts — makes sense. |
The company knows that in the crush of billions of Facebook and Instagram posts each day, its computer systems and workers make mistakes. Facebook's computers might delete an innocuous photo from a child's birthday party because the system misread it as sexual imagery that violates the company's rules. |
Giving another look to posts by influential people isn't necessarily a bad idea; unfortunately, the policy hasn't been carried out very well. According to The Journal, because Facebook doesn't deploy enough moderators or other resources to review all posts, many teams "chose not to enforce the rules with high-profile accounts at all." Got that? V.I.P.s were exempt from the company's rules less out of malicious intent than neglect. |
The Journal reported that Facebook knew for years that it was unfair and unwise to let high-profile people operate under a different, more lax rule book, but the number of people who were effectively exempt from punishment kept growing. The article said that at least 45 teams at Facebook started adding names to the V.I.P. list until it reached at least 5.8 million people last year. |
I will acknowledge that at Facebook's scale of billions of users, none of its principles or practices will be perfect. Facebook and its former head of civic integrity said that the company had made changes to address some of the problems of its V.I.P. list. But The Journal's reporting ultimately points to a more fundamental error: A large organization displayed stunning mismanagement, and could not or would not fully fix its problems. |
Tech companies including Google, Facebook and Amazon have seemingly invincible power, but their growing wealth is not stopping these giants from also, at times, being ridiculously inept. |
Reminder: This newsletter will soon be reserved for Times subscribers. |
Enjoy this newsletter? Subscribe to keep receiving it. |
We've reserved a selection of newsletters, including this one, for Times subscribers. Subscriber support ensures that we have the resources to deliver original, quality journalism in every form — including our newsletters. |
Your access to this newsletter ends next week. Become a Times subscriber to enjoy our journalism and to continue to read this newsletter and any others you find interesting. |
We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment