arrow Products
Glide CMS image Glide CMS image
Glide CMS arrow
The powerful intuitive headless CMS for busy content and editorial teams, bursting with features and sector insight. MACH architecture gives you business freedom.
Glide Go image Glide Go image
Glide Go arrow
Enterprise power at start-up speed. Glide Go is a pre-configured deployment of Glide CMS with hosting and front-end problems solved.
Glide Nexa image Glide Nexa image
Glide Nexa arrow
Audience authentication, entitlements, and preference management in one system designed for publishers and content businesses.
For your sector arrow arrow
Media & Entertainment
arrow arrow
Built for any content to thrive, whomever it's for. Get content out faster and do more with it.
Sports & Gaming
arrow arrow
Bring fans closer to their passions and deliver unrivalled audience experiences wherever they are.
Publishing
arrow arrow
Tailored to the unique needs of publishing so you can fully focus on audiences and content success.
For your role arrow arrow
Technology
arrow arrow
Unlock resources and budget with low-code & no-code solutions to do so much more.
Editorial & Content
arrow arrow
Make content of higher quality quicker, and target it with pinpoint accuracy at the right audiences.
Developers
arrow arrow
MACH architecture lets you kickstart development, leveraging vast native functionality and top-tier support.
Commercial & Marketing
arrow arrow
Speedrun ideas into products, accelerate ROI, convert interest, and own the conversation.
Technology Partners arrow
AWS image
AWS
arrow arrow
Vercel image
Vercel
arrow arrow
Pugpig image
Pugpig
arrow arrow
Poool image
Poool
arrow arrow
Solution Partners arrow
Code Store image
Code Store
arrow arrow
The App Lab image
The App Lab
arrow arrow
Polemic Digital image
Polemic Digital
arrow arrow
Made by Many image
Made by Many
arrow arrow
Industry Insights arrow arrow
News
arrow arrow
News from inside our world, about Glide Publishing Platform, our customers, and other cool things.
Comment
arrow arrow
Insight and comment about the things which make content and publishing better - or sometimes worse.
Newsletter
arrow arrow
The Content Aware weekly newsletter, with news and comment every Thursday.
Knowledge arrow arrow
Customer Support
arrow arrow
Learn more about the unrivalled customer support from the team at Glide.
Documentation
arrow arrow
User Guides and Technical Documentation for Glide Publishing Platform headless CMS, Glide Go, and Glide Nexa.
Developer Experience
arrow arrow
Learn more about using Glide headless CMS, Glide Go, and Glide Nexa identity management.

Does Meta's science really shed light on audience behaviour?

A host of new social science research into Meta's platforms has landed. Are we to trust the data provided by Meta that informs them?

by Rob Corbidge
Published: 13:07, 03 August 2023

Rob Corbidge is Head of Content Intelligence at Glide Publishing Platform, applying the latest knowledge about advances and ideas in the publishing industry to our own product and helping clients get the most from their content.

A laboratory in sunlight by Stable Diffusion

Four new studies were published last week in the social sciences field by researchers who had been given access to user data shared by Meta.

This was part of an initiative launched by Meta back in 2020, the year of a rancorous US election (although rancorous seems to be the new normal), with no less than the name of Nick Clegg, VP of Global Affairs, attached to it.

In broad terms the aim of the project was to assess the impact social media had on democracy, and I assume, given their backing and co-operation with outside researchers, find Meta innocent of all charges. I'm obviously already suggesting bad science here - but there's a better reason than my reactionary anti-big-tech tendencies to believe that is the case.

The four studies broke down areas of research into the following:

Users given a reverse-chronological feed
The usual algorithmic feed was replaced by one on which most recent posts appeared first. Both Facebook and Instagram were used for this experiment.

A user's ability to share another’s post was limited
This was done with the aim of seeing if changes could be enacted in the subject's personal political beliefs, targeting "fake news" viral content.

Limiting the amount of content to which users were exposed by friends or by Facebook pages or groups with which they sympathised
This experiment had the aim of isolating users from existing sources of influence and replacing them with others.

Researchers looked at which news stories arrived on the feeds of Facebook users in the US, then correlated this with how liberal or conservative users were
This study was looking at ideological separation in the US, essentially the echo chamber effect most often identified on social platforms.

After such massed ranks of academia had delivered their verdict on many aspects of his eyeballs-to-screens advertising business, a verdict that many would argue is far from complete, VP Clegg came back triumphant. Meta was Not Guilty.

Yet shade has already been cast on the data Meta made available.

In his post, VP Clegg, said that research process independent observer, Professor Michael Wagner of the University of Wisconsin, in his introduction to the papers, said that the changes made to the subjects' feeds "did not reduce polarization or improve political knowledge during the 2020 US election."

There's nothing Meta can do about it.

However, Professor Wagner also described the entire process as "independence by permission" which is a strange concoction of words.

According to science.org Meta "collaborated with 17 outside scientists who were not paid by the company, were free to decide what analyses to run, and were given final say over the content of the research papers. But to protect the privacy of Facebook and Instagram users, the outside researchers were not allowed to handle the raw data."

And therein lies the rub, so to speak. One would assume that such properly scientific research as Meta would have us believe has been conducted would be conducted to the highest standard. What we don't know is the extent to which Meta prevented exposure of certain aspects of the data. Privacy is their fig-leaf to hide behind, yet we're talking about proper academic research being conducted on what Meta thinks should be available, not what research requires. Can't professional researchers be trusted?

You can't blame the researchers. Some data is better than none at all and they are desperate to study such an unfolding human phenomenon as social media behaviour in all the detail they can.

There are another 12 research papers from the data still to drop.

My own belief is that social media is a reflection of ourselves, and a reflection of our societies, both bad and good. Technology has simply given individuals the ability to reach wider audiences, with whatever content they are reaching those wider audiences with. However, when someone is making money on the back of it, and making money whatever "it" is, then responsibilities, such as those responsibilities every single publishing business has to bear, sit firmly on those platforms too.

However, at the heart of a platform such as Meta's Facebook sits a content paradox. The content they don't want is actually the content they do want, but unlike conventional publishers, they want to fart and run away. It's the thing they can't say.

Latest articles

Journalism under surveillance takes a new turn as OpenAI asks to see your notebooks
OpenAI's dystopian hello to journalists and publishers
arrow button
a person running away from technology
Quit running from news: fear of fakery is greater than the fake itself
arrow button
Googles golden jail cell and the problem of the internet
Google's golden jail cell is a metaphor for the web, and we're all struggling to break out
arrow button

Ready to get started?

No matter where you are on your CMS journey, we're here to help. Want more info or to see Glide Publishing Platform in action? We got you.

Book a demo