My perception is that people aren't expecting facebook to solve teenage depression, but to prevent themselves from contributing to it if they are. FB's research has been criticized by scientists as being of poor quality [0], and Zuckerberg claims the findings were cherry picked. This actually good news for FB if true. Should they partner with neutral, third party university research teams, as well as commit to a transparent investigation, they'll be able to clear things up. Not everyone would agree, but I believe that many people are capable of changing their minds when presented with new evidence.
The metaphor of a phone company cutting off an argument is an interesting one. I agree that people arguing is a fact of society / nature, and I also agree that cutting off a phone call seems like an absurd way to try and solve the larger problem. But at the same time, I don't think the metaphor fully applies, for the following reasons:
First, a phone call is a one-to-one communication, and Facebook is one-to-many. It's rare if not unheard of for strangers to call each other and say what they think about, for example, a NYT article. Second, there is no recommendation system pushing "engaging" subjects, where engagement can be defined in terms of how controversial it is. Third, only 9% of FB users speak english, and Haugen testified that the non-english safety features, tweaks to the ranking algorithm, and tooling are not as good (potentially drastically worse?) in non-english languages.
Most people would argue that phone companies have some responsibility to prevent spam calls, similar to how an email services prevent or flag spam emails. These are network level actions, and a lot of Haugen's testimony was about how FB was being irresponsible in this regard.
The metaphor of a phone company cutting off an argument is an interesting one. I agree that people arguing is a fact of society / nature, and I also agree that cutting off a phone call seems like an absurd way to try and solve the larger problem. But at the same time, I don't think the metaphor fully applies, for the following reasons:
First, a phone call is a one-to-one communication, and Facebook is one-to-many. It's rare if not unheard of for strangers to call each other and say what they think about, for example, a NYT article. Second, there is no recommendation system pushing "engaging" subjects, where engagement can be defined in terms of how controversial it is. Third, only 9% of FB users speak english, and Haugen testified that the non-english safety features, tweaks to the ranking algorithm, and tooling are not as good (potentially drastically worse?) in non-english languages.
Most people would argue that phone companies have some responsibility to prevent spam calls, similar to how an email services prevent or flag spam emails. These are network level actions, and a lot of Haugen's testimony was about how FB was being irresponsible in this regard.
[0] https://unherd.com/2021/09/facebooks-bad-science/