Hi everyone, and welcome to the third edition of Plaintext. I hope that this newsletter has become one more good reason to look forward to Friday. (I now look forward to Friday because it means the newsletter is done and I dont have to worry about the next one until Sunday?) If you are reading this on the web and are wondering why it isnt in your inbox, fix that by subscribing to WIRED at a discount so steep youll need to depressurize afterwards. Youll get the print version, unlimited web, and of course, this newsletter.
Last weekend I attended an event called Social Science Foo Camp, an unconference where attendees spontaneously schedule discussion sessions to create a lively agenda. The venue was Facebooks headquarters in Menlo Park, California. One of the more interesting sessions I attended concerned a project called Social Science One.
Social Science One is an effort to get the Holy Grail of data sets into the hands of private researchers. That Holy Grail is Facebook data. Yep, that same unthinkably massive trove that brought us Cambridge Analytica.
In the Foo Camp session, Stanford Law Schools Nate Persily, cohead of Social Science One, said that after 20 months of negotiations, Facebook was finally releasing the data to researchers. (The researchers had thought all of that would be settled in two months.) A Facebook data scientist who worked on the team dedicated to this project beamed in confirmation. Indeed, the official announcement came a few days later.
Its an unprecedented drop, involving a data set of 10 trillion numbers. The information centers on URLs shared by Facebooks billions of usersspecifically, the 38 million of these that were shared more than 100 times on Facebook between January 1, 2017, and July 31, 2019. Researchers can isolate URLs by characteristics like whether they were fact-checked or flagged as hate speech, and they can see (in the aggregate) who viewed them, liked them, shared them, or even whether they shared the links without viewing them. This dataset enables social scientists to study some of the most important questions of our time about the effects of social media on democracy and elections with information to which they have never before had access, reads the Social Science One press release.
The reason it took so long is that Facebook, quite understandably, wanted to protect the privacy of its users. Simply aggregating the information so that no individuals activity can be identified wasnt enough for Facebook, which insisted on also encoding the data via a technology called differential privacy. Its a great way to protect privacy, but because it works by adding digital noise to the data set to prevent exposure of individuals, the technique limits what research can be done. The Social Science One people think Facebook is excessively cautious. But I didnt just get a $5 billion fine from the FTC, acknowledges Persily, referring to the penalty assessed on Facebook last summer for its privacy sins.