Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Final Draft: Facebook Diversity Debate

By: Harry Waisbren

Note: this final draft (first draft here, second draft here) is being actively edited, and when completed will be published on the Qworky blog. Feedback is always appreciated!

Facebook's Data Team has released a study entitled How Diverse is Facebook? that has begot much analysis and criticism, first coalescing on the #FBDiversity tag.


The study's purpose is described by Facebook as part of their effort to be as open and connected as possible while working to understand how different populations of users join and use their service. Despite such lofty goals, the original question that brought about the criticism, first poised by Shireen Mitchell (@digitalsista), Beth Kanter (@kanter), and Allyson Kapin (@womenwhotech), is about flaws in their methodology. However, the charge, first made by Tracy Viselli (@myrnatheminx), that the conclusions "seem self-fulfilling prophecy ish" would hold more serious implications.


The methodology aspect is quite tricky, as Facebook does not request information on race as they do for gender. Cheri Mullins (@cherimullins) analyzed this in some detail within her post Facebook "Diversity" Study Fact or Fiction, explaining how "the Facebook Data team has skewed the results to be highly self-referential." The questions regarding the motivation of the study ask whether the data specifically answers a question "that has already been asked or assumed", which is Shireen Mitchell's rationale when referring to Tracy Viselli's self-fulfilling prophecy description as semi-correct.


The methodological issues are important, especially considering the broad conclusion drawn that Facebook's user demographics nearly mirror that of the U.S. population. Moreover, the criticism and skepticism has everything to do with the potentially alarming research from danah boyd (@zephoria), which paints a very different picture of diversity within Facebook. In her speech on The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online, she explained:

It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality...What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook.

...

MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

boyd's warning about this "digital migration" is a stark contrast to the more techno-utopian depiction from Facebook. The draft of her forthcoming article, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook, further compares the social media landscape to the historical dynamics of segregation.


Within her response to the Facebook Data Team's study, boyd discussed how although the data does correlate with what she has seen in the field, the focus on access misses the divergence in how different groups are using and experiencing the service. The Facebook depiction does not address the impact racial and ethnic backgrounds have on social media usage, and the resulting limitation on the extent to which users will interact with a diverse set of other users because of it.


However, boyd also professed disappointment that academics began critiquing the Facebook study while not first "appreciating the glimpse that we get into the data they get to see." Indeed, the open study did also spark public dialogue on the issue, and their treatment of this uncomfortable subject does show a willingness to further address it.


Yet if boyd is right that racist and classist attitudes are shaping digital media, action must be taken to shift the debate. If the internet will ever reach its democratizing potential, industry leaders and the social media community at large need to accept and address these serious issues.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Draft Post Take 2: Facebook Diversity Debate

By: Harry Waisbren

Note: this is the second draft (first draft here) of a post to be published on the Qworky blog. Feedback would be much appreciated!

Facebook's Data Team has released a study entitled How Diverse is Facebook? that has begot much analysis and criticism, coalescing on the #FBDiversity tag.


The purpose of this study is described by Facebook as part of their effort to be as open and connected as possible while also working to understand how different populations of users join and use the social network. The original question that has made way for such vehement criticism, first poised by @digitalsista, @kanter , and @womenwhotech, relates to problems with the study's methodology. Furthermore, the question (first asked by @myrnatheminx) of whether the conclusions "seem self-fulfilling prophecy ish" is being assessed in light of this as well.


The methodology aspect of this study is quite tricky, as Facebook does not request information on race as they do for gender. Cheri Mullins analyzed this in some detail in her post Facebook "Diversity" Study Fact or Fiction, and asserts that there is a "highly self-referential" nature to the study through its skewed results. This is why Shireen Mitchell (aka @digitalsista) partially agrees with the self-fulfilling prophecy argument from Tracy Viselli (aka @myrnatheminx), as the data answers a question "that has already been asked or assumed."


The issues with the study are particularly important to assess given the broad conclusions that Facebook has apparently drawn from it, including:

  • They have always been diverse yet diversity has increased significantly over the past year to the point where users nearly mirror the diversity of the overall U.S. population
  • Hispanics are 80% as likely to be on Facebook as White users
  • Black users are as likely to be on as Whites
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders are much more likely to be on Facebook than White users.

These broad conclusions are all further questionable in light of danah boyd's speech during the Personal Democracy Forum entitled The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online. Her research has achieved vastly different results, and her charges are damning to the supposedly diverse and inclusive nature of Facebook:

It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality...What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

...

MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed.

In this context, it is no wonder that Mitchell thinks that the Facebook Data Team's study has everything to do with boyd's Myspace to Facebook white flight theory. The question at hand is how we can work to constructively fix these problems as the revolution of communication that Facebook is part and parcel of continues.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Draft Post: Facebook Diversity Debate

By: Harry Waisbren


Note: this is a draft of a post to be published on the Qworky blog. Feedback would be much appreciated!


Facebook's Data Team has released a study entitled How Diverse is Facebook? that has caused a firestorm of analysis and criticism---coalescing on Twitter through the #FBDiversity tag.


The purpose of this study is described by Facebook as part of their effort to be as open and connected as possible while also working to understand how different populations of users join and use the social network. However, the original question that has begot such vehement criticism, first poised by @digitalsista, @kanter , and @womenwhotech, relates to the study's methodology and their motivations behind it. In fact, the question (first asked by @myrnatheminx) of whether the conclusions "seem self-fulfilling prophecy ish" is being increasingly assessed as the findings are further digested.


The methodology aspect of this study is quite tricky, as Facebook does not request information on race as they do for gender. Cheri Mullins analyzed this aspect of the study in detail in her post Facebook "Diversity" Study Fact or Fiction:

The primary method of identifying users as a given ethnicity or race for the study is by a user's reported last name. This methodology is based on the correlation of last names to self-reported ethnicity or race in the US Census statistics. Short of actually asking users to self-report their data, this approach seems reasonable. (I'll say a bit more about why I favor self-reporting later.)

However, what Facebook refers to as a mixture-modeling technique seems a bit sketchy. By their definition, they "back solve" for name based on ethnicity. This is recursive: one has to know a variable (in this case, race or ethnicity) in order to use it as a given. Certainly, using this back-solving method to cross-check data is valid. If one assumes that the makeup of Facebook does, indeed, parallel the (self-reported) ethnic and racial makeup reflected in the Census statistics, then determining whether study data correlates with the Census data is a valid data point to verify the categorization assumptions of the study. However, by both reporting correlation with the Census statistics as a result and using the same statistics to "refine" the statistics, the Facebook Data team has skewed the results to be highly self-referential.


The "highly self-referential" nature of their results seems to push conclusions to the "seems self-fulfilling prophecy ish" camp. If they are using an unabashedly flawed data set, then what is the purpose of this study? The purpose is particularly questionable given the broad proclamations that Facebook draws from their flawed data set, such as:

  • They have always been diverse yet diversity has increased significantly over the past year to the point where users nearly mirror the diversity of the overall U.S. population
  • Hispanics are 80% as likely to be on Facebook as White users
  • Black users are as likely to be on as Whites
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders are much more likely to be on Facebook than White users.

The motivation behind asserting such broad conclusions is further questionable in light of danah boyd's (@zephoria) speech during the Personal Democracy Forum discussing The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online. Her research has achieved vastly different results than those from the internal study in regards to Facebook users vs those on MySpace, and her charges are damning to the supposedly diverse and inclusive nature of Facebook:

It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality...What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

This dynamic was furthered by the press, an institution that stems from privilege and tends to reflect the lives of a more privileged class of people. They narrated MySpace as the dangerous underbelly of the Internet while Facebook was the utopian savior. And here we get back to Kat's point: MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed.


boyd's speech paints a very different picture of Facebook than their data team's study suggests. Rather than an environment proportionally diverse to the U.S. population, it is one growing as an "idyllic community" free from the "riff raff" in MySpace, and such predispositions are being internalized by our country's youth in an alarming fashion.


In this context
, it is no wonder that Shireen Mitchell (aka @digitalsista) says that she thinks that the Facebook Data Team's study has everything to do with boyd's Myspace to Facebook "white flight" theory...


Yet despite the seemingly cause and effect nature of boyd's research and the Facebook Data Team's study asserting opposing conclusions merely months later, is it too much to charge that this was enough of an impetus for Facebook to issue a study with a self-fulling prophecy in mind? Moreover, even if they did, how much of an issue is it?


Despite her views on the flawed nature of their methodology, Mullins argues that there is a positive outlook to take from this study. She applauds their efforts to collect this data, and notes that "the 2010 Census data and adoption statistics that are current and more accurately reflect current Internet access capabilities and trends will provide better data against which to verify future studies."


However, if this is to be but a first step in Facebook's efforts to assert and/or achieve a diversified and inviting community, there is much more work to be done. As Mullins explains:

Ultimately, though, I wonder why Facebook does not simply add an optional (and optionally public) profile statistic for Facebook users to self-report ethnicity and race. If the options are identical to the 2010 Census options -- and identically described, one would expect to obtain results that are directly comparable to the Census statistics and therefore a better indicator of whether or not Facebook is representative of the population at large. Furthermore, Facebook could could provide users with an option to allow this statistic to be used only in cumulative reporting or also in reporting in conjunction with other demographics, which would facilitate a significant depth of data for analysis not only by Facebook but but other social networking researchers. I believe Facebook has work to do here in defining exactly what the purpose of their study is and how best to collect their data.


Instituting a program to self-report race seems like a logical next step for Facebook to take if they truly want to be as open and connected as possible---quite the contrast from acting as a safe haven for those engaging in white flight to escape the riff raff from other more diversified and inclusive social networks. No matter what though, they have more work to do, and despite any pitfalls at least this study acknowledges that they recognize the importance of diversity and inclusiveness within their network.


Hopefully the #FBDiversity effort alerts Facebook to the groundswell of desire for them to achieve their stated goals. Furthermore, it should act as a message to them that posturing will not suffice in a world rapidly becoming increasingly connected and diversified, and that if they sincerely wish to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, they will have strong allies in all of us!