Fb has fired again almost two weeks after The Wall Street Journal reported that Instagram made physique picture points worse for one in three teenage ladies in keeping with Fb’s personal information. The salvo comes courtesy of Pratiti Raychoudhury, Vice President, Head of Analysis at Fb. Raychoudhury’s put up on Fb’s Newsroom claims that The Wall Road Journal’s characterization of inner analysis is “not accurate” and blames all of it on a poor interpretation of the information the WSJ has in its possession.

On September 14 The Wall Road Journal revealed a narrative to The Fb Information, which is a collection of tales based mostly round an infinite cache of inner Fb paperwork leaked to the newspaper. The September 14 piece centered on information that recommended Instagram had a particularly dangerous impact on youngsters — significantly teenage ladies. The WSJ claimed that Fb was nicely conscious of the hurt its merchandise had on youngsters and that the corporate “has made minimal efforts to address these issues and plays them down in public.”

Fb has been evasive in regards to the contents of the research cited by the WSJ. However Fb’s world head of security, Antigone Davis, is anticipated to look earlier than the Senate Commerce Subcommittee Thursday to reply for the claims made within the story and plans for a brand new “Instagram for kids”. Raychoudhury particularly cites that listening to as the rationale for the put up.

Raychoudhury ignores lots of the points raised within the WSJ piece, together with that teenagers claimed they felt hooked on Instagram. As a substitute she focuses her energies on devaluing Fb’s personal analysis. A lot of the WSJ’s most scathing claims, in keeping with Raychoudhury, give attention to a research that had simply 40 partipants. That may be a paltry pattern dimension by any measure — however significantly if you’re speaking a few platform with over 1 billion customers. The tiny research was “designed to inform internal conversations about teens’ most negative perceptions of Instagram,” Raychoudhury claims.

Fb hasn’t launched the interior research, however did launch the slide the WSJ cited.

Raychoudhury additionally takes umbrage with the WSJ referring to an inner Fb slide that claims “we make body images worse for 1 in 3 teenage girls”. Raychoudhury repeatedly notes that the physique picture downside was simply one among 12 potential points that Instagram might make worse for teenage ladies. “Body image was the only area where teen girls who reported struggling with the issue said Instagram made it worse as compared to the other 11 areas,” she writes.

Sadly neither Fb, Instagram, or Raychoudhury have launched the precise information that she repeatedly cites in her response to the Journal’s reporting. With out seeing the information ourselves it’s extraordinarily troublesome to evaluate The Wall Road Journal’s or Raychoudhury’s intepretations of it. However, you already know, this isn’t the primary time we’ve heard about these problems.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here