We disagree and that's honestly cool

Two years ago, on Thursday, February 11th, 2021, nine of us met for the first ever meeting to plan out the Integrity Institute. We were all peers, and we all knew each other (or of each other) in a professional context.

We had lots of hopes and dreams. One of them was this: we were going to build a stage for all integrity workers to stand on. We were going to be member powered. If this became a place just for spotlighting a few charismatic cofounders, we’d have failed. (For what it worth, I think we succeeded)

Here’s how we got to that day — imagine a montage of me calling different people I respect, talking through my ideas about how social media was broken, how we could fix it, and how to think about it all. Generally, they’d say, “I agree with 70% of what you said, but the other 30% — I don’t know. I think you’re off base”.

And then I’d roll out my killer sales line:

“That’s wonderful. The world deserves to hear us disagree. The world deserves to hear us be smart, eloquent, and grounded in the work as we argue. That’s much better than the typical shouting match you’d see on, say, twitter.”

That argument, dear reader, generally worked.

Okay, so why am I bringing up ancient history? Because being a stage for members matters. It is a success and delightful when members say things, using our platform/stage, that I might disagree with, or go against “the official views of Integrity Institute”. It’s honestly fun and thought-provoking when we’ve been able to showcase members disagreeing with each other.

In fact, our "official” views are pretty much meant to be our best understanding of the baseline ideas that everyone (or almost everyone) in the industry agrees with. Every person will, of course, have ideas that go farther than that in one way or another.

Relatedly, it’s wonderful when members start projects on their own. And if those projects weren’t on our roadmap, that’s a clear signal that those projects truly matter to those members, and it’s not just us pushing them to do free labor. It’s very good!

With that all said, here are a few member projects you might like to know about.

Gonzalez v. Google and section 230

You may remember that we came out with an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that covers Section 230. You may remember that our brief took no sides, and generally focused on the factual questions of how social media works rather than legal questions. (Expect more from us on this soon.)

That’s important! We put a lot of effort into mapping out and expressing the consensus points of our members. At the same time, some members also had their own personal opinions. Led by Karan, they published a guest essay in The Information. I’m so proud.

It’s the official position of Integrity Institute that we have no consensus stance on section 230. It’s also our official position that all our members are great! Karan and co definitely included.

Here’s what Karan has to say, in his own words:

As an engineer, I feel slightly frustrated when I read analysis pieces about §230 that use the words “algorithm” or “recommendations systems” without actually understanding what they mean, or what the consequences of a “burn it all down” approach would be. So, I wrote my own, with the help of my friends Maggie, Dylan, Derek, and Naomi at the Integrity Institute! Here are some of the highlights:

• The nature of the internet makes moderating every bit of speech impossible. Holding platforms responsible for every dangerous statement that slips through their nets will have a ruinous chilling effect on modern discourse.

• The traditional portrayal of ranking algorithms can be misleading, unhelpful, and irrationally fear-inducing. Recommendations systems range from the trivial to the extremely complicated.

• There is a difference between a platform’s carelessness about what it promotes and giving its best—albeit imperfect—effort to screen posts.

• Congress is better situated to solve this problem - and there are some specific things they could do now!

Look at his “Integrity Institute” affiliation. It’s working! Integrity workers are able to speak out with their own voice, and we can help by lending them the credibility to do it — and vice versa. I’m pleased as punch.

(And I’m sure that we have members that disagree with this op-ed. Heck, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with all of it. Members — I posted this in Slack but I’ll say it again here: let us know and we can help you place your op-eds too)

Did you know the podcast is rocking?

You may remember that our members Alice Hunsberger, Talha Baig, and Lauren Wagner started a podcast a little while ago. It’s so good! And it’s an example of the kind of project that started up organically, without staff prodding or control.

Since I last emailed about it, they’ve published episodes 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Here they are:

Episode Four: Preventing and Reacting to Burnout — Integrity Institute member Alice Hunsberger talks with fellow members Kristen Murdock and Jen Weedon about burnout – an issue that impacts many working professionals but may hit those working in integrity, trust & safety especially hard.

Episode Five: Keeping the Metaverse Safe — Talha Baig and Lizzy Donahue talk Integrity in the metaverse. The conversation ranges from defining what the metaverse is to discussing whether it should even exist! We also discuss other fun topics, such as: integrity issues with augmented reality and dating in the metaverse.

Episode Six: Reconciling Capitalism & Community — Alice Hunsberger and Community Advisor Cassandra Marketos discuss digital spaces and community building. They discuss how to live in a world where community is not the default; whether being anonymous in online spaces is a good thing; and how product design and perception can influence the legitimacy of the content and community of a product

Episode Seven: XCheck — Policing the Elite of Facebook Users — Lauren Wagner and fellow Karan Lala discuss Meta’s cross-check program and the Oversight Board’s policy advisory opinion. They cover how Meta treats its most influential and important users, the history and technical details of the cross-check program, the public response to its leak, what the Oversight Board found with respect to Meta’s scaled content moderation, and what the company could do to address its gaps going forward.

Episode Eight: Hiring and growing trust & safety teams at small companies — Alice Hunsberger, VP CX, Grindr interviews Colleen Mearn, who currently leads Trust & Safety at Clubhouse. They discuss what it’s really like to build teams at small companies. They discuss the pros and cons of working at a small company, what hiring managers look for, how small teams are structured, and career growth opportunities.

It’s really good stuff. I love seeing the podcast as a kind of trade press. It’s people in the industry talking to others in the industry about the work.

I know Talha, especially, is looking for feedback and advice on how to grow the audience, understand the landscape, and. generally professionalize. They have a good show here, with a solid audience, and I bet any feedback you want to give him will be well-received. You can email me and I’ll forward it along or just introduce you directly.

And more!

This was a long email. I’ll close it off like this: we recently hired some staff that allow us to help nurture member projects and initiative in a more systematic way. It’s gonna be great.

I’m also going to be both at San Francisco and SXSW pretty soon — are there potential supporters, donors, funders we should be talking to? I’d love your introductions.

It’s been two long years. I’m proud of how far we’ve come. Don’t forget to holler if you’re ever in Brooklyn, and I hope to see you in SF next week.

- Sahar