> why should this research be done at university level?

I think this questions is backwards. This seems very much in line with other research already done at universities.

> So we should look for smaller individuals and groups to conduct research.

Smaller individual and groups can be much more easily sued. It's much easier to spin a story about suing some rogue partisan non-profit than it is for suing academic researchers.

> Being public also creates a financial incentive. If your research indicates something is a fraud or very harmful you can short the stock to fund your research

These sorts of financial incentives provide the easiest and simplest way of discrediting these groups (aside from simply ignoring them). All Meta has to say is "Don't believe a thing they say, they're simply doing it since they're shorting us".

You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities? I get that stuff like it is already done there, but why?

Short selling has a long history. Obv people don't like them but don't know any successful lawsuits. Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short seller.

> You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities?

Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives. Tenure is meant to insulate academia from having to worry about financial incentives and what is popular so they can focus on what is true.

> Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short seller.

Meta doesn't have to sue a short seller. All Meta has to do is point to the now extremely clear conflict of interest. Having such a strong conflict of interest makes it easy to cause doubt about the validity of the research. And that's good enough. Compare two following two headlines:

1. Prestigious research group at Harvard shows wrongdoing on Meta's part.

2. Opportunistic short sellers put out yet another hit piece against Meta for their own financial gain.

It's like going to get your nutritional advice from the small sample size and suspect studies put out by supplement companies. Obviously they won't publish findings that go against their financial interests, or even run the experiments in the first place.

> Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives.

Wasn't this whole thing preempted by financial incentives playing a role in Harvard dropping the case. My point is financial incentives exist either way. The difference is that FB can point and say "Harvard says we're great and they have no financial incentives to lie *wink*" or we can say "sure I have a lot to gain if I'm right but that doesn't mean I'm wrong".

So you kind of made my point for me. It's the high minded veneer of objectivity I am most against

The deifference for me is that this is, allegedly, Harvard acting unethically and against how we expect them, as a research university, to act.

There exists no such expectations on other private companies.

This is a failure of the model, not business as usual.

> but why should this research be done at university level?

Where else should it be done?

Supposedly academia is supposed to be the place that is free from economic incentives. Think about how we use the word "academically." As well as being a third party that is independent of the government. Even non-profits have to worry about economic value, just not about shareholders.[0]

I say supposedly because lots of academia is already captured by industry (or other entities). Computer science is a good example considering how common it is to work with industry partners. Sciences are mixed and there's good reason to work with industry that is highly rational and can provide huge benefits. But it does come with risk of capture. It should also be worrying if academic research becomes essentially an extension of a company's research arm because it does reduce innovation and exploration of ideas as research is pushed towards profit motivations but that's a very different kind of risk than the one discussed.

[0] In the last few decades we've adopted a mindset that everything should be a business model. This is true for academia. Maybe everything shouldn't be a business model. That doesn't mean things have to run at a loss but schools definitely are profit seeking in their current forms. The priority is not placed on education and research and thus presents an existential risk to these institutions. One could claim the death has already come but I'm not convinced.

> why should this research be done at university level?

If it's important research it's good if it's done by a renowned university that brings oversight and credibility for the research. Much better than the same researcher doing it in their basement, unless they are already famous and have their own following. Of course incidents like this and cases where research gets influenced into any direction hurt that benefit of research being done at a university.

> Maybe as an aside, but why should this research be done at university level?

Why not? Universities perform research - typically free from outside interference (academic freedom). And there are good reasons for academic freedom (which I'm not getting into here). As a consequence, academic freedom limits the reasons to stop this research from happening at a university.

So what is it in the contents of this research that makes you think it is not at an academic level or a violation of ethical standards?

> So we should look for smaller individuals and groups to conduct research.

Maybe. And maybe not. I think you need both. The larger, public institution is the lightning rod. They get all the attention, but also all the scrutiny. Smaller groups are difficult to track. The more you have of them, the more difficult it is to account for their methods and funding and so on. So you pit the smaller groups against the large public institution. The smaller groups are the chihuahuas barking at the bulldog.

Instead of eliminating the big institution, you subject it to higher standards and scrutiny. More severe punishments for bad behavior, and perhaps also better rewards for good behavior.

> Is it expensive or require their resources?

You have a major knowledge gap here. Other than for literal lab start up funds for brand-new professors universities typically don't grant much money, if any at all, to their professors for research. The professors are expected to seek outside funds, of which a good chunk then goes to the university for the university's costs.

This may not be the same at Harvard, I genuinely don't know. But it's typical at most research universities.

> Maybe as an aside, but why should this research be done at university level? Is it expensive or require their resources?

I guess the question is ... why shouldn't it be? Social media is a huge part of modern life in the US, has a massive impact and is all both pretty recent and poorly understood. I would expect any half decent university with anthropology or sociology (or even a political science) departments to be doing heavy research in this field.

> Maybe as an aside, but why should this research be done at university level?

In this specific case: Because it started there and institutions that claim to be neutral or to use scientific methods should not stop research because they are paid to do so.

In the general case: When speaking bad about big actors, reputation and a big budget for lawyers can make a lot of lawsuits go away before they even start.

Why are you copy pasting the same question over and over in this thread?