{"id":2185,"date":"2021-12-01T10:12:26","date_gmt":"2021-12-01T09:12:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/12\/01\/heres-a-look-inside-facebooks-data-wars-the-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2021-12-01T10:12:26","modified_gmt":"2021-12-01T09:12:26","slug":"heres-a-look-inside-facebooks-data-wars-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/12\/01\/heres-a-look-inside-facebooks-data-wars-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Here&#039;s a Look Inside Facebook&#039;s Data Wars &#8211; The New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"cfbc967f0983488262956e73eca9483a\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3859091246952232\" crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- blok -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\" data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3859091246952232\" data-ad-slot=\"1334354390\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\r\n\n<\/div>\n<p>Advertisement<br \/>Supported by<br \/>The Shift<br \/>Executives at the social network have clashed over CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned data tool that revealed users\u2019 high engagement levels with right-wing media sources.<br \/><strong>Send any friend a story<\/strong><br \/>As a subscriber, you have <strong class=\"css-8qgvsz ebyp5n10\">10 gift articles<\/strong> to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.<br \/><span class=\"byline-prefix\">By <\/span><span class=\"css-1baulvz last-byline\" itemprop=\"name\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/by\/kevin-roose\" class=\"css-mrorfa e1jsehar0\">Kevin Roose<\/a><\/span><br \/>One day in April, the people behind CrowdTangle, a data analytics tool owned by <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/25\/technology\/facebook-like-share-buttons.html\" title=\"\">Facebook<\/a>, learned that transparency had limits.<br \/>Brandon Silverman, CrowdTangle\u2019s co-founder and chief executive, assembled dozens of employees on a video call to tell them that they were being broken up. CrowdTangle, which had been running quasi-independently inside <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/21\/technology\/zuckerberg-facebook-project-amplify.html\" title=\"\">Facebook<\/a> since being acquired in 2016, was being moved under the social network\u2019s integrity team, the group trying to rid the platform of <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/07\/19\/technology\/facebook-misinformation-blind-spot.html\" title=\"\">misinformation<\/a> and hate speech. Some CrowdTangle employees were being reassigned to other divisions, and Mr. Silverman would no longer be managing the team day to day.<br \/>The announcement, which left CrowdTangle\u2019s employees in stunned silence, was the result of a yearlong battle among <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/08\/20\/technology\/facebook-popular-posts.html\" title=\"\">Facebook<\/a> executives over data transparency, and how much the social network should reveal about its inner workings.<br \/>On one side were executives, including Mr. Silverman and Brian Boland, a <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/14\/technology\/facebook-vip-system.html\" title=\"\">Facebook<\/a> vice president in charge of partnerships strategy, who argued that Facebook should publicly share as much information as possible about what happens on its platform \u2014 good, bad or ugly.<br \/>On the other side were executives, including the company\u2019s chief marketing officer and vice president of analytics, Alex Schultz, who worried that Facebook was already giving away too much.<br \/>They argued that journalists and researchers were using CrowdTangle, a kind of turbocharged search engine that allows users to analyze Facebook trends and measure post performance, to dig up information they considered unhelpful \u2014 showing, for example, that right-wing commentators like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino were getting much more engagement on their Facebook pages than mainstream news outlets.<br \/>These executives argued that Facebook should selectively disclose its own data in the form of carefully curated reports, rather than handing outsiders the tools to discover it themselves.<br \/>Team Selective Disclosure won, and CrowdTangle and its supporters lost.<br \/>An internal battle over data transparency might seem low on the list of worthy Facebook investigations. And it\u2019s a column I\u2019ve hesitated to write for months, in part because I\u2019m uncomfortably close to the action. (More on that in a minute.)<br \/>But the CrowdTangle story is important, because it illustrates the way that Facebook\u2019s obsession with managing its reputation often gets in the way of its attempts to clean up its platform. And it gets to the heart of one of the central tensions confronting Facebook in the post-Trump era. The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public. But the more it shares about what happens on its platform, the more it risks exposing uncomfortable truths that could further damage its image. <br \/>The question of what to do about CrowdTangle has vexed some of Facebook\u2019s top executives for months, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former Facebook employees, as well as internal emails and posts.<br \/>These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook\u2019s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actually <em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">was<\/em> amplifying harmful content. Transparency, they said, ultimately took a back seat to image management.<br \/>Facebook disputes this characterization. It says that the CrowdTangle reorganization was meant to integrate the service with its other transparency tools, not weaken it, and that top executives are still committed to increasing transparency.<br \/>\u201cCrowdTangle is part of a growing suite of transparency resources we\u2019ve made available for people, including academics and journalists,\u201d said Joe Osborne, a Facebook spokesman. \u201cWith CrowdTangle moving into our integrity team, we\u2019re developing a more comprehensive strategy for how we build on some of these transparency efforts moving forward.\u201d<br \/>But the executives who pushed hardest for transparency appear to have been sidelined. Mr. Silverman, CrowdTangle\u2019s co-founder and chief executive, has been taking time off and no longer has a clearly defined role at the company, several people with knowledge of the situation said. (Mr. Silverman declined to comment about his status.) And Mr. Boland, who spent 11 years at Facebook, left the company in November.<br \/>\u201cOne of the main reasons that I left Facebook is that the most senior leadership in the company does not want to invest in understanding the impact of its core products,\u201d Mr. Boland said, in his first interview since departing. \u201cAnd it doesn\u2019t want to make the data available for others to do the hard work and hold them accountable.\u201d<br \/>Mr. Boland, who oversaw CrowdTangle as well as other Facebook transparency efforts, said the tool fell out of favor with influential Facebook executives around the time of last year\u2019s presidential election, when journalists and researchers used it to show that pro-Trump commentators were spreading misinformation and hyperpartisan commentary with stunning success.<br \/>\u201cPeople were enthusiastic about the transparency CrowdTangle provided until it became a problem and created press cycles Facebook didn\u2019t like,\u201d he said. \u201cThen, the tone at the executive level changed.\u201d<br \/>Here\u2019s where I, somewhat reluctantly, come in.<br \/>I started using CrowdTangle a few years ago. I\u2019d been looking for a way to see which news stories gained the most traction on Facebook, and CrowdTangle \u2014 a tool used mainly by audience teams at news publishers and marketers who want to track the performance of their posts \u2014 filled the bill. I figured out that through a kludgey workaround, I could use its search feature to rank Facebook link posts \u2014 that is, posts that include a link to a non-Facebook site \u2014 in order of the number of reactions, shares and comments they got. Link posts weren\u2019t a perfect proxy for news, engagement wasn\u2019t a perfect proxy for popularity and CrowdTangle\u2019s data was limited in other ways, but it was the closest I\u2019d come to finding a kind of cross-Facebook news leaderboard, so I ran with it.<br \/>At first, Facebook was happy that I and other journalists were finding its tool useful. With only about 25,000 users, CrowdTangle is one of Facebook\u2019s smallest products, but it has become a valuable resource for power users including global health organizations, election officials and digital marketers, and it has made Facebook look transparent compared with rival platforms like YouTube and TikTok, which don\u2019t release nearly as much data.<br \/>But the mood shifted last year when I started a Twitter account called <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/FacebooksTop10\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">@FacebooksTop10<\/a>, on which I posted a daily leaderboard showing the sources of the most-engaged link posts by U.S. pages, based on CrowdTangle data.<br \/>Last fall, the leaderboard was full of posts by Mr. Trump and pro-Trump media personalities. Since Mr. Trump was barred from Facebook in January, it has been dominated by a handful of right-wing polemicists like Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Bongino and Sean Hannity, with the occasional mainstream news article, cute animal story or K-pop fan blog sprinkled in.<br \/>The account went semi-viral, racking up more than 35,000 followers. Thousands of people retweeted the lists, including conservatives who were happy to see pro-Trump pundits beating the mainstream media and liberals who shared them with jokes like \u201cLook at all this conservative censorship!\u201d (If you\u2019ve been under a rock for the past two years, conservatives in the United States frequently complain that Facebook is censoring them.)<br \/>The lists also attracted plenty of Facebook haters. Liberals shared them as evidence that the company was a swamp of toxicity that needed to be broken up; progressive advertisers bristled at the idea that their content was appearing next to pro-Trump propaganda. The account was even cited at a congressional hearing on tech and antitrust by Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, who <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/WillOremus\/status\/1288594971369627648\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">said it proved<\/a> that \u201cif Facebook is out there trying to suppress conservative speech, they\u2019re doing a terrible job at it.\u201d<br \/>Inside Facebook, the account drove executives crazy. Some believed that the data was being misconstrued and worried that it was painting Facebook as a far-right echo chamber. Others worried that the lists might spook investors by suggesting that Facebook\u2019s U.S. user base was getting older and more conservative. Every time a tweet went viral, I got grumpy calls from Facebook executives who were embarrassed by the disparity between what they thought Facebook was \u2014 a clean, well-lit public square where civility and tolerance reign \u2014 and the image they saw reflected in the Twitter lists.<br \/>As the election approached last year, Facebook executives held meetings to figure out what to do, according to three people who attended them. They set out to determine whether the information on @FacebooksTop10 was accurate (it was), and discussed starting a competing Twitter account that would post more balanced lists based on Facebook\u2019s internal data.<br \/>They never did that, but several executives \u2014 including John Hegeman, the head of Facebook\u2019s news feed \u2014 were dispatched to argue with me on Twitter. These executives argued that my Top 10 lists were misleading. They said CrowdTangle measured only \u201cengagement,\u201d while the true measure of Facebook popularity would be based on \u201creach,\u201d or the number of people who actually see a given post. (With the exception of video views, reach data isn\u2019t public, and only Facebook employees and page owners have access to it.)<br \/>Last September, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook\u2019s chief executive, told Axios that while right-wing content garnered a lot of engagement, the idea that Facebook was a right-wing echo chamber was \u201cjust wrong.\u201d<br \/>\u201cI think it\u2019s important to differentiate that from, broadly, what people are seeing and reading and learning about on our service,\u201d Mr. Zuckerberg said.<br \/>But Mr. Boland, the former Facebook vice president, said that was a convenient deflection. He said that in internal discussions, Facebook executives were less concerned about the accuracy of the data than about the image of Facebook it presented.<br \/>\u201cIt told a story they didn\u2019t like,\u201d he said of the Twitter account, \u201cand frankly didn\u2019t want to admit was true.\u201d<br \/>Around the same time that Mr. Zuckerberg made his comments to Axios, the tensions came to a head. The Economist had just published <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.economist.com\/graphic-detail\/2020\/09\/10\/facebook-offers-a-distorted-view-of-american-news\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">an article<\/a> claiming that Facebook \u201coffers a distorted view of American news.\u201d<br \/>The article, which cited CrowdTangle data, showed that the most-engaged American news sites on Facebook were Fox News and Breitbart, and claimed that Facebook\u2019s overall news ecosystem skewed right wing. John Pinette, Facebook\u2019s vice president of global communications, emailed a link to the article to a group of executives with the subject line \u201cThe trouble with CrowdTangle.\u201d<br \/>\u201cThe Economist steps onto the Kevin Roose bandwagon,\u201d Mr. Pinette wrote. (See? Told you it was uncomfortably close to home.)<br \/><strong>A tech giant in trouble.<!-- --> <\/strong><span>The leak of internal documents by a former Facebook employee has provided <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/04\/technology\/facebook-files.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">an intimate look<\/a>\u00a0at the operations of the secretive social media company and renewed calls for better regulations of the company\u2019s wide reach into the lives of its users.<\/span><br \/><strong>How it began.<!-- --> <\/strong><span>In September, The Wall Street Journal published The Facebook Files, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/17\/business\/dealbook\/facebook-files-whistleblower.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">a series of reports based on leaked documents<\/a>. The series exposed evidence that Facebook, which on Oct. 28 assumed the corporate name of Meta, knew Instagram, one of its products <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/01\/technology\/facebook-instagram-teenagers.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">was worsening body-image issues among teenagers<\/a>.<\/span><br \/><strong>The whistle-blower.<!-- --> <\/strong><span>During an interview with \u201c60 Minutes\u201d that aired Oct. 3, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/03\/technology\/whistle-blower-facebook-frances-haugen.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">Frances Haugen, a Facebook product manager <\/a>who left the company in May, revealed that she was responsible for the leak of those internal documents.<\/span><br \/><strong>Ms. Haugen\u2019s testimony in Congress.<!-- --> <\/strong><span>On Oct. 5, Ms. Haugen <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/05\/technology\/what-happened-at-facebook-whistleblower-hearing.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">testified before a Senate subcommittee<\/a>, saying that Facebook was willing to use hateful and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/05\/technology\/haugen-facebook.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">harmful content<\/a>\u00a0on its site to keep users coming back. Facebook executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, called her accusations untrue.<\/span><br \/><strong>The Facebook Papers.<!-- --> <\/strong><span>Ms. Haugen also filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided the documents to Congress in redacted form. A congressional staff member then supplied the documents, known as the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/25\/business\/facebook-papers-takeaways.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">Facebook Papers<\/a>, to several news organizations, including The New York Times.<\/span><br \/><strong>New revelations.<!-- --> <\/strong><span>Documents from the Facebook Papers show the degree to which <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/22\/technology\/facebook-election-misinformation.html?action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc\">Facebook knew of extremist groups on its site<\/a>\u00a0trying to polarize American voters before the election. They also reveal that internal researchers had repeatedly determined how <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/25\/technology\/facebook-like-share-buttons.html?action=click&#038;action=click&#038;pgtype=Article&#038;state=default&#038;module=styln-facebook-meta&#038;variant=show&#038;region=MAIN_CONTENT_3&#038;block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc&#038;module=RelatedLinks&#038;pgtype=Article\">Facebook\u2019s key features<\/a>\u00a0amplified toxic content on the platform.<\/span><br \/>Nick Clegg, Facebook\u2019s vice president of global affairs, replied, lamenting that \u201cour own tools are helping journos to consolidate the wrong narrative.\u201d<br \/>Other executives chimed in, adding their worries that CrowdTangle data was being used to paint Facebook as a right-wing echo chamber.<br \/>David Ginsberg, Facebook\u2019s vice president of choice and competition, wrote that if Mr. Trump won re-election in November, \u201cthe media and our critics will quickly point to this \u2018echo chamber\u2019 as a prime driver of the outcome.\u201d<br \/>Fidji Simo, the head of the Facebook app at the time, agreed.<br \/>\u201cI really worry that this could be one of the worst narratives for us,\u201d she wrote.<br \/>Several executives proposed making reach data public on CrowdTangle, in hopes that reporters would cite that data instead of the engagement data they thought made Facebook look bad.<br \/>But Mr. Silverman, CrowdTangle\u2019s chief executive, replied in an email that the CrowdTangle team had already tested a feature to do that and found problems with it. One issue was that false and misleading news stories also rose to the top of <em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">those<\/em> lists.<br \/>\u201cReach leaderboard isn\u2019t a total win from a comms point of view,\u201d Mr. Silverman wrote.<br \/>Mr. Schultz, Facebook\u2019s chief marketing officer, had the dimmest view of CrowdTangle. He wrote that he thought \u201cthe only way to avoid stories like this\u201d would be for Facebook to publish its own reports about the most popular content on its platform, rather than releasing data through CrowdTangle.<br \/>\u201cIf we go down the route of just offering more self-service data you will get different, exciting, negative stories in my opinion,\u201d he wrote.<br \/>Mr. Osborne, the Facebook spokesman, said Mr. Schultz and the other executives were discussing how to correct misrepresentations of CrowdTangle data, not strategizing about killing off the tool.<br \/>A few days after the election in November, Mr. Schultz wrote a <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/about.fb.com\/news\/2020\/11\/what-do-people-actually-see-on-facebook-in-the-us\/\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">post for the company blog<\/a>, called \u201cWhat Do People Actually See on Facebook in the U.S.?\u201d He explained that if you ranked Facebook posts based on which got the most reach, rather than the most engagement \u2014 his preferred method of slicing the data \u2014 you\u2019d end up with a more mainstream, less sharply partisan list of sources.<br \/>\u201cWe believe this paints a more complete picture than the CrowdTangle data alone,\u201d he wrote.<br \/>That may be true, but there\u2019s a problem with reach data: Most of it is inaccessible and can\u2019t be vetted or fact-checked by outsiders. We simply have to trust that Facebook\u2019s own, private data tells a story that\u2019s very different from the data it shares with the public.<br \/>Mr. Zuckerberg is right about one thing: Facebook is not a giant right-wing echo chamber.<br \/>But it does <em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">contain<\/em> a giant right-wing echo chamber \u2014 a kind of AM talk radio built into the heart of Facebook\u2019s news ecosystem, with a hyper-engaged audience of loyal partisans who love liking, sharing and clicking on posts from right-wing pages, many of which have gotten good at serving up Facebook-optimized outrage bait at a consistent clip.<br \/>CrowdTangle\u2019s data made this echo chamber easier for outsiders to see and quantify. But it didn\u2019t create it, or give it the tools it needed to grow \u2014 Facebook did \u2014 and blaming a data tool for these revelations makes no more sense than blaming a thermometer for bad weather.<br \/>It\u2019s worth noting that these transparency efforts are voluntary, and could disappear at any time. There are no regulations that require Facebook or any other social media companies to reveal what content performs well on their platforms, and American politicians appear to be more interested in fighting over claims of censorship than getting access to better data.<br \/>It\u2019s also worth noting that Facebook can turn down the outrage dials and show its users calmer, less divisive news any time it wants. (In fact, it <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/11\/24\/technology\/facebook-election-misinformation.html\" title=\"\">briefly did so<\/a> after the 2020 election, when it worried that election-related misinformation could spiral into mass violence.) And there is some evidence that it is at least considering more permanent changes.<br \/>This year, Mr. Hegeman, the executive in charge of Facebook\u2019s news feed, asked a team to figure out how tweaking certain variables in the core news feed ranking algorithm would change the resulting Top 10 lists, according to two people with knowledge of the project.<br \/>The project, which some employees refer to as the \u201cTop 10\u201d project, is still underway, the people said, and it\u2019s unclear whether its findings have been put in place. Mr. Osborne, the Facebook spokesman, said that the team looks at a variety of ranking changes, and that the experiment wasn\u2019t driven by a desire to change the Top 10 lists.<br \/>As for CrowdTangle, the tool is still available, and Facebook is not expected to cut off access to journalists and researchers in the short term, according to two people with knowledge of the company\u2019s plans.<br \/>Mr. Boland, however, said he wouldn\u2019t be surprised if Facebook executives decided to kill off CrowdTangle entirely or starve it of resources, rather than dealing with the headaches its data creates.<br \/>\u201cFacebook would love full transparency if there was a guarantee of positive stories and outcomes,\u201d Mr. Boland said. \u201cBut when transparency creates uncomfortable moments, their reaction is often to shut down the transparency.\u201d<br \/>Advertisement<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/07\/14\/technology\/facebook-data.html\">source<\/a><\/p>\n<!--CusAds0-->\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>AdvertisementSupported byThe ShiftExecutives at the social network have clashed over CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned data tool that revealed users\u2019 high engagement levels with right-wing media sources.Send any friend a storyAs a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.By Kevin RooseOne day in April, the people behind CrowdTangle, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"googlesitekit_rrm_CAow1sXXCw:productID":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}