YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testifies before Congress | full video

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testifies before Congress | full video — Transcript

by CBS News · 39,641 words · 6,642 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00in the committee room must wear a mask
0:01at all times and be socially distant
0:05for members participating remotely your
0:07microphones will be set on mute for the
0:09purpose of eliminating inadvertent
0:11background noise
0:12members participating remotely will need
0:15to unmute your microphone each time you
0:17wish to speak
0:18please note that once you unmute your
0:20microphone anything that is said in
0:22webex will be heard over the
0:24loudspeakers in the committee room and
0:26subject to be heard by live stream and
0:28c-span since members are participating
0:31from different locations to days at
0:33today's hearing all recognition of
0:35members such as for questions will be in
0:38the order of subcommittee seniority
0:40documents for the record can be sent to
0:43joe orlando at the email address we
0:45provided to staff
0:46all documents will be entered into the
0:48record at the conclusion of the hearing
0:52we're now going to have opening
0:54statements uh the chair now recognizes
0:56himself for five minutes for an opening
0:58statement
1:00in august 2015
1:03wesley greer a young man who had been
1:05recovering from addiction
1:07went to a website seeking to purchase
1:09heroin
1:11this website's algorithm took users
1:13information to steer them to groups and
1:15individuals who had similar interest
1:18in wesley's case the website connected
1:20him to a drug dealer
1:22this dealer had been subject to multiple
1:24investigations by law enforcement due to
1:26his actions on this particular website
1:29after the website's algorithm steered
1:31wesley to this drug dealer's postings
1:34the two got into direct contact and
1:36wesley bought what he thought was heroin
1:38but in fact was a lethal dose of
1:41fentanyl
1:42wesley was found dead on august 19th
1:46in 2016 another young man matthew
1:48herrick ended an abusive relationship
1:52he soon realized that his ex had created
1:54a fake profile of him on a dating app
1:57this app's geo-targeting function and
2:00algorithm allowed other users to connect
2:02with this fake profile
2:04throughout this app through this app
2:06matthews x sent men to matthew's home
2:09and work with the expectation that they
2:12would be fulfilling his rape fantasy
2:14these traumatizing encounters
2:17matthew was followed home and into
2:19stairwells where he worked and accosted
2:21after a shift shook matthew both
2:23emotionally and professionally
2:26matthew repeatedly asked the app to
2:28remove the fake profile the app however
2:31did nothing
2:32wesley's family and matthew share
2:34something in common they were denied the
2:37basic opportunity to determine if these
2:39websites shared any legal blame along
2:42with the users who posted the content
2:45the question of whether the platform
2:47should be held liable the companies that
2:49developed the algorithms gathered the
2:51data and profited off the users was
2:54precluded by section 230.
2:57they might not have won but they never
2:59even had a chance to get their case
3:01tried
3:02these are just two instances of section
3:04230 locking the courthouse doors to
3:07people with real world injuries caused
3:09by online actions
3:11since i have chaired this subcommittee
3:13we have held multiple hearings on this
3:15issue we've heard from ceos of the
3:17largest tech platforms we've heard from
3:20small platforms we've heard from experts
3:22and we've heard from those most affected
3:25by these behaviors
3:27and these oversight activities didn't
3:28start with me though republicans have
3:30been investigating this issue as well
3:33they have a number of discussion drafts
3:35and bills they have introduced many of
3:37those ideas are worth exploring
3:40the concept of not providing immunity
3:42for platforms algorithms for example are
3:45in both the justice against malicious
3:47algorithms act that i've introduced and
3:50mrs mcnorris rogers discussion draft
3:53there's a bipartisan desire to reform
3:56the court's interpretation of section
3:58230 and the american public wants to see
4:01us get things done
4:03i urge all my colleagues republican and
4:05democratic to bring their ideas forward
4:08now and let's work together on
4:10bipartisan legislation because we can't
4:13continue to wait
4:15the largest tech companies would like
4:16nothing more than for congress to fight
4:20amongst itself while nothing happens and
4:22they welcome those complaining about
4:24process claiming that congress doesn't
4:27understand or saying that this would
4:29break the internet because these
4:31platforms don't want to be held
4:32accountable
4:34the users suffering harm deserve better
4:36from us and we will act
4:38but for the pandemic we would have some
4:41of these victims with us in the room
4:42today and while they cannot be here in
4:44person the family of wesley is watching
4:47today matthew herrick is watching today
4:50and the advocates for children and
4:52marginalized groups and victims rights
4:54are watching today
4:56to start today we will hear from experts
4:58about the harms we are seeing online and
5:01our second expert panel will focus on
5:04proposals to reform section 230. and in
5:07a little over a week chairwoman
5:09schakowsky will continue this series in
5:11her subcommittee reviewing legislation
5:13that can bring additional transparency
5:16and accountability for the problems we
5:18consider today i want to thank all our
5:20panelists for joining us and i look
5:22forward to their testimony
5:24and with that i yield the remainder of
5:26my time to congresswoman eshoo
5:29thank you mr chairman for yielding to me
5:31uh by way of background i was on the
5:34conference committee for the 1996
5:37telecom act
5:39and i continue to strongly believe in
5:41section 230's core
5:44benefit which is to protect user speech
5:47but algorithms select what content will
5:50appear personalized for each user the
5:53platform is then more than just a
5:56conduit transferring one user's speech
5:58to others
6:00platforms should not be immune from
6:02courts examining if algorithmic
6:05amplification causes harms and that's
6:08the core idea of the two bills i've
6:11co-led so thank you mr chairman for
6:14convening this highly important hearing
6:16uh and i yield back general lady yields
6:19back the chair now recognizes my good
6:21friend mr latta the ranking member for
6:23the subcommittee on communications and
6:25technology for five minutes for his
6:27opening statement well thank you my uh
6:29good friend and chairman i greatly
6:31appreciate it i also want to thank our
6:33witness panel for being here today to
6:35discuss the potential legislative
6:36reforms of section 230 of the
6:38communications decency act
6:40republicans on the energy and commerce
6:42committee are leading on ways to hold
6:44big tech com companies accountable for
6:47the harms caused by their platforms
6:49in january january we announced our big
6:52tech accountability platform which began
6:54our efforts to take a comprehensive look
6:56at ways to perform section 230.
6:59i am proud republicans have been focused
7:01on and remain focused on reconsidering
7:03the extent to which big tech deserves to
7:06retain their significant liability
7:07protections
7:09every step of the way we have encouraged
7:10our democratic democratic colleagues to
7:13join us in the quest to hold big tech
7:14accountable while evaluating how we can
7:16reform section 230.
7:19we saw input from the public on their
7:21concerns with big tech from stakeholders
7:23on ways to stop censorship while
7:25protecting small businesses and
7:27innovation and for members of congress
7:29on proposals that they have supported
7:32hearing from the public stakeholders and
7:33members of congress informed the
7:35discussion drafts that every republican
7:38on this committee released in july our
7:40discussion drafts range from amending
7:42section 230 to holding big tech
7:44accountable for taking down
7:46constitutionally protected speech and
7:48facilitating illegal drug sales to
7:51increasing transparency requirements on
7:53how social media companies moderate
7:55content
7:56section 230 became law in 1996 in
7:59response to several court cases most
8:01notably stratton oakmont versus prodigy
8:03services
8:04to allow online platforms to moderate
8:07unlawful or indecent content without
8:09fear of liability
8:11it has two main components a provision
8:13that exempts platforms for being liable
8:15for content that is posted on their site
8:17by a third-party user
8:19and a second provision that exempts
8:22platforms from being liable for content
8:24that they remove in good faith the
8:26internet has grown substantially since
8:281996 and it is clear big tech has abused
8:31this power granted to them by enter the
8:33event panelist numero password followed
8:35by pound
8:39they censor conservative voices and use
8:41algorithms to suppress content that does
8:43not fit their narrative
8:44they hide research that shows the
8:46negative impact their platforms have on
8:48the mental health of our children
8:50they allow the sale of illegal drugs on
8:52their platforms including fentanyl which
8:54we all know is killing americans every
8:56day
8:57while these actions are happening on big
8:59tech platforms users have no recourse
9:02when conservatives are silenced the
9:04appeals process if it exists can be
9:06difficult to navigate big tech hides
9:09behind section 230 to avoid liability
9:11for real world harms their platforms are
9:14causing including harms to our children
9:17section 230 is supposed to protect
9:19platforms for removing content and good
9:21faith but says nothing about their
9:22liability for when they are acting as
9:24bad stewards of their platforms
9:27to address this issue i've authored a
9:30carve-out section 230 protections for
9:32platforms that proposedly
9:35solicit or purposely purposely promote
9:38solicit or facilitate material by
9:40another information content provider if
9:42the platform knew or had reason to know
9:45that the kind of intent would violate
9:46criminal federal law
9:48when big tech acts as bad stewards on
9:50their platforms or as bad samaritans
9:52they should no longer be entitled to
9:54protections under section 230.
9:56we will also discuss legislation notice
9:58on today's hearing which i am concerned
10:00could lead to unattended consequences
10:02like curtailing free speech and
10:04innovation
10:05section 230 reform must be taken
10:07seriously and any legislative proposal
10:09that eventually gets enacted must be
10:11thoroughly vetted
10:13we're at pivotal time for free speech in
10:15america as our generation's turn to
10:17uphold the rights of on which our
10:19country was founded i look forward to
10:21hearing feedback from the witnesses on
10:23the proposals in front of us today and
10:25before i yield back
10:26mr chairman i'd ask the unanimous
10:28consent that dr burgess
10:31who's not a member of the subcommittee
10:33but a distinguished member of the full
10:34committee be able to wave on to the
10:35committee
10:38thank you very much and with that mr
10:39chairman i yield back the balance of my
10:41time
10:42gentlemen yields back chair now
10:43recognizes mr pallone for five minutes
10:46for his opening statement
10:48thank you chairman doyle today's hearing
10:50is the first of two in which this
10:52committee will discuss legislative
10:54reforms to hold social media companies
10:56accountable and we have two panels today
10:58the first will focus on the insidious
11:00problems from which some social media
11:02platforms online are profiting and the
11:05second we'll consider how reforms to
11:07section 230 of the communications
11:09decency act can play a part in
11:10addressing those problems and then next
11:13week in a consumer protection and
11:14commerce subcommittee hearing we'll
11:16discuss how consumer protection focused
11:18proposals can increase these companies
11:20accountability to the public
11:22now these two legislative hearings come
11:24after years of repeated bipartisan calls
11:26for online platforms to change their
11:28ways since 2018 we've held six hearings
11:31examining tech platforms accountability
11:34and our members have sent countless
11:35letters the most prominent online
11:37platforms have repeatedly feigned
11:39ignorance before this committee but our
11:41suspicions unfortunately have been
11:43repeatedly confirmed the latest coming
11:45from former facebook employee francis
11:47haugen we learned how the platforms
11:49downplayed research that teen girls were
11:51especially vulnerable and suffering
11:53online we've learned how executives knew
11:56their algorithms amplify harmful and
11:58divisive content and rejected proposals
12:00to fix the issue we've seen a pattern of
12:03platforms highlighting covet 19 in
12:05misinformation conspiracy theories and
12:07divisiveness we've learned that during a
12:09civil rights audit one platform failed
12:11to disclose that its algorithms
12:13disproportionately harm minority groups
12:16for years now these platforms have acted
12:18above the law and outside the reach of
12:19regulators and the public and its time
12:21and it's a time for change in my opinion
12:24the legal protections provided by
12:26section 230 of the communications
12:28decency act have played a role in that
12:30lack of accountability by stopping
12:32victims from having their cases heard in
12:34one recently filed suit a video chatting
12:37platform that is commonly used to engage
12:38in online sex between users paired a
12:41young girl with a middle-aged man he
12:43convinced her to send nude photos and
12:45videos of herself including by
12:47blackmailing her this man forced her to
12:49engage in sexual performances for
12:51himself and his friends and even to
12:53recruit others and based on court
12:55precedent section 230 may very well
12:57threaten justice for this young girl and
13:00i hope it does not because the platform
13:02was responsible for pairing the young
13:04girl with the middle-aged man now judges
13:06and a whole host of diverse interests
13:08including many of our witnesses have
13:10suggested that courts may have
13:12interpreted section 230 more broadly
13:14than congress intended and averged
13:16reform to be clear section 230 is
13:18critically important to promoting a
13:20vibrant and free internet but i agree
13:22with those who suggest the courts have
13:24allowed it to stray too far judge
13:26katzman the late chief judge of the
13:27second circuit brought some clarity to
13:29this issue in his dissent in force
13:31versus facebook he stated that section
13:33230 does not and should not bar relief
13:35when the plaintiff brings a claim that
13:37is based not on the content of the
13:38information shown but rather on the
13:40connections that platforms algorithms
13:42make between individuals of course that
13:45was not the court's ruling in that case
13:46and a challenge for us is to clarify the
13:48statute if the courts don't while
13:51ensuring that we balance the status good
13:52against the pain it inflicts so today
13:55we'll consider four proposals that would
13:57amend or clarify section 230 to protect
13:59users while promoting open and free
14:01online dialogue these bills do not
14:03impose liability on the platforms and do
14:05not directly restrict the content that
14:07platforms make available they simply
14:09limit the section 230 protections in
14:12certain circumstances including when
14:14platforms use algorithms to amplify
14:16certain content and these targeted
14:18proposals for reform are intend to
14:19balance the benefits of vibrant free
14:21expression online while ensuring that
14:23platforms cannot hide behind section 230
14:26when their business practices
14:27meaningfully contribute to real harm now
14:30i have to say i'm disappointed that my
14:31republican colleagues chose not to
14:33introduce the discussion drafts they
14:35released in july so that they could be
14:37included in today's hearing in order to
14:39actually pass legislation that will
14:41begin to hold these platforms
14:42accountable we must work together and i
14:44urge my colleagues not to close the door
14:46on bipartisanship for an issue that is
14:48so critical because after all i believe
14:51there is more than unites us than
14:52divides us on clarifying section 230 for
14:55example
14:56ranking member rogers discussion draft
14:58includes a provision similar to my
15:00justice against malicious algorithms act
15:02and that her proposal would clarify that
15:04section 230 immunity does not apply to
15:07algorithmic recommendations while the
15:09proposals aren't identical this is a
15:12place for us to start what i hope could
15:14be bipartisan work
15:16i just want to say one more thing mr
15:17chairman you know the real problem i see
15:19is that big tech's primary focus is to
15:22make money and i know we have a market
15:24economy and that's always a company's
15:26primary purpose but they give the
15:28impression to the public that they care
15:29about content values and have a social
15:32purpose that somehow they care about
15:34consumers of the first amendment and
15:37they have and that you know they have
15:38some value to the consumer or to the
15:40public and i hope that continues to be
15:43true but if it is then they should be
15:45held accountable to achieve these goals
15:47you can't go out and say i'm not
15:49primarily focused on making money i want
15:51to help people but then not be
15:53accountable for these bad actions so i
15:55just wanted to mention that thank you mr
15:57chairman gentleman yields back
15:59cheer now recognizes mrs rogers for five
16:02minutes for her opening statement
16:04thank you mr chairman good morning
16:07big tech companies have not been good
16:09stewards of their platforms i've been
16:11pretty clear with all the the ceos
16:14big tech has broken my trust
16:16big tech has failed to uphold the
16:18fundamental american principle free
16:20speech and expression
16:22big tech platforms like twitter and
16:24facebook used to provide a promising
16:26platform for free speech and robust
16:28debates but they no longer operate as
16:30public squares
16:32they do not promote the battle of ideas
16:35they actively work against it they shut
16:38down free speech and censor any
16:41viewpoint that does not fit their
16:43liberal ideology
16:45and big tech has exploited and harmed
16:47our children
16:49in our march hearing with the ceos i
16:51asked the big tech companies why they
16:52deserve liability protections congress
16:54provided for them more than 20 years ago
16:58unfortunately their behavior has not
17:00improved and we only have more examples
17:03of them being poor stewards of their
17:05platforms
17:07big tech has abused its power
17:10by defining what is true
17:12what we should believe what we should
17:14think and controlling what we need
17:17it's wrong
17:19destroying free speech is what happens
17:21in authoritarian countries behind the
17:23great chinese firewall here in america
17:25we believe in the
17:27we believe in dialogue
17:29we believe in the battle of ideas we
17:31defend the battle of ideas and we used
17:33to fight to protect our fundamental
17:35principles
17:37rather than censor and silence speech
17:40the answer should be more speech that's
17:42the american way
17:44big tech should not be the arbiters of
17:46truth
17:48not for me my community our children or
17:51any american
17:53today we should be focused on solutions
17:54that hold big tech accountable
17:57for how they sense censor
17:59allow and promote illegal content and
18:02knowingly endanger our children
18:04it's wrong for anyone to use this
18:06opportunity
18:07to push for more censorship more power
18:11and more control over what they
18:13determine americans should say
18:15post
18:16think
18:17and do
18:19which is why i'm deeply troubled by the
18:21path before us
18:23it's calling for more censorship one of
18:25the bills before us today the justice
18:27against malicious algorithms act
18:30is a thinly veiled attempt to pressure
18:32companies to censor more speech
18:34the proposal will put companies on the
18:36hook for any content an algorithm
18:39amplifies or recommends that contributes
18:42to quote severe emotional injury of any
18:45person
18:47how does the bill define severe
18:48emotional injury
18:50it doesn't
18:52clearly companies will have to decide
18:54between leaving up content that may
18:56offend someone or fight it in court or
18:59censor content that reaches a user
19:02which do you think that they will choose
19:04and there's no doubt who they will
19:06silence
19:08content that does not line up with their
19:11liberal ideology
19:13while the section 230 bill before us
19:15today pushes for more censorship
19:18we believe republicans are fighting for
19:20free speech in january we rolled out our
19:23big tech accountability platform that
19:24made clear we will protect free speech
19:27and robust debates on big tech platforms
19:30and we've been working hard since then
19:32today we will discuss a number of
19:34proposals that reform section 230. my
19:37proposal which i'm leading along with my
19:38good friend congressman jim jordan
19:41narrowly amends
19:42section 230 to protect free speech
19:45small businesses and startups will not
19:47be impacted by our bill we remove the
19:49largest big tech companies from existing
19:52230 protections and put them under their
19:54own set of rules
19:56under this proposal big tech will be
19:58held accountable for censoring
20:00constitutionally protected speech
20:02big tech will no longer be able to
20:04exploit the ambiguity and discretion we
20:06see in the current law
20:08big tech will be more responsible for
20:10content that they choose to amplify
20:12promote or suggest
20:14big tech will be forced to be
20:15transparent about their content
20:17decisions and conservatives will be
20:19empowered to challenge big tech
20:21censorship decisions
20:23amending 230 alone is not enough which
20:25is why we are taking an all-of-the-above
20:27approach
20:28which includes increasing transparency
20:30and also holding big tech accountable
20:33for how they intentionally manipulate
20:36and harm children
20:38for their own bottom line
20:40while there's agreement on the need to
20:41hold big tech accountable with this
20:43section 230 reforms it's clear there are
20:46drastically different approaches and
20:48solutions i look forward to hearing from
20:50the witnesses today and i yield back
20:54general lady yields back chair would
20:56like to remind members that pursuant to
20:58committee rules all members written
21:00opening statements shall be made part of
21:02the record
21:03so now i'd like to introduce our
21:04witnesses for today's first panel
21:07miss francis haugen former facebook
21:10employee
21:11mr james steyer founder and ceo of
21:13common sense media
21:15miss cara frederick research fellow in
21:17technology policy
21:19heritage foundation and mr rashad
21:22robinson president of the color of
21:24change
21:25we want to thank our witnesses for
21:27joining us today
21:29we look forward to your testimony i do
21:31understand that we will lose mr steyer
21:33for about 10 minutes at 11 30 so i would
21:36encourage members to be conscious of
21:38that i understand he will be back at 11
21:4140 and of course members may always
21:43submit questions for the record
21:45at this time the chair will recognize
21:47each witness for five minutes to provide
21:49their opening statement before we begin
21:52i would like to explain the lighting
21:53system in front of our witnesses as a
21:56series of lights the light will turn
21:58initially be green it will turn yellow
22:00when you have a minute remaining please
22:02begin to wrap up your testimony at that
22:04point the light will turn red when your
22:06time expires so let's get started uh
22:08miss hoggin you are now recognized for
22:10five minutes
22:14subcommittee chairman doyle ranking
22:16member lada members of the committee
22:19thank you for the opportunity to appear
22:21before you today
22:22my name is francis haugen i used to work
22:25at facebook
22:26i joined the company because i believe
22:28facebook has the potential to bring out
22:30the best in us
22:31but i'm here today because i believe
22:33that facebook's products harm children
22:36stoke division in our communities
22:38threaten our democracy weaken our
22:40national security and much more
22:42facebook is a company that is paid for
22:44its immense profits with our safety
22:48and security i am honored to be here
22:50today to share what i know and i am
22:52grateful for the level of scrutiny these
22:54issues are getting i hope we can stay
22:57focused on the real harms to real people
23:00rather than talk in abstractions
23:02this is about the teenagers whose mental
23:04health is undermined by instagram and is
23:06about their parents and teachers who are
23:08struggling to deal with the consequences
23:10of that harm
23:11it is about the doctors and nurses who
23:13have to cope with conspiracies about
23:15covid19 and vaccines
23:17it's about people who have suffered
23:19harassment online
23:21it is about families at home and around
23:23the world who live in places where hate
23:26fear and conflict have been ratcheted up
23:28to a fever pitch amongst
23:30as a result of online radicalization
23:33facebook may not be the cause of all
23:34these problems but the company has
23:36unquestionably made them worse
23:38facebook knows what is happening on the
23:40platform and they have systematically
23:42under invested in fighting these those
23:44harms
23:45they know they do far too little about
23:48it in fact they have incentives for it
23:50to be this way
23:51and that is what has to change
23:54facebook will not change until the
23:56incentives change
23:58the company's leadership knows how to
24:00make facebook and instagram safer
24:02but they repeatedly chose to ignore the
24:05these options and continue to put their
24:06profits before people
24:08they can change the name of the company
24:10but unless they change the products they
24:12will continue to damage the health and
24:13safety of our communities and threaten
24:15the entire integrity of our democracies
24:18there have been many others sounding the
24:19same alarm this committee has heard from
24:22many experts in recent years
24:24they have done the painstaking work of
24:25documenting these harms and have been
24:27repeatedly gas-lit by facebook about
24:29what they found
24:30my disclosures back up their findings we
24:33have long known that facebook's business
24:35model is problematic now we have the
24:37evidence to prove it
24:38the documents i have shared with
24:40congress speak for themselves
24:42what i have to say about these documents
24:44is grounded in far more than my
24:45experience at facebook i have worked as
24:48a product manager at large tech
24:49companies since 2006 including google
24:52pinterest yelp and facebook my job has
24:55largely focused on algorithmic products
24:57like google plus search and
24:58recommendation systems like the one that
25:00powers facebook news feed
25:02i know my way around these products and
25:04i've watched them evolve over the many
25:06years
25:07working at four major tech companies
25:10that operate different types of social
25:11networks has given me the perspective to
25:13compare and contrast how each company
25:15approaches and deals with different
25:17challenges
25:18the choices being made by facebook's
25:19leadership are a huge problem for our
25:21children for our communities and for our
25:23democracy that's why i came forward
25:27and let's be clear it doesn't have to be
25:29this way they can make different choices
25:32we are here today because of deliberate
25:34choices facebook has made during my time
25:36at the company first working as the lead
25:38product manager for civic misinformation
25:40and later on counter-espionage i saw
25:43that facebook repeatedly encountered
25:44conflicts between its own profits and
25:46our safety
25:47management consistently resolved those
25:49conflicts in favor of its own profits
25:52i want to be extremely clear
25:55this is not about good ideas or bad
25:57ideas or good people and bad people
26:00facebook has hidden from you the
26:02countless ways to make the platform
26:04itself safer so you don't that and that
26:06don't require anyone to pick and choose
26:08what ideas are good
26:10but facebook hid these options from you
26:12because the status quo made them more
26:14money
26:15we're having a conflict over over things
26:18that we could solve in other ways that
26:19don't
26:20compromise speech
26:22facebook wants you to have analysis
26:24paralysis to get stuck in false choices
26:26and not act here
26:27facebook does not have safety by design
26:30and it chooses every day to run the
26:32system hot because it maximizes their
26:34profit the result is a system that
26:36amplifies division extremism and
26:38polarization
26:39facebook is running the show whether we
26:41know it or not
26:43facebook's choices have led to
26:44disastrous ends in too many cases
26:46facebook's amplification promotes
26:48violence that harms and even kills
26:50people
26:51in other cases facebook's profit
26:52optimizing machine is generating
26:54self-harm and self-hate especially for
26:56vulnerable groups like teenage girls the
26:59socially isolated and the recently
27:01widowed
27:02no one is held accountable
27:04these problems have been confirmed
27:05repeatedly by facebook's own internal
27:07research secrets that do not see the
27:09light of day this is not simply a matter
27:12of some social media users being angry
27:14or unstable
27:15facebook has made a one trillion dollar
27:18company by paying for its profits with
27:20our safety including the safety of our
27:21children and that is unacceptable
27:25this committee's attention this
27:26congress's action are critical the
27:29public deserves further investigation
27:31and action to protect customers on
27:33several fronts
27:35uh first given that platforms like
27:37facebook have become the new cyber
27:39security attack surface on the united
27:41states our national security demands uh
27:44demands more oversight
27:45second we should be concerned about how
27:47facebook's products are used to
27:48influence vulnerable populations
27:50third we must correct the broken
27:52incentive system that perpetuates
27:54consistent misalignment between
27:56facebook's decisions ms hogan you need
27:58to wrap up your statement okay
28:00um okay i'll skip forward um
28:04as you consider uh reforms to section
28:07230 i i encourage you to to move forward
28:09with your eyes open
28:11to the consequences of reform
28:13congress has instituted carveouts of
28:15section 230 in recent years i encourage
28:18you to talk to human rights advocates
28:19who can help provide context on how the
28:21last reform of 230 had dramatic impacts
28:23on the safety of some some of the most
28:25vulnerable people in our society but has
28:27been rarely used for its original
28:28purpose last last thing uh they should
28:31consult with international human right
28:33the international human rights community
28:35who have seen firsthand how
28:36authoritarian authoritarian governments
28:38around the world can weaponize
28:40reductions in inter intermediary
28:42liability and silence descent there is a
28:44lot at stake here you have a once in a
28:46generation opportunity to create new
28:48rules for our online world
28:50i came forward at great personal risk
28:52because i believe we still have time to
28:53act but we must act now thank you thank
28:56you um
28:59we we we're going to try to adhere to
29:01the five-minute roll this is a very
29:02important topic and and so i wanted to
29:04give
29:05the speakers some leeway and we'll have
29:07time to ask questions but uh thank you
29:09very much mr steyer uh you are
29:11recognized for five minutes
29:23do we have mr steyer remotely
29:29please
29:30thank you very much
29:32hey there you go
29:34thank you very much chairman pallone
29:35chairman doyle ranking member uh rogers
29:38and ranking member lada um and all the
29:40distinguished subcommittee members this
29:41is really a privilege and an honor to
29:43testify in front of you today um i am
29:45james p steyer i'm the founder and ceo
29:47of common sense media the nation's
29:50leading children's media and
29:52non-partisan advocacy organization
29:54as many of you know we have well over
29:56100 million unique users over 110 000
29:58member schools definitely in all of your
30:01districts and we are a non-partisan
30:03powerful voice for kids and families
30:05here in this country and the fact that
30:07you're having this hearing is actually
30:09remarkable and important the other thing
30:11i would say is i'm the father of four
30:13kids so i've lived through over the past
30:1520 years the evolution of this
30:17extraordinary tech
30:19uh society that we've all lived through
30:21and over the last nearly two years the
30:24pandemic where my kids have been going
30:26to school online and distance learning
30:28so as a parent i see these issues and
30:30i'd also
30:31mention because i know the first
30:32amendment will come up that i've been a
30:33professor at stanford for over 30 years
30:36teaching first amendment law so i'd be
30:37happy to speak to some of those issues
30:39as well as they intersect with some of
30:41the 230 issues
30:42ten years ago i wrote a book called
30:44talking back to facebook uh the heads of
30:47the company at that point that ms hogan
30:50just spoke about literally uh threatened
30:52to block the publication the book part
30:55of the reason was there was a chapter in
30:56there about girls and boys body image
30:59and the impact of social media platforms
31:01on body image and obviously 10 years ago
31:04the heads of that company who i have met
31:06with repeatedly
31:08knew that there were issues and so when
31:10francis halligan came forward uh
31:12recently to talk about additional
31:14research that they know it merely just
31:16shows you that not just facebook but all
31:19of the major tech companies are aware of
31:21the impact of their platforms on our
31:24society the key is we are now at a
31:27watershed moment and you have mentioned
31:29this in your opening statements but it
31:31is true we have literally been
31:34over a decade without major reforms for
31:37these companies and we've assumed that
31:38in some cases they would self-police or
31:40self-regulate well that's not true and
31:43the record is clear so the bipartisan
31:46leadership of this committee could not
31:48be more important and could not come at
31:50a more important time and i would argue
31:53that in the next three to six months the
31:55most important legislation including
31:57some of the legislation that this
31:59subcommittee is considering today
32:01will move forward and will finally put
32:04the guardrails on that america's
32:05children and families deserved um
32:08we all know that kids and teens are
32:10uniquely vulnerable online because their
32:12brains are still developing they are
32:14prone to over sharing uh they're not
32:16equipped to think through all the
32:18consequences of what they do and they're
32:20spending more time online than ever
32:22before
32:22so even though kids get a tremendous
32:25amount of benefits from the internet and
32:27from social media platforms it's
32:29absolutely clear that we have to
32:31regulate them thoughtfully and carefully
32:34and the moment is now and congress has a
32:37responsibility to kids and families in
32:40this country to act
32:41my written testimony will give you more
32:42examples but just a handful of
32:45details that i think
32:46we should all remember when we think
32:48about the impact of social media
32:51platforms on kids and families and
32:52therefore the relevance of section 230
32:55and other laws first
32:57platforms drag kids down rabbit holes um
33:00they have led to issues like eating
33:01disorders body dysmorphia suicide
33:04ideation and more we could tell you
33:06stories uh as some of our opening
33:08statements as some of you've done
33:10european statements of of individual
33:12kids who've committed suicide or gone
33:14through extraordinary challenges as a
33:16result of these platforms and their
33:19harmful content they literally feed off
33:21kids teens desire and teens desire to be
33:23accepted through their likes and their
33:25follows and they enable sometimes
33:28harmful comment virally so
33:31the bottom line is you have this
33:33bipartisan consensus with well over 100
33:36million members common sense is out
33:37there in the field every day talking to
33:39families this is not a republican issue
33:41this is not a democratic issue this is
33:43an american family issue and you have
33:46the opportunity to
33:48do something very very important now and
33:51this is the time to act
33:52look miss haugen talked about the ways
33:55in which facebook has acted with
33:57impunity for decades um reforming
33:59section 230 is clearly one big piece of
34:02the puzzle but i would add that there
34:04must be a more comprehensive approach
34:06you cannot just deal with section 230 we
34:08also have to deal with uh privacy issues
34:12and other related issues they're all one
34:14big comprehensive package so the hearing
34:16next week will also be critically
34:18important and passing revised copper and
34:21the kids acting out the things will
34:22matter the bottom line is
34:25our kids and our families well-being is
34:27at stake you have the power to improve
34:30that and change that the moment is here
34:33bless you for taking this on and let's
34:35move forward together on a bipartisan
34:37basis thank you very much thank you mr
34:39star
34:40uh chair now recognizes miss frederick
34:43for five minutes
34:46chairs doyle and pallone ranking members
34:48lotta and mcmorris rogers distinguished
34:50members
34:51thank you for the opportunity to testify
34:53today
34:54i too used to work at facebook
34:57i joined the company after three tours
34:59in afghanistan helping special
35:00operations forces target al qaeda
35:03because i believed in facebook's mission
35:05as well
35:07the democratization of information
35:10but i was wrong
35:11it's 2021 and the verdict is in
35:15big tech is an enemy of the people
35:18it is time all independently minded
35:20citizens recognize this
35:23so what makes this moment different
35:25traditional gatekeepers of information
35:28corporate media
35:29the academy
35:30various organs of the culture are
35:32captured by the left
35:34as the past year has borne out big tech
35:37companies like google facebook twitter
35:39and amazon
35:40are not afraid to exercise their power
35:42in the service of this ideology
35:45big tech companies they tell us not to
35:47believe our lying eyes that viewpoint
35:50censorship is all in our heads
35:52tell that to the gold star mom who
35:54criticized biden's afghanistan
35:55withdrawal and was deleted by facebook
35:58after the death of her son a u.s marine
36:01tell that to ali best stuckey who had
36:03the temerity to say that biological men
36:06should not compete in women's sports
36:08before being suspended by twitter
36:11tell that to clarence thomas whose
36:12documentary on amazon was deleted
36:15without explanation
36:17beyond these examples which are legion
36:20the confluence of evidence is
36:21irrefutable
36:23twitter and facebook censor republican
36:25members of congress at a rate of 53 to 1
36:29compared to democrats twitter suspends
36:31conservatives 21 times more often than
36:34liberals
36:35facebook created two internal tools in
36:37the aftermath of trump's 2016 victory
36:40that suppressed right-wing content media
36:42traffic and reach on its platform
36:45google stifled conservative leaning
36:47outlets like the daily caller breitbart
36:49and the federalist during the 2020
36:51election season with breitbart search
36:53visibility shrinking by 99 percent
36:56compared to the 2016 election cycle
36:59apple dumped the conservative friendly
37:01parlor app as a sata topics app store
37:03google and amazon web services did so as
37:06well
37:07and these practices have distinct
37:09political effects
37:10the media research center found in 2020
37:13that one in six biden voters claimed
37:15they would have modified their vote had
37:17they been aware of information that was
37:18actively suppressed by tech companies
37:2152 percent of americans believe social
37:24media suppression of the hunter biden
37:25laptop story constituted election
37:28interference
37:30these practices erode our culture of
37:32free speech
37:33chill open discourse and engender
37:35self-censorship
37:37all while the taliban the chinese
37:39communist party and iranian officials
37:41spew their bile and genocidal rhetoric
37:43on american-owned platforms
37:46big tech is also working hand in glove
37:48with the government to do its bidding
37:51jen saki admitted from the white house
37:53podium that the government is
37:54communicating with facebook to single
37:55out accounts and posts for censorship
37:58and that's just what she admitted out
37:59loud
38:00the outlook is grim
38:02a lack of accountability and the
38:03sweeping immunity conferred on big tech
38:05by broad interpretations of section 230
38:08has emboldened these companies to abuse
38:09their concentrations of power constrict
38:12the digital lives of those who express
38:14specific political views and sharpen
38:16digital surveillance on ordinary
38:18americans
38:19just look at apple's now paused plans to
38:21scan the content directly on your
38:23personal device starting with iphotos
38:26put simply big tech companies are not
38:29afraid of the american people and
38:30they're not afraid of meaningful checks
38:32on their abuse of power and it shows
38:35yet we should be wary of calls to
38:37further suppress content based on
38:38politically expedient definitions of
38:40misinformation
38:42clearly this definition is in the eye of
38:44the beholder
38:45the wuhan labley theory comes to mind
38:47so let the whistleblower docs speak for
38:49themselves
38:50holding big tech accountable should
38:51result in less censorship not more
38:55in fact the first amendment should be
38:56the standard from which all section 230
38:59reforms flow
39:00despite what the new twitter ceo might
39:02think american lawmakers have a duty to
39:05protect and defend the rights given to
39:07us by god
39:09and enshrined in our constitution by the
39:11founders
39:12rights that specific tech companies in
39:14conjunction with the government are
39:16actively and deliberately eroding
39:18the argument that private companies do
39:20not bear free speech responsibilities
39:22ignores overt collaboration between the
39:24government and big tech companies
39:26working together to stifle free
39:28expression
39:29most importantly section 230 reform is
39:32not a silver bullet we have to look
39:34outside of dc for answers states civil
39:37societies and tech founders all have a
39:39role to play here
39:41we cannot let tech totalitarians shape a
39:43digital world where one set of thinkers
39:45are second-class citizens the window of
39:48opportunity to do something is closing
39:52thank you miss frederick chair now
39:54recognizes mr robinson for five minutes
39:58chair pallone chair doyle ranking member
40:00mcmorris rogers ranking member lotta
40:03thank you for having me here today i am
40:05rashad robinson president of color of
40:07change the uh the nation's largest
40:09online racial justice organization i
40:12also co-chaired the aspen institute's
40:14commission on information disorder which
40:16just released our comprehensive set of
40:17recommendations for effectively tackling
40:20misinformation and disinformation i want
40:22to thank this committee and its leaders
40:24for your work introducing the justice
40:26against malicious algorithm act the safe
40:28tech act the civil rights modernization
40:30act and the protecting americans from
40:32dangerous algorithms act each one is
40:35essential for reducing the tech
40:36industry's harmful effects on our lives
40:39congress is rightly called to major
40:41action when an industry's business model
40:43is at odds with the public interest when
40:45it generates its greatest profits only
40:48by causing the greatest harms
40:50big tech corporations like facebook
40:52amazon and google maintain near total
40:54control over all three areas of online
40:57life online commerce online content and
41:00online social connection to keep control
41:04they lie about the effects of their
41:05products just like big tobacco lies
41:08about the deaths their products cause
41:10they lie to the public they lie to
41:12regulators and they lie to you mark
41:14zuckerberg lied to me personally more
41:16than once it's time to make the truth
41:18louder than their lies but skip the part
41:21where we wait 40 years to do it
41:24the most important first step is
41:26something we have more control over than
41:28we think
41:29and that is drawing a bright clear line
41:31between fake solutions and real
41:33solutions
41:35big tech would love for congress to pass
41:37laws that mimic their own corporate
41:39policies
41:40fake solutions that are ineffective
41:41designed to protect nothing more than
41:43their profits and their power
41:45and we can't let that happen we know
41:48it's a fake solution if we're letting
41:50them blame the victims by shifting the
41:52burden of solving these problems to
41:53consumers because consumer literacy or
41:56use of technology is not the problem the
41:58problem is corporations design of
42:00technology and that is what we need to
42:02regulate if we're pretending that
42:04colorblind policies will solve problems
42:06that have everything to do with race
42:08because algorithms advertisers
42:10moderators and bad advertisers are
42:12targeting black people and we don't get
42:15closer to the solution by backing away
42:17from that problem if we're putting trust
42:20in anything big tech corporations say
42:22because it's a lie that self-regulation
42:25is anything other than complete
42:27non-regulation and it's a lie that this
42:30is about free speech when the real issue
42:32is regulating deceptive and manipulative
42:34content consumer exploitation calls to
42:37violence and discriminatory products
42:39section 230 is not here to nullify 60
42:43years of civil rights and consumer
42:44safety law no matter what any
42:46billionaire from silicon valley comes
42:48here to tell you
42:49there are three ways to know we are
42:51heading towards real solutions laws and
42:54regulations must be crystal clear big
42:56tech corporations are responsible and
42:58liable for the damages and violations of
43:00people's rights and they not that they
43:02not only enable but outright encourage
43:05that requires well-vetted and targeted
43:08amendments to section 230. you are
43:10responsible for what you sell big tech
43:13corporations sell content that is their
43:15main product congress must allow judges
43:18juries regulators and government
43:19enforcers to do their jobs to determine
43:22what's hurting people and stop it and
43:24hold the responsible parties liable
43:27responsibility without accountability
43:29isn't responsibility at all congress
43:32must enable proper enforcement i want to
43:34applaud this committee for ensuring that
43:36the bill back better legislation
43:38includes funding for the ftc
43:40the next step is making sure the ftc
43:42hires staff with true civil rights
43:44expertise
43:46laws and regulations must be crystal
43:48clear big tech products must be subject
43:50to regulatory scrutiny and approval
43:52before they release onto the public and
43:54hurt people just like a drug formula
43:56should be approved by the fda tech
43:58products need to pass inspection an
44:00independent auditing process that
44:02exposes what they would like to hide
44:05but regulators can't fall for shifting
44:07the burden and blame to consumers the
44:09lie that we simply need to put more
44:11control in the hands of users is like
44:13stacking our supermarket shelves with
44:15poison and expiring food and then saying
44:17we are simply giving consumers more
44:19choice
44:20finally congress must take anti-trust
44:23action seriously with big tech ending
44:25their massive concentration of power is
44:27necessary condition to ending the major
44:30damage they cause
44:31the right approach is not complicated if
44:34we make the internet safe for those who
44:37are being hurt the most
44:39it automatically makes the system safe
44:41for everyone and that that is why i'm
44:44here because big tech puts black people
44:47and people of color in danger more than
44:49anyone else passing and enforcing laws
44:52that guarantee freedom and safety for
44:54black people in online commerce content
44:56and social connection will create the
44:58safest internet for the largest number
45:00of people
45:01you can make technology the vehicle for
45:03progress that it should be and no longer
45:05the threat to freedom fairness and
45:07safety it has become
45:09do not allow the technology that is
45:12supposed to take us into the future
45:14drag us into the past thank you thank
45:17you mr robinson
45:19we've concluded our openings uh we now
45:21move to member questions each member
45:24will have five minutes to ask questions
45:26of our witnesses i will start by
45:28recognizing myself for five minutes
45:32miss hoggin last week the washington
45:34post reported that facebook knew the
45:37structure of its algorithms was allowing
45:39hateful content targeting predominantly
45:42black muslim lgbtq and jewish
45:45communities
45:46facebook knew it could take steps with
45:48its algorithm to lessen the reach of
45:50such harmful content while still leaving
45:53the content up on their website but they
45:55declined to do so
45:56this appears to be a clear case where
45:59facebook knew its own actions would
46:01cause hateful harmful content to spread
46:04and took those actions anyway
46:06i would also note that when mr
46:08zuckerberg testified before us earlier
46:10this year he bragged about the steps his
46:12company took to reduce the spread of
46:14hateful content
46:16shamefully he left this known
46:18information out of his testimony
46:21miss hoggins setting law aside do you
46:23think facebook has a moral duty to
46:25reduce this type of content on its
46:27platform and do you believe they've
46:29lived up to that moral duty
46:34i believe
46:36i believe facebook has a moral duty to
46:38be transparent about the operation of
46:39its algorithms and the performance of
46:41those systems currently they operate in
46:43the dark because they know that it with
46:45no with no transparency there is no
46:47accountability
46:48i also believe that once someone knows a
46:51harm exists and they know that they are
46:53causing that harm they do have a duty to
46:56address it facebook has known since uh
46:582018 the changes they made to their
47:01algorithm in order to get people to
47:03produce more content
47:05uh i.e the change from goaling on time
47:08spent to meaningful social interactions
47:10increase the amount of extreme and
47:12polarizing content on the platform
47:15i can't speak to that specific example
47:17because i don't know the exact
47:18circumstances of it but facebook knew
47:20that they were giving the most reach the
47:22most uh offensive content
47:24and i want to give you a very specific
47:25example on those let's imagine you
47:27encountered a piece of content that was
47:29actively um defaming a group that you
47:31belong to it could be christians it
47:33could be muslims it could be anyone if
47:36that post causes controversy in the
47:38comments it'll get blasted out to those
47:41people's friends even if they didn't
47:42follow that group
47:44and so the most offensive content the
47:45most extreme content gets the most
47:47distribution yup
47:49turning to instagram which is owned by
47:51facebook can you tell the committee in
47:52plain words how teen girls are being
47:55harmed by the content they see on that
47:57platform and how decisions of instagram
47:59led to this arm
48:01facebook's internal research states that
48:03not only is
48:05instagram dangerous for teenagers it's
48:07actually substantially more dangerous
48:09than other social media platforms
48:11because uh tick tock is about
48:13performance and doing things with your
48:15friends snapchat is largely about
48:17augmented reality and faces but
48:19instagram is about bodies and social
48:21comparison teenagers are very vulnerable
48:24to social comparison they're going
48:26through a phase of their lives where
48:27there's a lot of things changing and
48:29what what facebook's own research says
48:31is that when kids fall down these rabbit
48:33holes when the algorithm finds like you
48:36start from something like healthy eating
48:38and it pushes you towards anorexia
48:40content
48:41you have the perfect storm where kids
48:43are put in vulnerable environments and
48:44then given the most extreme content yeah
48:47mr robinson it's disappointing if not
48:49surprising to hear the lack of action on
48:52the part of facebook after your
48:54negotiations with mr zuckerberg and i
48:56share your concern what you discussed in
48:58your testimony that highlights how not
49:00just the advertisers but the platforms
49:03themselves can perpetuate discrimination
49:05can you discuss how you think targeted
49:07amendments to section 230 can address
49:10some of the actions of the big platforms
49:14um well right now we are all in this
49:16situation where we have to go to
49:18facebook and ask for their benevolence
49:20in dealing with the harms on their
49:22platforms going to billionaires where
49:24every single day their incentive
49:26structure is growth and profit over
49:28safety integrity and security and so
49:30we've done this before with other
49:32industries
49:33congress has done this before in this
49:35country with other industries um where
49:37we create rules that actually hold them
49:39accountable and right now whether it is
49:41their product design on what they
49:43recommend and what they lead you to or
49:46it is in the paid advertisement and
49:48content facebook is completely um not
49:51accountable and the other thing that i
49:53think is incredibly important is that
49:55they believe that they do not have to
49:57adhere to civil rights law they've said
49:59that before congress they've said that
50:00to us and the idea that we are going to
50:03allow silicon valley companies and their
50:05lawyers to come here and say that there
50:06are some laws that they are accountable
50:08and some laws they are not is that is
50:10outrageous and i think that those
50:12targeted amendments to section 230 both
50:14allow for free speech to exist which as
50:17any civil rights leader in this country
50:19will tell you that we value and believe
50:21in free speech while also having
50:23accountability for things that are
50:25absolutely not about free speech
50:27thank you i see my time has expired i
50:29will now yield to mr latta the ranking
50:32member for five minutes
50:33well thank you mr chairman and uh miss
50:36miss hogg and um
50:38i can start my question with you the the
50:40documents you brought forward
50:42from your time at facebook show that
50:44facebook has intentionally misled the
50:45public about the research they have
50:47conducted about the impacts
50:49of their platforms including the mental
50:50health of children
50:52we've heard from the big tech companies
50:54including facebook talk to us about how
50:55amending sections section 230 will cause
50:58them to leave content up or take content
51:01down depending on who they are speaking
51:03to
51:04you've spoken your testimony about how
51:06facebook puts its profits over people if
51:08that is the case how do you think
51:10facebook would adapt to section 230
51:13reform
51:14where they would be held liable for
51:16certain content on its platform
51:21there uh facebook has tried to reduce uh
51:23this discussion to the idea of are we
51:25taking down enough content are we
51:27leaving up too much content that kind of
51:28thing when reality they have lots and
51:30lots of ways to make the platform safer
51:32product choices designed in the
51:34algorithm where it's not about picking
51:36good or bad ideas it's about making sure
51:38that the most extreme polarizing ideas
51:40don't get the most reach i don't know
51:42exactly how facebook would adapt to 230
51:44reform but i believe that in a world
51:47where
51:48making a series of intentional choices
51:50to prioritize growth and running the
51:52system hot over
51:54uh having safer options i would hope
51:56that pattern of behavior would be held
51:58accountable
51:59well thank you
52:00miss frederick uh you're a former
52:02facebook employee and have done
52:04significant research on how these
52:06platforms censor content including
52:08political speech
52:10which they disagree
52:12the platforms claim they do not censor
52:14based on political viewpoint what's your
52:16response to that
52:18my response is believe your lying eyes
52:21tech companies they're not neutral
52:23gatekeepers of information
52:25you can see the sourcing in my testimony
52:27of the litany of examples and new
52:30research that i went over in my opening
52:32testimony testifies to exactly what
52:35they're doing and how skewed it is
52:37against viewpoint uh big tech companies
52:39are against viewpoints uh talk to
52:42senator rand paul talk to reverend call
52:44truman talk to governor ron desantis
52:46talk to steven crowder talk to dr scott
52:48atlas talk to the gold star mom talk to
52:52jim banks talk to jenna ellis talk to
52:55ali best stuckey talk to mike gonzalez
52:57talk to ryan t anderson all of these
52:59american citizens have been victimized
53:02by these tech companies and by viewpoint
53:04censorship so when tech companies say
53:06look away this is not actually happening
53:08i say believe you're lying eyes
53:11thank you let me continue mr frederick
53:13as part of the big tech academy
53:15accountability platform i've offered
53:17draft legislation with a men's section
53:19230 to narrow liability protection for
53:22platforms that promote or facilitate
53:24content that the platform knew or had
53:26reasonably violated federal criminal law
53:30in short if a platform is acting as a
53:32bad samaritan they would not receive
53:35section 230 liability protection in
53:37those instances
53:39uh how how do you think
53:41or what do you think about the impacts
53:44this legislation would have
53:45if it would be enacted in the law
53:48my thoughts are that you strip immunity
53:50when it's being abused
53:52so if the abuses of this immunity
53:55continue then you get rid of it you get
53:57rid of the freedom from civil
53:58liabilities when it is being abused by
54:00these tech companies it's as simple as
54:02that
54:03you know let me go back to your
54:04testimony because you know when you were
54:06talking i believe it was 52 to 53 to 1
54:09uh when it was conservatives to
54:12maybe liberal viewpoints
54:14how you know if this is presented to the
54:17big tech companies out there what's the
54:19response that you
54:20hear from them on
54:22that so i think people uh try to cover
54:26their rear ends in a lot of ways um but
54:29i think americans are waking up can i
54:31ask you uh real quick is how do they
54:33cover themselves
54:36i'm sorry are they covering themselves
54:38by by saying that we don't do this by
54:41employing an army of lobbyists in dc
54:44that say we don't do this that it's all
54:46in your head by denying reality and what
54:49people who use these platforms actually
54:50see happening for the suppression of
54:52political viewpoints um there's a high
54:55level of
54:56tech company apologists who come into
54:59these doors sit at these dioceses and
55:01say uh this is not happening don't
55:03believe it but we have the concrete
55:05information to say that yes this is
55:07actually happening you have the media
55:09research center which is acting as a
55:11lion in this regard to actually get the
55:13numbers and make sure that these
55:16viewpoint censorship instances are
55:18quantified um a lot of people especially
55:21independent research organizations
55:22partisan research organizations don't
55:25want to see that actually happen and
55:27that information get out there so they
55:28they smear the source but now i think
55:31the
55:31there's stuff leaking through the cracks
55:33and this is going to eventually get
55:36bigger and bigger and become a more
55:37prodigious movement and we need to
55:39ensure and support the sources that
55:41actually do that well thank you very
55:42much mr chairman my time has expired and
55:44i yield back the gentleman yields back
55:46chair now recognizes mr pallone the full
55:49committee chairman for five minutes to
55:51ask questions
55:52thank you chairman doyle in our march
55:55hearing i heard or i asked mark
55:57zuckerberg
55:58about whether he was aware of the
56:00company's internal research showing that
56:02his company's algorithms were
56:04recommending that his users join fringe
56:06extremist groups in europe and here in
56:09large numbers and reporting from the
56:11wall street journal indicated that mr
56:13zuckerberg failed to fully implement
56:15corrective measures his employees push
56:17for internally because it could have
56:19undermined advertising revenue back to
56:21profit again so miss uh how hogan
56:25this seems like a pattern of behavior so
56:27in your view what are the most
56:28compelling examples of the company
56:30ignoring threats to users in the name of
56:33profits
56:37facebook has known since 2018 that there
56:40are that the choices that they made
56:43around design of the newsfeed algorithm
56:46were while increasing the amount of
56:47content consumed increasing the length
56:49of sessions that it was uh providing
56:52hyperamplification for the worst ideas
56:55i'll give an example groups like most
56:57people think facebook is about your
56:58family and friends facebook has pushed
57:00people more and more aggressively
57:02towards large groups
57:04uh because it lengthens your session
57:07right
57:08if we had a facebook that was like what
57:10we had in 20 2008 you know it's about
57:12your family and friends for free you
57:14would get less hate speech less nudity
57:17less violence but facebook would make
57:19less money because your family and
57:20friends don't produce enough content for
57:22you to look at two thousand two thousand
57:24pieces of content a day facebook has
57:27implemented policies like if you are
57:28invited to a group even if you don't
57:31accept it you will begin to receive
57:32content from that group for 30 days and
57:35if you engage with any of it it will be
57:36considered a follow in a world where the
57:39algorithms pick the most extreme content
57:41from these mega groups and distribute it
57:43that kind of behavior uh directly is
57:45facebook promoting their profits over
57:47our safety
57:52light went back on the internet and
57:55social media platforms have made it
57:56easier for civil rights groups and so
57:58and racial justice groups like color of
58:00change to organize around vitally
58:02important issues however you firmly
58:04demonstrated in your testimony how the
58:06current practices of these platforms
58:08have harmed black and marginalized
58:09communities so my question is as we work
58:12to refine the proposals before us can
58:14you describe how my bill the justice
58:16against malicious algorithms act will
58:18help protect black and marginalized
58:20voices online
58:22great well first of all you have a bill
58:24so thank you because i think that that
58:26has been incredibly important is moving
58:28towards action but your bill removes
58:30liability for content information
58:32provided through personalized algorithms
58:35or algorithms that are specifically
58:36tailored to specific individuals and
58:39that essentially has been sort of one of
58:41the problem it's doing something that
58:43you know we can't wait we've seen
58:45facebook
58:46allow advertisers to exclude black
58:48people from housing exclude women from
58:50jobs creating these sort of personalized
58:52algorithms that give people experiences
58:55that actually take us outside of
58:57hard-won and hard-fought victories we've
58:59had around laws dragging us from the
59:0121st century back to the 1950
59:04and
59:05and your bill as well as other pieces of
59:07legislation that are before this
59:09committee um hold these institutions
59:11accountable to not be immune to a whole
59:14set of laws and standards that every
59:16single other business in this country
59:17has to adhere to
59:19thank you let me ask you another
59:20question some defenders of section 230
59:23say that changes to the law will result
59:25in a deluge of frivolous lawsuits
59:27against platforms big and small so i
59:30want to ask you would reforming section
59:32230 in your opinion even if that results
59:34in increased lawsuits
59:36hurt or harm marginalized communities
59:38and smaller or non-profit websites that
59:40do good work
59:42giving giving everyday people access an
59:45opportunity to hold big institutions
59:47accountable um is part of this country's
59:50fabric being able to give people the
59:52opportunity to raise their voices and
59:54push back and right now what we have is
59:57big companies huge multinational
1:00:00companies facebook has nearly three
1:00:02billion users that is more followers
1:00:04than christianity and for us to say that
1:00:07we shouldn't be able to hold them
1:00:08accountable that we shouldn't be able to
1:00:10push back against them is an outrageous
1:00:12statement and so yes there will be more
1:00:15um lawsuits there will be more
1:00:17accountability but that means that there
1:00:19will hopefully be changes to the
1:00:20structures and the way that they do
1:00:22business just like um the toys you will
1:00:26be giving to the children in your family
1:00:28this holiday season um have to be
1:00:31accountable before they get to the
1:00:32shelves because of lawsuits because of
1:00:34accountability we need these companies
1:00:36to be accountable and so there will be a
1:00:39trade-off but as someone who's gone back
1:00:41and forth in the room with mark
1:00:42zuckerberg with jack with sheryl
1:00:44sandberg and all these people have tried
1:00:46for years to get them to actually not
1:00:49only um
1:00:51move new policies to be more accountable
1:00:54but then to actually implement them and
1:00:55enforce them um we cannot allow them to
1:00:58continue to self-regulate themselves
1:01:00thank you thank you mr chairman
1:01:02gentlemen yields back chair now
1:01:03recognizes mrs rogers full committee
1:01:05ranking member for five minutes to ask
1:01:07questions thank you mr chairman ms
1:01:10haugen i wanted to start with a yes or
1:01:12no question do you support big tech's
1:01:14censorship of constitutionally protected
1:01:17speech on their platforms
1:01:19do i support
1:01:22what do you define as censorship
1:01:25censorship them controlling what is
1:01:28constitutionally protective speech under
1:01:30the first amendment
1:01:32i am a strong proponent of
1:01:33re-architecting these systems so that
1:01:35they are more focused on our family and
1:01:37friends because so this is not about
1:01:39good ideas or bad ideas it is about
1:01:42making the system safer question is yes
1:01:44or no
1:01:45do you support them censoring
1:01:48constitutionally protected speech under
1:01:49the first amendment
1:01:51uh i believe that we should have things
1:01:54like fact checks included along with
1:01:57content i think the current system i
1:01:58guess i take it as a no uh and
1:02:02i think there are better solutions than
1:02:03censorship that we should be using okay
1:02:06miss frederick um
1:02:09obviously many americans have lost trust
1:02:12with big tech
1:02:14and it's because they are arbitrarily
1:02:16censoring speech that they don't agree
1:02:18with
1:02:19and it seems like the censorship is in
1:02:21one direction it's against the
1:02:22conservative content
1:02:24so as we think about solutions
1:02:27as to how we're going to hold big tech
1:02:28accountable
1:02:29we absolutely have to be thoughtful
1:02:31about being bringing transparency and
1:02:33accountability i wanted to ask you to
1:02:35talk about the difference between
1:02:36misinformation and disinformation
1:02:41are we talking about these differences
1:02:43in a sane world because in a sane world
1:02:46disinformation would be the intentional
1:02:48propagation of misleading or false
1:02:50information and misinformation would
1:02:53just be false information that sort of
1:02:55spreads on these platforms but now we
1:02:57know that both of these terms are being
1:02:59conflated into a catch-all for
1:03:01information that the left doesn't like
1:03:04so a perfect example of this is the
1:03:07wuhan institute of virology when in the
1:03:09early days of the pandemic tom cotton
1:03:11floated this theory and people thought
1:03:13he's a deranged conspiracy theorist we
1:03:16have to suppress this information big
1:03:18tech actively suppressed mentions of the
1:03:20wuhan lab leak theory
1:03:22now it's part of acceptable discourse
1:03:24the new yorker gets to talk about it the
1:03:25wall street journal talks about it okay
1:03:27we can talk about it again when tom
1:03:29cotton was very much onto something in
1:03:31the beginning and then you look at the
1:03:32same thing the hunter biden laptop story
1:03:35this is from the new york post
1:03:36incriminating hunter biden and his
1:03:38relationship with ukraine et cetera et
1:03:40cetera and joe biden as well and the new
1:03:43york post uh excuse me and facebook and
1:03:46twitter we have proof of this actively
1:03:48suppressed links to that information
1:03:50they didn't allow people to actually
1:03:52click on this story so
1:03:55you have high level intelligence
1:03:56community officials i'm talking the
1:03:58highest level of the us intelligence
1:04:00community saying that the hunter biden
1:04:02laptop story bore all the hallmarks of
1:04:05russian disinformation and tech
1:04:07companies were completely in tandem with
1:04:10those decisions now hunter biden goes on
1:04:12tv doesn't deny that the laptop is his
1:04:15politico even confirmed the story yeah
1:04:18would you speak to
1:04:20concerns around the government
1:04:21regulating misinformation
1:04:24this is huge and in july jens hockey and
1:04:27the surgeon general they got up on the
1:04:29podium they spoke from the white house
1:04:30with the imprimatur of the state and
1:04:32they said we are directly communicating
1:04:35with facebook and we have pointed out
1:04:37specific posts specific accounts that we
1:04:40want them to take off the platform
1:04:42within a month all of those accounts and
1:04:44those users those posts 12 of them in
1:04:46fact were gone cnn gloated about it
1:04:48later so when the government works with
1:04:51these big tech companies to stifle
1:04:53speech you have a problem and you have a
1:04:55first amendment problem in that regard
1:04:57the difference between tech companies
1:04:58and the government policing speech is
1:05:00allighted when that happens
1:05:02so
1:05:04i've been working on some legislation
1:05:06with with jim jordan and what it
1:05:09proposes is that it would remove those
1:05:12section 230 protections for big tech
1:05:14when they are taking down the
1:05:16constitutionally protected speech it
1:05:18also sunsets the new provisions in five
1:05:20years
1:05:21the goal here is for them to have to
1:05:23earn the liability protections so
1:05:26do you believe that this would be an
1:05:27effective way to to hold them
1:05:29accountable and prevent the censorship i
1:05:31think tech
1:05:32always outpaces attempts to government
1:05:34the sunset clause is a great idea we
1:05:36advocated for it at the heritage
1:05:38foundation so definitely a good idea
1:05:41allow time for us to redress some of the
1:05:43imbalance between these big tech
1:05:45companies and the users the american
1:05:46people by letting us legislate on it and
1:05:49we shouldn't be afraid to legislate
1:05:51thank you thank you um i'm quickly
1:05:53running out of time miss how can i i do
1:05:55um i have
1:05:56significant concerns about the impact on
1:05:59on our youth on the on the young
1:06:00generation on children and just
1:06:02would you speak um briefly about
1:06:05facebook and and their internal models
1:06:07uh impact on mental health of children
1:06:10and how it alters their business model
1:06:11and amount of time yeah facebook knows
1:06:13the future of growth on the platform as
1:06:15children that's why they're pushing into
1:06:16things like instagram kids even though
1:06:18they know that the rates of problematic
1:06:20use are highest in their youngest users
1:06:22it's because the younger you are the
1:06:24less your brain is is formed facebook
1:06:26also knows that kids are suffering alone
1:06:28right now because their parents didn't
1:06:30live through this experience of
1:06:31addictive software when they were were
1:06:33used and kids end up getting advice like
1:06:36why don't you just not use it not
1:06:37understanding how addictive these
1:06:39platforms are i think the fact that
1:06:41facebook knows that the kids are
1:06:42suffering alone and that their product
1:06:44products are actively contributing to
1:06:46this is a problem and the fact that they
1:06:48lied to congress repeatedly about these
1:06:50harms is unacceptable so i hope that you
1:06:52guys act because our children deserve
1:06:54something better thank you thank you mr
1:06:56chairman general lady's time has expired
1:06:57the chair now recognizes mr mcnerney for
1:07:00five minutes
1:07:01well thank the chair i thank the
1:07:02witnesses uh for this testimony uh miss
1:07:06hagan i had to leave a company for bad
1:07:08policies and it was painful so i
1:07:09appreciate what you've gone through
1:07:11um you've discussed a 2018 change and
1:07:14this has been discussed already in this
1:07:16committee
1:07:17the company made to its algorithms to
1:07:19favor meaningful social interactions
1:07:21also known as msis this change was made
1:07:24to increase engagement based on
1:07:27my understanding
1:07:28that it continues to favor content that
1:07:31is more likely to be shared by others
1:07:34the problem is that facebook research
1:07:36found that msi rewarded provocative and
1:07:40negative content of low quality and
1:07:42promoted spread of divisive content
1:07:45facebook executives rejected changes
1:07:48suggested by employees that would have
1:07:50countered this
1:07:52so how difficult is it for facebook
1:07:54to change its algorithms
1:07:57to
1:07:57to lessen the impact of that
1:08:01facebook facebook knows that individual
1:08:03factors within meaningful social
1:08:05interactions and i want to be clear hate
1:08:07speech and bullying is considered
1:08:09meaningful as a social interaction in
1:08:11most languages in the world
1:08:12and
1:08:13facebook knows that there are individual
1:08:15terms within that that algorithm that if
1:08:18you remove them you instantly get
1:08:20substantially less misinformation
1:08:22substantially less nudity and facebook
1:08:24has intentionally chosen not to remove
1:08:26those factors because it would decrease
1:08:28their profits so yes they could do they
1:08:30could do a change tomorrow that would
1:08:32give us 25 of us misinformation so that
1:08:34was gonna be my next question is why
1:08:35wouldn't they do that but it's obviously
1:08:37because they want you actually i want a
1:08:38slight tweak they claim they did it
1:08:40because they wanted people to engage
1:08:41more that they wanted to be more
1:08:43meaningful but when they checked six
1:08:45months later people said their home
1:08:46feeds were or their newsfeeds were less
1:08:48meaningful and i want it on the record
1:08:50they didn't do this because they wanted
1:08:52us to engage they did it because it made
1:08:54us produce more content that the only
1:08:57thing they found that could get us to
1:08:58produce more things was giving us more
1:09:00little hits of dopamine in the form of
1:09:02likes comments and reshares
1:09:04so are there other problematic design
1:09:06choices the company is making today that
1:09:09would increase profits and
1:09:12increase proliferation of harmful
1:09:14content facebook knows that people who
1:09:16are suffering from extreme loneliness
1:09:18isolation are often the ones that form
1:09:21very intense habits involving usage
1:09:24we're talking about thousands of pieces
1:09:26of content per day you could imagine
1:09:28simple things that said are you going
1:09:30down a rabbit hole are you spending
1:09:3310 hours a day on the system often when
1:09:35people get depressed or experience other
1:09:37things they self-soothe like we see this
1:09:39with children all the time facebook
1:09:41could acknowledge this pattern and put a
1:09:44little bit of friction in to decrease
1:09:46these kinds of things and it would help
1:09:47the most vulnerable users on the
1:09:48platform but it would decrease their
1:09:50profits thank you
1:09:52mr robinson your stark testimony details
1:09:55the harm the lack of tech platform
1:09:57accountability has had on marginalized
1:10:00communities such as some of my
1:10:02communities
1:10:03and your testimony you state that
1:10:04facebook is not just a tool
1:10:07of discrimination by businesses but but
1:10:09facebook's own algorithms are drivers of
1:10:11this discrimination can you talk more
1:10:14about how the algorithms created and
1:10:15implemented by the platform
1:10:18including facebook leads to
1:10:19discrimination
1:10:22um absolutely well you know facebook's
1:10:24um facebook's algorithms um especially
1:10:27the personalized algorithms allow for
1:10:30a whole set of ways that people are
1:10:32excluded from opportunities or over
1:10:35included
1:10:36in opportunities and over-included
1:10:38and over-recommended into sharing
1:10:41leading people down sort of deep rabbit
1:10:43holes or cutting people off from housing
1:10:46opportunities job opportunities and
1:10:49everything else and they've said you
1:10:51know i remember a conversation where we
1:10:53were
1:10:54trying to deal with
1:10:56housing and job employment
1:10:58discrimination on their platform there
1:11:00was a lawsuit against facebook that they
1:11:02eventually settled but never took all
1:11:04the way to the courts because they
1:11:06essentially want to be able to keep 230
1:11:08protections
1:11:09in place and the back and forth with um
1:11:13shirelle sandberg and mark zuckerberg
1:11:15about both of those about both of those
1:11:18cases they they said to us deeply we
1:11:20care about civil rights you know we care
1:11:22about these issues it pains us deeply
1:11:26that our platform is causing um these
1:11:28harms and and we're going to work to fix
1:11:31it and so they settled the case and then
1:11:33research comes out just a couple months
1:11:35later that the same thing is continuing
1:11:38to happen after they've told us and
1:11:40they've told you that it's no longer
1:11:42happening on their platform i sat across
1:11:44from mark zuckerberg
1:11:46and specifically talked to him about
1:11:48voter suppression um on their platform
1:11:50only to work with them to get policies
1:11:52in place then to watch them while they
1:11:54then don't enforce those policies we've
1:11:57sat in the room with them on multiple
1:11:58occasions and i have to just say time
1:12:00and time again that there is no other
1:12:02place that these changes are going to
1:12:04happen if it does not happen here thank
1:12:06you very good answers uh yield back
1:12:08gentlemen yields back uh the chair now
1:12:10recognizes mr guthrie for five minutes
1:12:13thank you mr chair i appreciate it very
1:12:15much and we're all concerned about
1:12:17misinformation
1:12:19uh and don't want misinformation spread
1:12:21on the internet the question is how do
1:12:22you define this information who gets to
1:12:24define it and miss frederick i'll ask
1:12:27the question of you but first i want to
1:12:28set up the question you kind of set it
1:12:30up earlier with the wuhan
1:12:31lab i'm the ranking member of the
1:12:32healthcare subcommittee and we've been
1:12:34really looking into the luham wuhan lab
1:12:38and that's one set up this isn't a
1:12:40hypothetical snare this is a real
1:12:41scenario of information getting blocked
1:12:43by from facebook
1:12:45and it goes uh to some of the comments
1:12:47and i've got documentation here if you
1:12:49go back to the uh april 17th white house
1:12:51press briefing somebody asked the
1:12:52president would you and i want to ask dr
1:12:55fauci could you address the suggestions
1:12:56or concerns
1:12:57that the virus is somehow man-made
1:12:59possibly came out of laboratory in china
1:13:02the president says want to go and so uh
1:13:04dr fauci said there was a study recently
1:13:06that we can make available to you where
1:13:07a group of highly qualified evolutionary
1:13:09biologists
1:13:11looked at the sequences they're there
1:13:13and the sequences and bats as they
1:13:15evolve and the mutations that it took to
1:13:17get to the point where it is now totally
1:13:19consistent with the jump of a species
1:13:21from an animal to a human
1:13:23so disregarding the lab
1:13:25sir peter dazek sent an email the next
1:13:28day to dr fauci
1:13:30as the pi of the r01 grant publicly
1:13:32targeted by fox news now this grant was
1:13:34where echo health systems was being paid
1:13:37by taxpayer dollars to go to caves in
1:13:40china and harvest viruses from bats
1:13:44bats that may never see a human being
1:13:46and then taking them to a city of 11
1:13:48million people were wuhan taking 11
1:13:50million people but he said to dr fauci
1:13:52as the pi of the r1 grant publicly
1:13:54targeted by fox reporters at the
1:13:56presidential press briefing last night
1:13:59i just wanted to say a personal thank
1:14:00you on behalf of our staff and
1:14:02collaborators this is from public
1:14:04information you could foia
1:14:07i wanted our staff for publicly standing
1:14:09up and stating that the scientific
1:14:11evidence supports a natural origin for
1:14:13kova night team from a bat to human
1:14:15spillover not a lab release from luwahan
1:14:17institute of virology
1:14:19from my perspective your comments are
1:14:21brave and coming from your trusted voice
1:14:23you help dispel the myths being spun
1:14:26around the virus origins
1:14:28and the return email from dr peter man
1:14:31many thanks for your kind note best
1:14:32regards tony
1:14:34so i say that
1:14:35because we had if who's going to
1:14:38determine what's misinformation or not
1:14:40here here's uh
1:14:41the national institutes of health
1:14:43that we have funded tremendously over
1:14:45the last few years we all had a lot of
1:14:47faith and trust in
1:14:49dismissing
1:14:50uh
1:14:51that it came from the wuhan lab
1:14:53when there was no evidence to dismiss it
1:14:55absolutely the evidence doesn't exist
1:14:57today
1:14:58it didn't exist at the time to say that
1:15:00it couldn't have come from the lab
1:15:02i had a conversation last spring with dr
1:15:04collins and brought this up and was
1:15:06really concerned about
1:15:08a lot of faith in what these guys did
1:15:09and matter of fact i quoted dr faucio on
1:15:12this when people say this came from
1:15:13muhammad all we have virologists saying
1:15:15that that it didn't because we've had
1:15:17these before our committee and had no
1:15:19reason to not uh believe what they said
1:15:21and when i talked with dr collins and if
1:15:23somebody wants to ask him to see if this
1:15:24is an accurate description of the a
1:15:26phone call i'll certainly welcome
1:15:27somebody to do that but essentially i
1:15:29said i'm disappointed and where it's
1:15:31coming because i've looked at a lot of
1:15:32evidence and it really appears this
1:15:33could have come possible very more
1:15:35likely than not through the lab and he
1:15:37goes well it did originate in nature
1:15:40so it's not man-made originated in
1:15:42nature now if we went to a bat to a
1:15:44human from bat to a
1:15:46bat to a mammal to a human
1:15:48or back to the lab or to the human
1:15:51because it got leaked through the lab we
1:15:53don't we can't rule that out
1:15:55so we're talking about the people we
1:15:57call in myths
1:15:59talking conspiracies whatever and the
1:16:01whole time they never could rule it out
1:16:03the reason it's relevant to this hearing
1:16:04is because facebook
1:16:06took down and i got to hear
1:16:08any comments that it came from the wuhan
1:16:10lab man made in luhan lab and on may
1:16:1226th i need to look at the dates i
1:16:14talked to dr collins it's not pretty
1:16:16close in light of the ongoing facebook
1:16:19posted in the light of the ongoing
1:16:20investigation to the origin of kova 19
1:16:23and in consultation with public health
1:16:25experts we will no longer remove the
1:16:27claim that cova 19 is man made or
1:16:29manufactured
1:16:30so
1:16:32my point is who gets we we've got the
1:16:34top scientists at nih people that a lot
1:16:36of us had faith in
1:16:38and quoted and now that regret that i
1:16:40quoted them
1:16:42to constituents who brought these things
1:16:43to my attention
1:16:45and now we know that what they were
1:16:47saying if you look at sparse the words
1:16:49they might be saying the truth but it
1:16:51wasn't accurate in terms of could it
1:16:52have somehow the wuhan lab was involved
1:16:55and moving forward now the preponderance
1:16:56evidence that it is so ms frederick i
1:16:58just the question i have is uh how did
1:17:01the social media platforms fail in this
1:17:02and then who do we look to for expertise
1:17:05if we're going to try to well i've used
1:17:08all my time so you won't be able to
1:17:09answer but how are we going to
1:17:11how are we going to define what
1:17:13misinformation is and who gets to define
1:17:15that those are the questions we're going
1:17:16to have to address as we move forward
1:17:17and i yield back thank you
1:17:20was there a question there
1:17:24uh gentlemen yields back uh cheer now
1:17:27recognizes miss clark for five minutes
1:17:31uh good morning and let me start by
1:17:33thanking chairman dole
1:17:35and uh chairman pallone for calling this
1:17:37very important hearing i'd also like to
1:17:40thank all of our witness for joining us
1:17:42today to discuss accountability in tech
1:17:44examining the harm done by the current
1:17:47governing rules
1:17:48governing the internet and exploring
1:17:51targeted reforms to ensure that the
1:17:53rules and regulations which initially
1:17:56created the conditions necessary for
1:17:58internet use to flourish and to grow are
1:18:01not outdated in the face of the
1:18:03technological advances made this century
1:18:06under the leadership of chairman pallone
1:18:09and doyle this committee has worked for
1:18:11years to better understand and limit the
1:18:13spread of harmful content on social
1:18:15media platforms and now is the time for
1:18:17action
1:18:18as many social media platforms have
1:18:20moved away from chronological
1:18:23ranking to a more targeted user
1:18:25experience the use of algorithmic
1:18:28amplification has become increasingly
1:18:30widespread while remaining opaque to
1:18:33users and policy makers alike
1:18:36this use of algorithmic amplification
1:18:39has far too often resulted in
1:18:41discriminatory outcomes and the
1:18:43promotion of harmful content the lack of
1:18:46transparency into how algorithms are
1:18:48used coupled with big tech's increasing
1:18:51dominance in the world of online
1:18:53advertising and commerce have seemingly
1:18:56incentivized business models that rely
1:18:59on discriminatory practices and the
1:19:01promotion of harmful content
1:19:04my first question is from mr robinson
1:19:07you touched on this a bit in your
1:19:08written testimony but could you expound
1:19:11on how this combination of a lack of
1:19:13transparency in an industry dominated by
1:19:16a few major players has been detrimental
1:19:19to communities of color and how my
1:19:21legislation the civil rights
1:19:22modernization act would help
1:19:25absolutely um well your piece of
1:19:28legislation congresswoman takes away
1:19:29liability shield claims um um when it
1:19:33comes to targeted advertising and that's
1:19:35incredibly important because as i've
1:19:37already stated what we end up having is
1:19:40these um companies creating all sorts of
1:19:42loopholes and back doors um to get
1:19:45around civil rights law um and in in
1:19:47essence creating an incredibly hostile
1:19:50environment
1:19:51when it comes to the amplification of
1:19:53hate you know big tech is profiting off
1:19:56of yelling fire in a crowded theater and
1:19:58so i understand that we have these
1:20:00conversations about the first amendment
1:20:02but there are limitations to what you
1:20:04can and cannot say and right now the
1:20:07incentive structures in the business
1:20:09models of big tech the recommendations
1:20:11what they amplify and what they choose
1:20:13to amplify in a conversation with mark
1:20:16zuckerberg about um dealing with the the
1:20:19the
1:20:20deep impact of census disinformation on
1:20:23his platform we were trying to have a
1:20:25conversation about a set of policies
1:20:27they could have put in place to deal
1:20:29with sensitive disinformation mark
1:20:31decided to bring up a young woman a
1:20:33young dreamer that he mentors in east
1:20:35palo alto and told the story of her
1:20:38being a daca recipient and he was afraid
1:20:40that if he limited in some way senses
1:20:42disinformation that it would limit her
1:20:44from being able to express concern given
1:20:47the challenges that happened around daca
1:20:49my response was well what other
1:20:51decisions does this young woman get to
1:20:53make at facebook and is she putting
1:20:55millions of dollars behind her post
1:20:57because if she's not putting millions of
1:20:58dollars behind her post then in fact
1:21:00maybe her friends won't even see it on
1:21:02the platform but this is essentially
1:21:04what we're dealing with and this is why
1:21:06we're before congress because at the end
1:21:08of the day self-regulated companies are
1:21:11unregulated companies and
1:21:13facebook and their billionaires will
1:21:15continue to put their hands on the scale
1:21:17of injustice as long as it makes them
1:21:19more money and only congress can stop
1:21:21them from doing it and congress has done
1:21:24this before in the past when it comes to
1:21:26other companies which have harmed and
1:21:28hurt us and that's why we're here
1:21:31thank you mr steiner your testimony
1:21:33focused on many of the negative impacts
1:21:36of algorithmic amplification and
1:21:38prolonged screen time on children and
1:21:40young people this is something i'm very
1:21:42concerned about particularly because we
1:21:44cannot yet fully understand the
1:21:46long-term impact as the children of
1:21:48today grow into leaders of tomorrow can
1:21:50you please explain for the committee how
1:21:53companies use section 230 protections to
1:21:56continue these dangerous practices
1:21:58sure and i think that uh miss haugen has
1:22:00actually also referenced that uh
1:22:02congresswoman clark and the truth is
1:22:04this because of the fact and and we're
1:22:06using facebook an example but don't
1:22:08forget there are other social media
1:22:10platforms that act similarly because
1:22:12they focus completely on engagement and
1:22:15attention this is really an arms race
1:22:16for attention what happens is kids are
1:22:20urge basically become addicted to the
1:22:22screen because of the tech design
1:22:24techniques actually uh congresswoman
1:22:26schaekowski can have a hearing next week
1:22:28about it but the bottom line is they are
1:22:30trying to the business model encourages
1:22:33engagement and a constant attention and
1:22:35that is very damaging to children
1:22:37because it means they spend more and
1:22:38more time in front of a screen and that
1:22:40is not a healthy thing so that is the
1:22:42fundamental business model that leads to
1:22:44the focus on attention and engagement
1:22:47that is damaging to children thank you
1:22:48very much for the question
1:22:49thank you mr chairman i yield back
1:22:53general lady yields back the chair now
1:22:55recognizes mr kenzinger for five minutes
1:22:59well thank you mr chairman and thank you
1:23:00all for being here
1:23:02this hearing is important and timely i
1:23:04find the underlying subject is growing
1:23:07tiring at the same time we ask social
1:23:09media companies nicely to change their
1:23:11operations for the public good we hold
1:23:13hearings we warn of major legislative
1:23:16and regulatory changes and nothing gives
1:23:18they nibble around the edges from time
1:23:20to time
1:23:21usually when major news stories break
1:23:23but things continue to get worse over
1:23:25time and not better which is why i've
1:23:27been working for years now to find
1:23:28reasonable and equitable policy
1:23:30solutions
1:23:31in recent years my approach has been to
1:23:33avoid amending section 230 because i
1:23:35felt that we should be considering other
1:23:37options first so i introduced two bills
1:23:40social media accountability and account
1:23:42verification act and the social media
1:23:44fraud mitigation act both narrow and
1:23:46scope and donovan 230 it would have had
1:23:49the ftc undertaken narrow rule making uh
1:23:52to require more action from social media
1:23:54companies to investigate complaints
1:23:56about deceptive accounts and fraudulent
1:23:58activity on their platform and i believe
1:24:00they strike a good balance they would
1:24:02have a positive impact on consumer
1:24:03protection without making drastic policy
1:24:05changes
1:24:06but today given the current state of
1:24:08affairs and the clear dangers social
1:24:10media is posing to society i'm more open
1:24:12to the men's section 230 camp than i
1:24:15used to be and just to drive home my
1:24:17initial point about how tiresome this
1:24:19has become the blame can't be placed
1:24:21solely on social media companies
1:24:23despite my lengthy engagement with my
1:24:25colleagues before introducing my bills
1:24:27and even after making changes to the
1:24:29bills based on their feedback it could
1:24:31not find a partner on the other side of
1:24:33the aisle to lock arms with me take a
1:24:34stand and put something bipartisan out
1:24:37there to at least get the conversation
1:24:38going honestly there are ideas coming
1:24:40from both sides the diocese that are
1:24:42worthy of debating but the devil's
1:24:44always in the details but if we're not
1:24:46even trying to engage in a bipartisan
1:24:49process we're never going to get a
1:24:52strong or lasting set of policy
1:24:54solutions
1:24:55i'm disappointed it's taken my
1:24:56colleagues nearly a year to engage
1:24:59uh with me on this issue but i hope this
1:25:01hearing is a first step of many steps
1:25:04that seemingly we've already had
1:25:06to
1:25:07join together and hold big tech
1:25:08accountable
1:25:10miss uh howdgen i want to thank you
1:25:12directly for your uh recent efforts to
1:25:14bring about a broader conversation about
1:25:17the harms of social media
1:25:19as you may recall in the spring of 2018
1:25:21mark zuckerberg testified before us
1:25:24during the course of that hearing he
1:25:26stated that facebook has a
1:25:27responsibility to protect its users
1:25:30do you agree that facebook and other
1:25:32social media companies have a
1:25:33responsibility to protect their users
1:25:35and if you do
1:25:37do you believe that they are fulfilling
1:25:38that responsibility
1:25:40i do believe they have a duty to protect
1:25:42their users i want to remind everyone
1:25:44this room that the majority of languages
1:25:46in the world facebook is the internet
1:25:48you know 80 to 90 of all the content in
1:25:51that language will be on facebook in a
1:25:53world where facebook holds that much
1:25:54power they have an extra high duty to
1:25:57protect i do not believe they are up
1:25:58filling that duty today and because of a
1:26:01variety of organizational um incentives
1:26:03that are misaligned and congress must
1:26:05act in order to realign those incentives
1:26:09i agree with you mr frederick let me ask
1:26:11you you're also a former facebook
1:26:13employee as part of their global
1:26:14security counter terrorism analysis
1:26:16program so i'm going to ask you the same
1:26:18question do facebook and other social
1:26:20media companies have a responsibility to
1:26:22protect their users and are they
1:26:24fulfilling that responsibility
1:26:26they do have a responsibility to protect
1:26:28their users the days of only blaming the
1:26:31addict and letting the dealer get off
1:26:33scot-free are over i think everybody
1:26:35recognizes this at that point and i want
1:26:37to say in october of 2019 mark
1:26:40zuckerberg stood on the stage at
1:26:41georgetown university and said facebook
1:26:44was going to be the platform that stands
1:26:46up for freedom of expression he has
1:26:49rankly abrogated those values
1:26:51and the
1:26:53difference between what these companies
1:26:56say and what they actually do is now a
1:26:58yawning chasm
1:27:01it's been reported and discussed today
1:27:02that algorithms employed by some of the
1:27:04biggest companies tend to lead users to
1:27:06content
1:27:07which reinforces their existing belief
1:27:09or worst which causes anxiety fear and
1:27:12anger all of which have been shown to
1:27:14lead to decreased to increase engagement
1:27:16from the user regardless of their
1:27:18damaging effects so miss frederick given
1:27:19your background can you describe the
1:27:21national security concerns
1:27:24with the ways in which social media
1:27:25companies design and employ those and if
1:27:27we have time miss halogen too
1:27:29yeah i went to work for facebook because
1:27:31i believed in the danger of foreign
1:27:33islamic terrorism i went to make sure
1:27:35that the platform was hostile to those
1:27:37bad actors illegal actors and i think
1:27:41when
1:27:42i think we can imbue technology with our
1:27:44values this is the whole concept behind
1:27:46privacy by design and you need to let
1:27:48those programmers who actually code
1:27:50these algorithms they need to be
1:27:52transparent about what they're doing and
1:27:53how they operate and how they impact
1:27:54users as well
1:27:57i am extremely concerned about
1:27:59facebook's role in things like
1:28:00counterterrorism or other counter or
1:28:03counter state actors that are
1:28:04weaponizing the platform facebook is
1:28:06chronically underinvested in those
1:28:08capacities and if you knew the size of
1:28:10the counter terrorism team for the
1:28:12threat investigators you'd be shocked
1:28:13like i'm pretty sure it's under like 10
1:28:15people this should be something that is
1:28:16publicly listed because they need to be
1:28:18funding hundreds of people not 10 people
1:28:21thank you mr chairman thank you to the
1:28:22witnesses and thank you i yield back
1:28:24gentlemen yields back uh chair now
1:28:26recognizes mr mckeachen for five minutes
1:28:30thank you mr chairman and i want to say
1:28:33to my uh colleague and friend extensive
1:28:35kingston sir forgive me for which in
1:28:37your name
1:28:38uh that i appreciate your comments about
1:28:41the partisanship i share them and
1:28:44with the notion of if we're going to
1:28:45have something that's going to last uh
1:28:47congress from congress changes and
1:28:49parties or whatnot we're going to need
1:28:51to have some of this bipartisan
1:28:53and i invite you to take a look at the
1:28:55safe act which i think takes a
1:28:57unique and different approach to section
1:28:59230
1:29:01liability
1:29:03uh that being said colleagues i would
1:29:04ask all of you all to rethink
1:29:07or really understand the message we're
1:29:09sending when we talk about immunity
1:29:12because when we say immunity what we're
1:29:13really saying is that we don't trust
1:29:15juries
1:29:16think about that we don't trust a jury
1:29:19properly instructed to get it right
1:29:22that's one reason you'd have immunity
1:29:23because you're afraid the jury's going
1:29:25to get it wrong
1:29:27remember my colleagues the juries are
1:29:28composed of the same people who send us
1:29:31to congress
1:29:32they're the people who trust us to make
1:29:34trillion-dollar judgments to decide war
1:29:36and peace
1:29:37to decide any number of things if
1:29:39they're wise enough to do that
1:29:41why are we so arrogant to believe that
1:29:43they're not wise enough when properly
1:29:46impaneled properly instructed by a jury
1:29:48that they can't get it right
1:29:50and so i want you to start thinking
1:29:52about immunity in that context
1:29:54as we go forward if you
1:29:57would do would be so kind of do so
1:30:00um i'd like to direct my uh first
1:30:02question mr chairman
1:30:04uh to the color of change
1:30:07miss miss robinson
1:30:09and i note that you say that there are
1:30:11three ways that we know we're headed
1:30:12towards a real solution
1:30:14and the first one jumps out at me and
1:30:16say the laws and regulations must be
1:30:17crystal clear
1:30:19now when i came to congress i was just a
1:30:21small town lawyer trying to make good
1:30:23and i don't know what an algorithm is
1:30:25from a rhythm and blues section quite
1:30:27frankly
1:30:29but i do know how to say that immunity
1:30:31is not
1:30:32uh
1:30:33available if you violate civil rights
1:30:35immunity is not available for any number
1:30:37of legal actions that's the approach to
1:30:39safe tech act takes do you see that as
1:30:42meeting your first criteria can you
1:30:44comment on
1:30:45how and if you believe the safe act will
1:30:48um
1:30:49ultimately help with the
1:30:51big tech's uh big tax abuses
1:30:55absolutely i do believe that it it meets
1:30:57that mark i me i believe that it meets
1:30:59the mark because um the fact of the
1:31:01matter is is that facebook um twitter
1:31:04google amazon they've all come before
1:31:07you and have explained that they
1:31:09are not um subject to civil rights law
1:31:12and that they can get around the laws on
1:31:15the books and create all sorts of harms
1:31:18through the choices that they're making
1:31:19and right now we need a set of laws that
1:31:22make it so that they are not immune and
1:31:25your point around juries i mean i would
1:31:27add regulators i would add sort of the
1:31:30infrastructure that we have in this
1:31:32country to hold institutions accountable
1:31:35um gets thrown out the window when we're
1:31:37dealing with tech companies out in
1:31:38silicon valley because somehow they
1:31:41exist on a completely different plane
1:31:43and are allowed to have a completely
1:31:45different set of rules than everyone
1:31:47else and the the fact of the matter is
1:31:50is freedom of speech is not freedom from
1:31:52the consequences of speech this is not
1:31:54about throwing someone in jail this is
1:31:56about ensuring that if you say things
1:31:59that are deeply liable if you incite
1:32:02violence if you incite hate that you are
1:32:04you can be held accountable for that and
1:32:06that if you are recommending folks to
1:32:09that and you are moving people through
1:32:10paid advertisement and your business
1:32:12model is amplifying that that there is
1:32:15accountability baked into it and i don't
1:32:18understand why um we continue to let
1:32:21these platforms make billions of dollars
1:32:24off of violating things that we have
1:32:26worked hard in this country to move
1:32:28forward on and that i think is why
1:32:31really understanding the difference
1:32:32between solutions that are real and
1:32:34solutions that are fake and i think the
1:32:36safe act gets us there as one of the
1:32:38pieces of
1:32:39pieces of legislation that we need to
1:32:41consider
1:32:43mr robertson i would ask you um
1:32:45do you agree with me that just because
1:32:48the immunity is removed doesn't mean the
1:32:50plaintiffs are all of a sudden going to
1:32:51win every lawsuit
1:32:54um
1:32:55no of course not and and i don't think
1:32:57anyone here believes that but what it
1:32:59does mean is that we end up actually
1:33:01being in a place where there can be some
1:33:03level of accountability and we and you
1:33:06don't end up having a situation where
1:33:09mark zuckerberg or sheryl sandberg or
1:33:11jack or anyone else can come here and
1:33:13sit before you and lie about what their
1:33:16platforms are doing decide when they're
1:33:18going to be transparent or not and walk
1:33:20and walk away and and feel like no
1:33:23absolutely no accountability and this is
1:33:26not just impacting black communities
1:33:28this is impacting evangelical
1:33:30communities this is impacting lgbtq
1:33:32communities this is impacting women it's
1:33:35impacting people at the intersection of
1:33:37so many different experiences in life
1:33:39that we have allowed these companies to
1:33:41operate in ways that is completely
1:33:44outside of what our rules should look
1:33:45like
1:33:47thank you mr chairman um i thank you for
1:33:50your patience and allow me to trespass
1:33:51on your time and i yield back
1:33:54gentlemen yields back chair now
1:33:56recognizes mr belarakis for five minutes
1:33:59thank you mr chairman i appreciate it i
1:34:01want to focus my questions on the
1:34:03section 230 how it interacts with child
1:34:06exploitation online in 2019 research
1:34:09from the national center for missing and
1:34:11exploited children reported that child
1:34:14pornography has grown to nearly one
1:34:16million detected events per month
1:34:19exceeding the capabilities of law
1:34:22enforcement
1:34:23that number increased to over 21 million
1:34:25in 2020 and is on track to grow again
1:34:29this year unfortunately
1:34:31mrs frederick
1:34:33if tech company knows about a particular
1:34:36instance of child pornography on its
1:34:38platform
1:34:39but decides to ignore and permit its
1:34:42distribution would section 230 prevent
1:34:45the victim from suing the tech company
1:34:50i would say that given section 230's
1:34:53broad interpretations by the courts
1:34:56companies have historically avoided
1:34:59liability for hosting similar content
1:35:02okay
1:35:02as a follow-up if a brick and mortar
1:35:05store knowingly distributes child
1:35:07pornography can the victims sue that
1:35:10particular business in your opinion
1:35:13yes obviously
1:35:15thank you
1:35:16i don't see any reason why
1:35:18we should be giving special immunities
1:35:21mr chairman to online platforms that
1:35:23don't exist for other businesses when it
1:35:26comes to a business knowing exploiting
1:35:28our knowingly exploiting our children
1:35:31and facilitating child pornography it
1:35:34would be a discredit to us all to allow
1:35:37this to continue which is why i have a
1:35:39public bill
1:35:41draft i think you can see
1:35:43that seeks to end this despicable
1:35:45protection so i i request bipartisan
1:35:48support in this matter i think we have
1:35:50agreement
1:35:51uh and and in general i believe we have
1:35:53agreement
1:35:54and this is a very very informative
1:35:56hearing mr chairman and thank you for
1:35:58calling it
1:36:00i yield back the balance of my time i
1:36:01know you'll like that and by the way the
1:36:03the pirates do have a bright future
1:36:06thank you
1:36:07i can only hope you're right about that
1:36:09gus
1:36:10uh let's see chair recognizes mr vc for
1:36:13five minutes
1:36:15uh mr chairman uh thank you very much
1:36:17for holding this very important hearing
1:36:19on 2 30 um it's really
1:36:21timely and critical that we start
1:36:24talking about how we can move the needle
1:36:25on this issue and hold big tech
1:36:27accountable uh we know that recent
1:36:30reports demonstrate concerning trends
1:36:32that i should put every member of this
1:36:34committee uh and certainly every member
1:36:37of congress i'm alert about the
1:36:38shortcomings of big tech uh uh and their
1:36:41repeated promise to self-regulate
1:36:44i'm optimistic that we can get something
1:36:46done
1:36:46uh because i really do think that social
1:36:48media platforms are
1:36:50uh no question a a major source
1:36:54of uh a and a dominant source of news
1:36:56now in our lives uh whether it's
1:36:58entertainment uh personal connections
1:37:01uh news even local news uh advertising
1:37:04uh all of that happens in the uh social
1:37:07media world uh but we also continue to
1:37:10see social media platforms uh acting in
1:37:12a problematic way uh and some instances
1:37:15even endangering the lives of very young
1:37:17kids uh and today is no different uh
1:37:21social media platforms uh continue to
1:37:23behave without an honest
1:37:24solution-oriented approach to stop the
1:37:26spread of misinformation to manipulate
1:37:28public opinion
1:37:30uh and we know rampant disinformation
1:37:32about things like uh voter fraud
1:37:36is still
1:37:37present
1:37:38in our communities
1:37:39and as this new variant of covet 19 uh
1:37:43looks around the corner uh congress
1:37:45really needs to act now so we can stop
1:37:48the missed spread of misinformation
1:37:50around covet 19 and this new variant
1:37:52that's about to come through it's it's
1:37:54very
1:37:54uh disconcerting to think about some of
1:37:57the things that we're about to hear
1:37:59about this new variant that's just a
1:38:01bunch of bs
1:38:02and while social media platforms
1:38:05continue to flourish uh and the number
1:38:07of users they are able to keep on their
1:38:09platform
1:38:10the number of reported harms associated
1:38:12with social media
1:38:35i asked the panel a question
1:38:38uh
1:38:39again there's no doubt uh that big tech
1:38:42companies have just been flat-footed
1:38:44when it comes to getting ahead of
1:38:45removing harmful content and
1:38:46disinformation
1:38:48on the most popular social media
1:38:50platforms
1:38:52uh miss uh uh
1:38:54miss francis uh hagan you mentioned
1:38:56numerous times during your interview in
1:38:5860 minutes that you wanted to show that
1:39:01facebook cares about profits more than
1:39:03public safety uh in november of this
1:39:05year uh facebook which is now rebranded
1:39:08itself as meta announced it that
1:39:11it is working with civil with the civil
1:39:13rights communities uh privacy experts
1:39:15and others to create a race data
1:39:18measurement given your experience and
1:39:20background in the field can you talk
1:39:22about how facebook incorporates such
1:39:23recommendations
1:39:25into these types of measuring uh tools
1:39:27and is there cry is there a criteria or
1:39:30a set of guidelines that facebook is
1:39:32considering when shaping the product
1:39:36while while i was there i was not
1:39:38aware of any actions
1:39:41around
1:39:42analyzing whether or not there was a
1:39:43racial bias in things like ranking
1:39:45one things that could be disclosed by
1:39:48facebook but does not is the
1:39:50concentration of harm on the platform so
1:39:53for every single integrity harm type
1:39:55every safety harm type a small fraction
1:39:57of the users are hyper exposed to that
1:39:59harm it could be misinformation it could
1:40:01be hate speech and facebook has ways to
1:40:03report that data in a privacy conscious
1:40:05conscious way today that would allow you
1:40:07to know whether or not harms across the
1:40:09platform were equally born
1:40:11but they don't do it
1:40:14so with this new tool that they're
1:40:16talking about uh
1:40:18creating do you see any potential
1:40:20drawbacks
1:40:21to rate and such measurement which is
1:40:23supposedly one to increase fairness when
1:40:26it comes to race in the u.s on this
1:40:28platform
1:40:29is there anything that we should be on
1:40:30the lookout for
1:40:32um
1:40:33while when i was working on narrow cast
1:40:36misinformation we developed the system
1:40:38for segmenting the us population in a
1:40:40privacy conscious way we looked at the
1:40:42groups and pages that people interacted
1:40:44with and then clustered them in a
1:40:45non-labeled way so we're not assigning
1:40:47race to anyone we're not assigning any
1:40:49other characteristics but we're looking
1:40:51at when we look at consistent
1:40:53populations do they experience harms in
1:40:55an unequal way
1:40:56i don't believe there would be any harms
1:40:58for facebook reporting this data and i
1:41:00believe it is a responsibility of the
1:41:02company to disclose the unequal
1:41:04treatment on the platform because it's
1:41:05the only way if they're not held
1:41:07accountable there's not transparency
1:41:09they will not improve there's no
1:41:10business incentive for them to get this
1:41:12more equitable if it comes at a loss in
1:41:14profits
1:41:16thank you very much mr chairman i yield
1:41:18back
1:41:20gentlemen yields back chair now
1:41:22recognizes mr johnson for five minutes
1:41:24thank you mr chairman you know this
1:41:26topic we're discussing today is uh
1:41:28certainly not a new one this committee
1:41:30has told big tech that
1:41:32they cannot claim to be simply platforms
1:41:36for third party information distribution
1:41:38while
1:41:39simultaneously acting as content
1:41:42providers and removing lawful content
1:41:44based on political or ideological
1:41:46preferences
1:41:47in other words big tech cannot be both
1:41:50tech platform and content provider while
1:41:54still receiving special protections
1:41:56under section 230.
1:41:58free speech involves not only being able
1:41:59to say what you believe but also
1:42:01protecting free speech for those with
1:42:04whom you strongly disagree
1:42:06that's fundamental in america
1:42:08and big tech should not be granted the
1:42:10right to choose when this right to free
1:42:13speech is allowed or when they should
1:42:16refer or prefer to hide edit or censor
1:42:20lawful speech on their platforms
1:42:23they are not the arbiters of the
1:42:26freedoms constitutionally provided
1:42:29to the american people
1:42:31this committee has brought in big tech
1:42:33ceos numerous times now so far
1:42:36they have chosen to arrogantly deflect
1:42:39our questions and ignore the issues
1:42:41we've presented to them
1:42:43it took a whistleblower whom we're
1:42:45fortunate to have with us today to
1:42:47expose the harm
1:42:48that facebook and other social media
1:42:50platforms are causing
1:42:52especially
1:42:54to children and teens at an
1:42:57impressionable age that harm
1:43:00concerns me
1:43:02i have a discussion draft that would
1:43:04require companies to disclose the mental
1:43:06health impact their products and
1:43:08services have on children
1:43:10perhaps such requirements would prevent
1:43:13the need for a whistleblower to expose
1:43:15highly concerning revelations including
1:43:18that executives knew the content of
1:43:20their social media platforms are toxic
1:43:22for teenage girls
1:43:24and perhaps it would incentivize these
1:43:27ex these executives to come back to us
1:43:29with solutions that enable a safer
1:43:32online experience for its users
1:43:35rather
1:43:36than attempting to debunk the evidence
1:43:38of their toxicity however we also must
1:43:41be careful
1:43:42when considering reforms to section 230
1:43:45as over-regulation could actually lead
1:43:47to additional suppression of free speech
1:43:50it is our intent to protect consumers
1:43:53while simultaneously enabling american
1:43:55innovation
1:43:56to grow and thrive without burdensome
1:43:59government regulation
1:44:01under the event panel of numerous
1:44:03passwords followed by pound
1:44:06don't know who that was that wasn't me
1:44:08mr chairman
1:44:09that's not my that's not my accent as
1:44:11you can tell
1:44:13miss frederick
1:44:15um the chinese communist party has
1:44:18multiple agencies dedicated
1:44:20to propaganda
1:44:22from the ministry for information
1:44:24industry which regulates anyone
1:44:26providing information to the public via
1:44:28the internet to the central propaganda
1:44:30department which exercises censorship
1:44:33powers through licensing of publishers
1:44:37how do big tech's actions compare
1:44:40to those of the ccp the chinese when it
1:44:44comes to censoring
1:44:46content i'd say that a healthy republic
1:44:50depends on the genuine interrogation of
1:44:52ideas and having said that i am very
1:44:56troubled by what i see as an increasing
1:44:58symbiosis between the government and big
1:45:01tech companies i talked about saki's
1:45:04press conference but what i didn't say
1:45:05is in that july press conference again
1:45:07from the white house podium she said if
1:45:10one user is banned from one private
1:45:12company they should be banned from all
1:45:14private companies platforms that to me
1:45:17is harrowing what company is going to
1:45:18want to start up if 50 of their user
1:45:20base is automatically gone because the
1:45:22government says so so in in my mind that
1:45:25increasing symbiosis between the
1:45:26government and tech companies is very
1:45:29reminiscent of what the ccp does okay
1:45:32miss haugen in your testimony to the uk
1:45:34parliament you recommend that a federal
1:45:36regulator should have access to
1:45:37platforms internal processes and the
1:45:40ability to regulate their process for
1:45:42removing content just yesterday
1:45:44one of my democrat colleagues agreed
1:45:46with your recommendation for more
1:45:47government intervention i'm seriously
1:45:50troubled
1:45:51by my colleagues thinking that
1:45:53government involvement in private
1:45:54business operations to regulate content
1:45:56is even an option to put on the table
1:45:59bigger government means less innovation
1:46:01less production and less progress not to
1:46:03mention the very serious first amendment
1:46:05of first amendment implications this is
1:46:08un-american
1:46:09miss frederick quickly can you talk
1:46:11about the negative impacts this approach
1:46:14would cause
1:46:15it's authoritarianism
1:46:17okay
1:46:18mr chairman i yield back i was
1:46:20mischaracterized um the only thing i've
1:46:22advocated for is transparency and the
1:46:23government mandating the facebook must
1:46:25articulate what it's doing to solve
1:46:27problems because today they lie to us
1:46:29they give us false data when they rarely
1:46:31give any data and they always just say
1:46:34we're working on it they never actually
1:46:35give progress so i just want to clarify
1:46:37my opinions
1:46:38gentlemen i yield mr chairman chair
1:46:41recognizes mr soto for five minutes
1:46:44thank you mr chair
1:46:46lies about the vaccines
1:46:48lies about the 2020 election
1:46:50lies about the january 6 insurrection
1:46:54all proliferate on social media to this
1:46:57day
1:46:59it seems like
1:47:01as we're working on key reforms like
1:47:03protecting civil rights accountability
1:47:06for social media companies protecting
1:47:08our kids
1:47:09the main opposition by republicans today
1:47:11the talking point of the day is they
1:47:13want a license to lie
1:47:16the right to lie without consequence
1:47:19even though deliberate lies are not free
1:47:21speech under new york times v sullivan
1:47:24according to our supreme court
1:47:26what was scenario number one
1:47:28tom cotton senator cotton referring to
1:47:30his woohound lab theory he literally
1:47:33said quote we don't have evidence that
1:47:35this disease originated there to the new
1:47:38york times yet radical right-wing media
1:47:41then goes on to say the virus is part of
1:47:43china's bio-warfare program that's a
1:47:45terrible example to use and then
1:47:48after president trump was impeached for
1:47:50collusion with ukraine you want to talk
1:47:52about a hunter biden laptop really
1:47:55i'm deeply concerned about how these
1:47:57things are already spreading in spanish
1:48:00language media as well i got to speak to
1:48:03mr zuckerberg in march
1:48:05about that and he said there's too much
1:48:07misinformation across all these media he
1:48:09mentioned deterministic products like
1:48:11whatsapp and they also said quote
1:48:14there were certainly some of this
1:48:16content on facebook and it's our
1:48:18responsibility to make sure that they're
1:48:19that we're building effective systems
1:48:22that can reduce the spread of that i
1:48:24think a lot of those systems performed
1:48:25well during this election cycle but it
1:48:27is
1:48:28but it's an iterative process and there
1:48:30are always going to be new things that
1:48:32we'll need to do to keep up with the
1:48:34different threats we face then i asked
1:48:36him
1:48:37to commit to boosting spanish language
1:48:40moderators and systems on facebook
1:48:42especially during election season to
1:48:44prevent this from happening again
1:48:46miss haugen you left facebook about two
1:48:48months after that hearing in may
1:48:51and uh has there been significant
1:48:54updates since that hearing on protecting
1:48:56spanish minister information in short as
1:48:58mark zuckerberg kept his word
1:49:02i do not know the progress of the
1:49:04company in since i left i do know before
1:49:07i left there was a significant asymmetry
1:49:10in the investment in safety systems we
1:49:12live in a very linguistically diverse
1:49:13country and yet facebook has
1:49:15overwhelmingly 87 percent of its budget
1:49:17for misinformation is spent exclusively
1:49:19on english all the rest of the world
1:49:22falls into that remaining 13
1:49:25when we live in a linguistically diverse
1:49:26society where there aren't safety
1:49:28systems for non-english speakers we open
1:49:31up the doors to dividing our country and
1:49:34being pulled apart because the most
1:49:35extreme content is getting the most
1:49:37distribution for those populations and
1:49:39you mentioned specifically in other
1:49:41hearings about ethiopia and the concern
1:49:43with there can you go into that a little
1:49:44more
1:49:45we are seeing a trend in many countries
1:49:48around the world where
1:49:50parties are rising based on
1:49:54implying that certain populations within
1:49:56their societies are are sub-human right
1:49:59one of the warning signs for ethnic
1:50:00violence is when leaders begin to
1:50:03refer to a minority as things like
1:50:04insects or or rodents right dehumanizing
1:50:08them
1:50:09at the same time because facebook's
1:50:10algorithms give the most reach the most
1:50:12extreme content uh facebook ends up
1:50:15fanning the flames of this extremism
1:50:16around the world and in the case of
1:50:18ethiopian myanmar that's resulted in
1:50:20people dying thank you miss huggin mr
1:50:22robinson
1:50:23we also see a lot of lies and misfortune
1:50:26related to the vaccines how has
1:50:29misinformation impacted communities of
1:50:31color taking the coven 19 vaccine
1:50:34well because of the ways in which
1:50:35facebook is not transparent about their
1:50:37algorithms transparent about how ads can
1:50:40be deployed we actually don't have a
1:50:42full understanding of of what we're
1:50:45dealing with because you know we are
1:50:48dealing with you know
1:50:50deep levels of deceptive and
1:50:52manipulative content um sort of um
1:50:55content that gets to travel and travels
1:50:57can travel far within subsets of
1:50:59communities but without any clarity of
1:51:02what's happening until it's sometimes
1:51:04far too late until you can't actually
1:51:07deal with it the ways in which um
1:51:10money can be put behind those for paid
1:51:12advertisement to sell people um things
1:51:15that um are not um approved that haven't
1:51:18been tested um in in opening statements
1:51:22um we heard um about um drugs um being
1:51:26sold online and being marketed through
1:51:27algorithms and that's exactly what we're
1:51:30seeing when it comes to black
1:51:31communities
1:51:32yes
1:51:33sorry my time's limited would you say
1:51:35misinformation reduces vaccination rates
1:51:38among covet among communities of color
1:51:40with it can both reduce vaccination
1:51:42rates and increase people going down
1:51:45rabbit holes of using all sorts of
1:51:46untested drugs thank you my times
1:51:49expired
1:51:50gentleman yields back chair now
1:51:51recognizes mr long for five minutes
1:51:53thank you mr chairman and thank you all
1:51:55for
1:51:55being here today
1:51:57uh miss halgen the third pillar of the
1:52:00big tech accountability platform
1:52:03is addressing big tech's relationship
1:52:05with china
1:52:06much of the information you brought
1:52:08forward discusses the challenges
1:52:09associated with facebook's business
1:52:11model and how it chooses content that
1:52:14users see on their platform which leads
1:52:16to many of the harms that the platform
1:52:17causes today
1:52:19we're looking at this issue all across
1:52:21big tech not just on facebook one of the
1:52:23platforms we're paying close attention
1:52:25to as you know is tick-tock
1:52:27reports suggest that tick-tock's parent
1:52:29company bite dance
1:52:31coordinates with the chinese communist
1:52:33party to facilitate abuses against
1:52:35uyghur muslims and pressure united
1:52:37states-based employees to censor videos
1:52:41that the chinese communist party
1:52:43finds culturally problematic or critical
1:52:46of the chinese communist party how does
1:52:48tick-tock's platform business model make
1:52:51it ripe for being
1:52:52censored by china
1:52:54that is a wonderful question so i often
1:52:57get asked questions about the difference
1:52:58between personal social media which is
1:53:00what facebook is you know you're
1:53:02connecting with your family and friends
1:53:03and what i call broadcast social media
1:53:05where people create in order to get
1:53:07reach
1:53:08tick tock is specifically designed with
1:53:10no contract between the viewer and the
1:53:12content they receive you know you you
1:53:14get shown things you don't know exactly
1:53:15why you got shown them and the way
1:53:17facebook or tick tock works is they push
1:53:19people towards a very limited number of
1:53:21pieces of content you can probably run
1:53:24fifty percent of everything that's
1:53:25viewed every day with a few thousand
1:53:27pieces of content per day that system
1:53:29was designed that way so that you could
1:53:31censor it like when it was in china
1:53:34they're intentionally set up so the
1:53:35humans can look at that high
1:53:37distribution content and choose what
1:53:38goes forward or not tick tock is
1:53:40designed to be censored
1:53:42okay thank you and uh question
1:53:46for you ms ms frederick
1:53:49your testimony makes clear that holding
1:53:51big tech accountable means increasing
1:53:53transparency into their practices you
1:53:56also have a background in national
1:53:58security we don't know how tick-tock
1:54:00monitors its platforms or censors its
1:54:02content
1:54:04they could easily be doing this be doing
1:54:06the bidding of the chinese communist
1:54:07party
1:54:08and we wouldn't know anything about it
1:54:11how do you uh
1:54:12or do you excuse me do you have
1:54:14recommendations on how we can increase
1:54:15big text transparency for example how do
1:54:18we know if the content viewed by
1:54:20americans on tick tock isn't spreading
1:54:22communist propaganda
1:54:25i would say incentivize transparency
1:54:28certain companies of their own volition
1:54:30right now they give quarterly reports on
1:54:32how they interact with law enforcement
1:54:34you know how they employ their their
1:54:36community standards but other tech
1:54:38companies are not doing this so there
1:54:40has to be some teeth when you
1:54:42incentivize that transparency among tech
1:54:44companies and when it comes to tick tock
1:54:46in particular as you said parent company
1:54:48headquartered in beijing they you have
1:54:50to assume that they are beholden to the
1:54:52ccp in this instance the governance
1:54:55atmosphere of china the 2017 cyber
1:54:57security law the national security laws
1:54:59basically say that whatever private
1:55:01companies do whatever data they ingest
1:55:03however they interact all of it is
1:55:04subject to the ccp when it comes
1:55:06knocking so
1:55:08in my estimation i don't believe any
1:55:10american right now should be on tick
1:55:11tock and there are social contagion
1:55:13elements there as well uh the algorithm
1:55:15their secret sauce uh
1:55:17it is
1:55:18crazily um
1:55:20wants user engagement and nine to eleven
1:55:22year olds uh parents were surveyed and
1:55:25and of nine to eleven year old americans
1:55:29these parents said thirty percent of
1:55:30them are on tick tock this is more than
1:55:33instagram this is more than facebook
1:55:34this is more than snap so when we think
1:55:36about the formation of our young minds
1:55:38in this country we have to understand
1:55:41that bite dance that a beijing-based
1:55:43company has their hooks and our children
1:55:45and we need to act accordingly
1:55:47so you say that the parents are saying
1:55:50that 30 percent
1:55:52of their children
1:55:53are on tick-tock 30 percent of parents
1:55:56say that their children are on tick-tock
1:55:58uh nine to year olds in particular so
1:56:00i'd say that i'd say that there's
1:56:02probably another 30 percent that don't
1:56:03know what their kids are looking at i
1:56:05mean i think it's a lot higher number
1:56:06than 30 in my opinion
1:56:09uh tic tocs
1:56:11hyper amplification algorithms also make
1:56:13it even more addictive than tick tock
1:56:15because they can choose the absolute uh
1:56:17purest addictive content and spread it
1:56:19to the most audience so i agree with her
1:56:21this is a very dangerous thing and it's
1:56:23affecting very young children okay mr
1:56:25chairman thank you for holding this
1:56:27hearing today and thank you all for your
1:56:29participation here today i really really
1:56:31appreciate it it's a very very serious
1:56:33subject as we all
1:56:34all know and mr chairman i yield back
1:56:37gentleman yields back chair recognizes
1:56:39mr o'halloran for five minutes
1:56:45there we go thank you chairman doyle
1:56:47uh i uh
1:56:49you know there's no doubt uh that the
1:56:51about the positive and negative impacts
1:56:53of the technology platforms have in our
1:56:55society today we've been talking about
1:56:57it all day long
1:56:59as a father grandfather
1:57:02and like many americans i was outraged
1:57:04and am outraged to read about the inner
1:57:07workings of facebook brought to light uh
1:57:09by
1:57:10ms haugen
1:57:12facebook is
1:57:14recklessness disregard for the
1:57:17well-being of children and teenagers
1:57:18especially given their internal research
1:57:22this is completely unacceptable
1:57:24instead of using facebook and instagram
1:57:26to create positive and social experience
1:57:30for minors facebook is exploiting our
1:57:33children and grandchildren for clicks
1:57:35and ad revenue
1:57:36this is a particular problem for teenage
1:57:38girls
1:57:40facebook's own internal research found
1:57:43that using instagram made teenage girls
1:57:45feel worse about themselves leading to
1:57:48depression
1:57:49eating disorders
1:57:51and thoughts of suicide and yes even
1:57:53death
1:57:55i i don't know how they can come up with
1:57:56these decisions that they've come up
1:57:58with
1:57:59i'm a former homicide investigator as
1:58:01well as father and grandfather
1:58:04i've seen a lot of suicide i've
1:58:07i've witnessed a lot of death in our
1:58:09country
1:58:10and i don't know how somebody can make
1:58:12these decisions knowing the information
1:58:15they knew and the impact it was going to
1:58:17have
1:58:18on the families and children of our
1:58:20within our society today
1:58:23facebook thinks it's okay
1:58:26i think it this is again an outrage this
1:58:29is clear evidence that something needs
1:58:31to change
1:58:33we need transparency for companies like
1:58:35facebook we need to know what they are
1:58:38showing our children and why
1:58:41and to identify what how these
1:58:43algorithms come together
1:58:45and what impact they will have on the
1:58:48rest of our society
1:58:50we can't have facebook and their
1:58:52algorithms taking advantage of our
1:58:55children
1:58:56our children and families are more than
1:58:59just cor out there for corporate greed
1:59:02tech corporations also have a moral
1:59:04responsibility
1:59:06to children and families in our country
1:59:08in general
1:59:10and the rest of the world
1:59:12miss hogan halogen uh can you tell us
1:59:15more about how instagram uses
1:59:18demographics and a user's search history
1:59:20to serve up content and ads even if the
1:59:24content and ads are harmful to the user
1:59:29facebook systems are designed for scale
1:59:31one of the things that has been seen
1:59:33over and over again in my senate hearing
1:59:35they showed explicit examples of this
1:59:37and facebook does vet ads before they're
1:59:40distributed
1:59:42but they do it very casually they don't
1:59:43do it rigorously enough and as a result
1:59:45uh this in the senate hearing they
1:59:47demonstrated that you can send ads for
1:59:49drug paraphernalia to to children to 13
1:59:51year olds if you want to
1:59:53there's a lack of accountability when it
1:59:54comes to ads and a lack of detail the
1:59:57second question is around things like
1:59:59search like how do those interests then
2:00:01percolate into spirals like down rabbit
2:00:04holes
2:00:05when you engage with any content on
2:00:07instagram it
2:00:09facebook learns little bits of data
2:00:10about you they learn what kinds of
2:00:11content you might like and then they try
2:00:13to show you more but they don't show you
2:00:16random content they show you the content
2:00:17most likely to provoke a reaction for
2:00:19you and facebook has demonstrated that
2:00:21in the case of things like teenagers you
2:00:22can go from a search query like healthy
2:00:24eating to anorexia content within within
2:00:27within less than two weeks just by
2:00:29engaging with the content that you're
2:00:30given by facebook
2:00:32thank you mr halgen
2:00:34facebook had this data that showed how
2:00:37harmful instagram is to teenage teenage
2:00:40users
2:00:41did facebook executives really ignore
2:00:43these findings and make no meaningful
2:00:46changes
2:00:47did they really decide that their
2:00:49profits were more important than the
2:00:51well-being of our kids
2:00:53and i'm trying to understand that who
2:00:55works at facebook that makes these type
2:00:57of decisions and why they make them
2:01:01for
2:01:02when they know that they're going to
2:01:03impact have a negative impact especially
2:01:06on our children in this society i think
2:01:08there's two core problems that lead to
2:01:10the situation the first is that facebook
2:01:12has a an unflagging faith in the idea
2:01:14that creating connections is more
2:01:17valuable than anything else uh bosworth
2:01:19who's the i believe now the cto of
2:01:21facebook that's an excuse that's a faith
2:01:23of greed that's not a faith of moral
2:01:25responsibility
2:01:27i i don't attribute intentions because
2:01:29they believe that connection is so
2:01:31magical that it's more valuable than say
2:01:33a kid's killing themselves okay but he's
2:01:35quoted there was a there was a piece
2:01:36that was leaked a couple of weeks ago
2:01:38where in it he says it doesn't matter if
2:01:41people die we are going to advance human
2:01:42connection the second question is how
2:01:44can these decisions be made over and
2:01:46over again facebook has uh has a
2:01:49diffused responsibility like when
2:01:51antonia davis was appeared before the
2:01:53senate she couldn't name who is
2:01:55responsible for launching instagram kids
2:01:56or who would make that decision because
2:01:58facebook's organizational structure has
2:02:00no one who is responsible for anything
2:02:02they always say this committee made the
2:02:03decision we need to require them to put
2:02:06names on decisions because then someone
2:02:08would take a pause and say do we do i
2:02:10really want my name on this thing that
2:02:12might hurt someone
2:02:13thank you very much and i yield
2:02:15gentlemen yields back chair now
2:02:16recognizes mr wahlberg for five minutes
2:02:19thank you chairman doyle and thanks
2:02:21thanks for having this hearing and to
2:02:23our panel thank you for being here
2:02:26uh miss haugen you state in your
2:02:27testimony that on a quote facebook
2:02:30became a one trillion dollar company by
2:02:32paying for its profits with our safety
2:02:35including the safety of our children and
2:02:37it is unacceptable
2:02:39i i agree wholeheartedly and would go
2:02:42even further to say that it's not only
2:02:44unacceptable it's morally and ethically
2:02:46wrong
2:02:48in the march hearing and others we heard
2:02:50big tech
2:02:51companies constantly
2:02:53lie to us and say that they are
2:02:56enhancing safety protections
2:02:58when in reality what they're doing is
2:03:00increasing censorship
2:03:03for more monetary
2:03:05gains
2:03:06and it's a tragedy that half of this
2:03:08country including many friends and
2:03:10family of mine
2:03:12who feel that they need to use these
2:03:14platforms and they're amazing i have a
2:03:17love-hate relationship for the platforms
2:03:19i love them and i hate them
2:03:22it's amazing what they can do but when a
2:03:24family member of mine has to stay off of
2:03:28content areas because of potential of
2:03:32not being able to use facebook for his
2:03:34business
2:03:36that's concerning
2:03:37it also state very clearly
2:03:40that while i love everybody on this
2:03:41committee and in congress good friends
2:03:44and colleagues
2:03:45i don't want any of you censoring me
2:03:47i don't trust you to do it the only one
2:03:49i trust the censor is me doing the
2:03:51censoring and you shouldn't trust that
2:03:54so
2:03:56the issue here is not so much with
2:03:58adults i don't want to be treated as a
2:03:59child
2:04:02i want to be
2:04:04accountable for what i believe
2:04:06what i read and what i accept
2:04:09and so
2:04:10that's an adult issue
2:04:13but kids it's different story as a
2:04:15parent of now grown three kids
2:04:18my wife and i did creative things to try
2:04:20to keep them from using the tv
2:04:24when we were gone
2:04:26but now with my grandkids six of them
2:04:28young children it seems nearly
2:04:30impossible to keep kids away from
2:04:32harmful digital content and that's where
2:04:33i have my major concerns
2:04:37facebook knows that his platforms cause
2:04:39negative mental health impacts on young
2:04:41users and yet they continue to exploit
2:04:43children for profit while selling
2:04:45parentability goods and selling us a
2:04:47bill of goods they refuse to abandon
2:04:49instagram for kids saying they believe
2:04:51building the app is the right thing to
2:04:52do they've said that in front of us
2:04:55but it's not just facebook google tick
2:04:57tock and snapchat have built empires and
2:04:59collecting and selling our children's
2:05:01data and have become havens for
2:05:03predators seeking to exploit and lure
2:05:05vulnerable populations
2:05:07as the lead a sponsor of the only
2:05:09bipartisan bill in the house to update
2:05:11the children's online privacy act
2:05:13i'm very worried about the harm
2:05:15tick-tock poses to our kids and the
2:05:18national security threat that its
2:05:19chinese communist party-backed
2:05:22mothership bite dance poses to our
2:05:24democracy
2:05:25recently before the senate commerce
2:05:27committee a tick-tock executive was
2:05:29unable to distinguish what american data
2:05:32may fall in the hands of mainland china
2:05:35miss haugen i understand you have a
2:05:37background in both of these realms can
2:05:39you please give us a sense of the threat
2:05:41this entity poses to our society and to
2:05:43our children
2:05:45there have been past scandals in even
2:05:47the last year to regarding tick tock
2:05:49where tick tock banned all content from
2:05:51disabled users and from homosexual users
2:05:54to protect them from bullying
2:05:56when you have a product that can be so
2:05:58um thoroughly controlled we we must
2:06:01accept that on if if bite dance wants to
2:06:05control what ideas are shown on the
2:06:06platform the product is designed so that
2:06:08they can
2:06:09can control those ideas they can block
2:06:11what they want to block there is no
2:06:13there's nowhere near enough transparency
2:06:15and how tick-tock operates and i worry
2:06:17that is substantially more addictive
2:06:18than even instagram because of its its
2:06:21hyper hyper-amplification focus
2:06:25thank you uh
2:06:26miss frederick it's become abundantly
2:06:28clear
2:06:30that big tech will not enact real
2:06:32changes unless congress forces them to
2:06:36i have great concerns about that
2:06:40but
2:06:41it's clear they
2:06:43they can lie to us they'll keep doing
2:06:45that they have no intentions so
2:06:47ms frederick i've led a discussion draft
2:06:49that would carve out section 230
2:06:50liability protections for reasonable
2:06:52foreseeable cyber billing
2:06:54bullying of kids under 18 meaning there
2:06:56would be need to be an established
2:06:58pattern of harmful behavior for this to
2:07:00apply do you think this approach will
2:07:03actually force big tech platforms to
2:07:05change their behaviors why or why not
2:07:09so i think there are a couple benefits
2:07:10and challenges to something like this
2:07:12the benefit is that it would address
2:07:14genuine problems on the platform
2:07:17but you run into some issues when it
2:07:18comes to the definition so you want to
2:07:20make the definition linked to a standard
2:07:23and as tight as possible because we see
2:07:25what definition inflation looks like i
2:07:27was in a room in orlando florida talking
2:07:29to a bunch of grandmothers nobody under
2:07:31probably 60 and i asked them given
2:07:35facebook's rollout of a pilot program on
2:07:37extremism and creating that friction
2:07:38between extremist and potential
2:07:40extremist content almost every single
2:07:42one of them raised their hands because
2:07:44they got that extremism warning that
2:07:46they potentially engage with extremism
2:07:48or know an extremist that definition
2:07:50inflation is a critical problem so i
2:07:52think if you tighten up that definition
2:07:54make it as tight as possible i think it
2:07:56will go far in addressing some of these
2:07:57problems that exist on the platform that
2:07:59are actually genuine thank you and i
2:08:01yield back
2:08:03the gentleman yields back
2:08:05chair recognizes um miss rice for five
2:08:08minutes
2:08:10thank you so much mr chairman i really
2:08:12want to thank you um for having this
2:08:14hearing you know
2:08:15um
2:08:16i
2:08:17i can't believe that we are i'm very
2:08:19happy that we're here
2:08:21discussing potential future legislation
2:08:24but i believe that level of
2:08:26congressional and action
2:08:29when it comes to anything social media
2:08:32company related
2:08:34is astounding and it is our greatest
2:08:37national moral failure
2:08:40i am not a parent um
2:08:42but i'm one of 10 kids and i can tell
2:08:44you if my mother had to police 10
2:08:47children
2:08:48using tick-tock and instagram and
2:08:50facebook i mean i don't i i
2:08:53i don't know what she would have done
2:08:55so and i'm loathe
2:08:57to um
2:08:59i'm i don't mean to be
2:09:01critical of anyone's parenting but one
2:09:04thing that we should listen to when it
2:09:06comes to all of these
2:09:08social media poncho bigwigs
2:09:11none of them
2:09:12let their own children
2:09:14use any of these
2:09:17platforms none of them
2:09:19so why do we
2:09:22i really hope and i'm grateful for all
2:09:24the witnesses here today i really hope
2:09:26that we can come up with legislation
2:09:29that will once and for all send a
2:09:30message to these social media platforms
2:09:33that have taken over every aspect of our
2:09:36life not just here in america but across
2:09:38the planet
2:09:39um finally to put some bite in the law i
2:09:42spent nine years as the elected da in my
2:09:45home county before i came to congress
2:09:47and i was in a unique position to
2:09:49understand where the law
2:09:52failed to address
2:09:54um anti-social behavior
2:09:56we know now right and then i would go to
2:09:58albany and say okay we need to get this
2:10:00lot to protect this to do that
2:10:03and i understand that it takes a while
2:10:04to do that kind of thing to come to a
2:10:06consensus but
2:10:08i i'm hearing overwhelmingly from my
2:10:10colleagues on both sides of the aisle
2:10:12today
2:10:13that we all understand the urgency to do
2:10:16something in this instance so mr steyer
2:10:19i would like to ask to start with you
2:10:22you know it was the wall street journal
2:10:24that published an article and i think mr
2:10:25chairman you might have made reference
2:10:27to this article that was published in
2:10:28september that was titled facebook knows
2:10:31instagram is toxic for teen girls
2:10:33company documents show we talked a lot
2:10:35about this
2:10:36um today
2:10:38um but it was really disturbing to learn
2:10:40that and to read internal communications
2:10:43from facebook employees and managers
2:10:45that showed that they were fully aware
2:10:46of how their algorithms harm young users
2:10:49but that they continue to curate content
2:10:52in that manner anyway um mr steyer can
2:10:56you please um maybe explain a little
2:10:58deeper why teen girls are particularly
2:11:01vulnerable
2:11:02to this cycle of emotional and or
2:11:05psychological manipulation online i i
2:11:08don't think it's i think it's i don't
2:11:09think it's fair to talk about um you
2:11:11know teenage girls in in kind of
2:11:13isolation when there are so many
2:11:16different groups who are impacted
2:11:17negatively by these social media
2:11:19companies and their algorithms but it's
2:11:22important that we help educate young
2:11:23girls
2:11:24to tell them the truth about what
2:11:26information is is
2:11:28beating them in the face
2:11:30and affecting their lives um their very
2:11:33lives so if you could just mr expound a
2:11:35little bit more on that because it's
2:11:36important that children get you the
2:11:38actual users who are the victims here
2:11:40and they are victims understand
2:11:43you're absolutely right congresswoman
2:11:44and you're absolutely right too first of
2:11:46all the reason it's instagram is such a
2:11:49powerful platform is it's comparative so
2:11:51kids and teens constantly compare
2:11:53themselves to each other it's the
2:11:55essence of their self-esteem it's the
2:11:56essence of how they grow up it's we all
2:11:58understand this because we all were kids
2:12:00and teens at one point so it's why the
2:12:03platform is so powerful i think the
2:12:05second point is you're absolutely right
2:12:07that this has to be a bipartisan issue
2:12:09and quite frankly i would like to say to
2:12:11this committee you've talked about this
2:12:13for years but you haven't done anything
2:12:15right here show me a piece of
2:12:17legislation that you passed we had to
2:12:19pass the privacy law in california
2:12:22because congress could not on a
2:12:23bipartisan basis come together and pass
2:12:26a privacy law for the country and i
2:12:28would urge you to think about that as
2:12:30you and put aside some of the partisan
2:12:32rhetoric that occasionally seeped in
2:12:34today and focus on the fact that all of
2:12:37us care about children and teens and
2:12:39that there are major reforms to 230 that
2:12:41would change that remember freedom of
2:12:44speech is not freedom of reach and so
2:12:46it's the amplification and the
2:12:48algorithms that are critical so
2:12:50transparency as a number of you have
2:12:52mentioned on both sides is critical
2:12:54and the other thing i want to say to
2:12:55your very good question congresswoman
2:12:57rice is that
2:12:59230 reform is going to be very important
2:13:01for protecting kids and teens on
2:13:03platforms like instagram and holding
2:13:05them accountable and liable but you also
2:13:08as a committee have to do privacy
2:13:11anti-trust and design reform so in a
2:13:14comprehensive way this committee in a
2:13:17bipartisan fashion could fundamentally
2:13:20change the reality for kids and society
2:13:22and i really hope you will do that
2:13:24because there's been a lot of talk but
2:13:26until there is legislation the companies
2:13:29that we're referring to are going to sit
2:13:31there and do exactly what they're still
2:13:33doing so thank you very much for the
2:13:35question and thank you all for a
2:13:36bipartisan approach to this issue
2:13:39very good voice mr schneier thank you so
2:13:41much and thank you to all the witnesses
2:13:42and also thank you to mr chairman i
2:13:44yield back
2:13:46general lady yields back mr duncan
2:13:48welcome you are recognized for five
2:13:50minutes
2:13:51thank you mr chairman and um you know
2:13:53we've had the opportunity to discuss
2:13:54these issues
2:13:56with the heads of facebook twitter and
2:13:58google in the past
2:14:00and i've asked those ceos in this
2:14:02hearing room do you believe you are the
2:14:03arbiters
2:14:05of absolute truth
2:14:09i was sitting here listening to the
2:14:10hearing and thinking about the hearing
2:14:12even before i came in today and i kept
2:14:14coming back to this
2:14:171984.
2:14:20the words in this book that george
2:14:22orwell wrote
2:14:23ring so true when we talk about
2:14:26where we are today with big tech
2:14:29and all the things that have been
2:14:30discussed here
2:14:32not just 2 30 protections
2:14:34some quotes from that book we know that
2:14:36no one ever sees his power with the
2:14:37intention of relinquishing
2:14:39who controls the past controls the
2:14:41future who controls the present controls
2:14:43the past
2:14:45do you see that the whole aim of new
2:14:47speak is to narrow the range of thought
2:14:50narrow the range of thought
2:14:52in the end we shall make thought crime
2:14:54literally impossible
2:14:56because there will be no words
2:14:58in which to express it
2:15:00we've seen
2:15:02these arbiters of truth at least in
2:15:04their minds
2:15:06with big tech actually
2:15:09scrub words that can be used on their
2:15:11platforms
2:15:13i still think that the question before
2:15:15us is social media platforms need to
2:15:17check themselves and understand they're
2:15:19not god's little g
2:15:21they are not arbiters of truth
2:15:23for the past two years we've seen an
2:15:24unprecedented onslaught
2:15:26from big brother tech on conservative
2:15:28thought
2:15:30it's interesting mr chairman we don't
2:15:32see
2:15:33liberal thoughts suppressed by big tech
2:15:36platforms
2:15:38because big brother tech believes they
2:15:39should be the arbiters of truth and they
2:15:41hate conservatives so they silence us
2:15:44president donald j trump using the at
2:15:47donald trump
2:15:48at donald j trump handel was the single
2:15:50most effective and most successful
2:15:53social media
2:15:55user and influencer ever
2:15:58twitter didn't like his politics so much
2:15:59so they de-platformed him
2:16:01you know i think about
2:16:03this book
2:16:06thing called a memory hall is a small
2:16:08shoot leading to a large incinerator
2:16:10anything that needed to be wiped from
2:16:11the public record
2:16:13was sent in the memory hall donald
2:16:15trump's twitter handle was sent in the
2:16:16memory hall tried to be wiped
2:16:19they wanted to make him an unperson
2:16:21someone whose existence had been excised
2:16:24from the public in private memory
2:16:28legislation democrats are bringing
2:16:30forward is in that same spirit we know
2:16:32what's best for you and if you disagree
2:16:34then shut up
2:16:36you would allow yourselves to define
2:16:38harm and conservative thought thought is
2:16:40harmful to the nanny state
2:16:43you would allow yourselves to define
2:16:44hurtful and conservative thought is
2:16:47famously hurtful to the nanny state
2:16:50as our friend ben shapiro said facts
2:16:52don't care about your feelings you would
2:16:54allow yourselves to define extremism
2:16:56and then label anyone who opposes you as
2:16:59extremist
2:17:01that's double think
2:17:03double think in
2:17:041984
2:17:06the act of simultaneously accepting two
2:17:08mutual contradictory beliefs is correct
2:17:12these are the tactics of the old soviet
2:17:14union
2:17:15the communists there all descent must be
2:17:17silenced and i think we've seen big tech
2:17:20try to silence
2:17:21those they didn't agree with because
2:17:23they
2:17:24they blame it on an algorithm or
2:17:26whatever but
2:17:27truth be known has been exposed
2:17:30that these efforts were consent uh
2:17:34consciously put forward it wasn't just
2:17:36some algorithm running
2:17:38by ai
2:17:41you're holding this hearing
2:17:42in that spirit today the same
2:17:45soviet spirit
2:17:46and build back better that burdens
2:17:48taxpayers trillions of dollars new debt
2:17:50weakens our currency with inflation
2:17:52harms our people same spirits you come
2:17:54today with left-wing governments
2:17:55alliance and left-wing big tech the
2:17:57silence conservatives like you silenced
2:17:59donald trump think paul
2:18:02from 1984. think paula it's a new speak
2:18:05word to describe the secret police of
2:18:06oceania who are responsible for the
2:18:08detection prosecution and elimination
2:18:12of unspoken beliefs and doubts that
2:18:13contradict
2:18:15the party i would say contradict the
2:18:17liberal thought
2:18:18in this arena
2:18:20i want to ask one question real quick
2:18:22because i think y'all get the
2:18:24the gist of what i'm trying to say mr
2:18:26miss frederick in your testimony talk
2:18:28about the pitfall of having congress try
2:18:30to define harm
2:18:31one of the proposals we are considering
2:18:33today remove section
2:18:35230 protection from companies that use
2:18:37algorithms to promote harm
2:18:39what are some of the consequences of
2:18:41taking that approach
2:18:43so i think it's absolutely worth noting
2:18:45that when trump was banned from 17
2:18:47different platforms in two weeks the
2:18:50aclu spoke out against the ban no
2:18:52friends of conservatives right um angela
2:18:54merkel spoke where are they today though
2:18:57russian navalny spoke out against the
2:18:59ban uh russian dissident alexander
2:19:01navalny um and lopez obrador as well so
2:19:04everybody recognizes the threat of
2:19:06censorship it's not just republicans
2:19:08it's not just conservatives it's
2:19:09independently minded people who think
2:19:12that
2:19:13our health depends on the genuine again
2:19:16interrogation of ideas tech companies
2:19:19are not allowing that happen we need to
2:19:21strip them from immunity when they
2:19:22censor based on political viewpoints my
2:19:24time's up mr chairman censorship is bad
2:19:27we need to keep hollering that from the
2:19:28rooftop i yell back gentleman's time is
2:19:30expired
2:19:34chair now recognizes his issue for five
2:19:37minutes
2:19:39thank you mr chairman uh let me start by
2:19:42uh thanking miss hogan for your courage
2:19:45in uh coming forward uh what you've done
2:19:48is a
2:19:49great act of uh i believe in public
2:19:52service uh the document you disclosed uh
2:19:55relates to carol's journey uh it's a
2:19:59project that facebook researchers um
2:20:03set up to observe the platform's
2:20:05recommendation uh engines now i only
2:20:07have five so maybe you can do this in a
2:20:10minute and a quarter or whatever but can
2:20:12you briefly tell us what the research
2:20:15found
2:20:16uh as it relates to facebook's
2:20:19algorithms uh leading users down uh
2:20:22rabbit holes of
2:20:24extremism
2:20:27facebook is found over and over again on
2:20:29the right on the left with children
2:20:32that you can take a blank account so
2:20:34there's no friends no interests and you
2:20:37can follow centrist interests you can
2:20:39follow donald trump and melania you can
2:20:41follow fox news or you can follow you
2:20:43know hillary and
2:20:45msnbc and just by clicking on the
2:20:48content facebook suggests to you
2:20:50facebook will get more and more and more
2:20:52extreme so on the left you go to within
2:20:56three weeks to let's kill republicans
2:20:58it's it's crazy on the right within a
2:21:01couple of days you get to q anon within
2:21:03a couple of weeks you get to white
2:21:04genocide there isn't too tangling as
2:21:07facebook claims there's only facebook
2:21:09system amplifying and amplifying
2:21:11amplifying and this happens because that
2:21:13content is the content you are most
2:21:14likely to engage with even though when
2:21:16you after your survey you say you don't
2:21:18like it
2:21:20thank you very much uh to uh mr sire uh
2:21:24jim it's uh wonderful to see you again
2:21:27thank you for testifying today uh your
2:21:30testimony mentions uh how addictive uh
2:21:34design uh features are like uh snap
2:21:37streaks uh how harmful that is um can
2:21:41you tell us more
2:21:42about um how these addictive designs uh
2:21:46prey on children uh and teens in
2:21:49particular
2:21:51absolutely good to see you congresswoman
2:21:53escher the it's very clear that
2:21:56platforms like facebook and instagram
2:21:58but as you just mentioned snapchat
2:22:00youtube and others have literally design
2:22:02features like the auto replay that we're
2:22:05all familiar with three two one you
2:22:07watch the next episode that are designed
2:22:09to keep you there as i mentioned in my
2:22:11opening remarks this is an arms race for
2:22:13attention attention engagement is miss
2:22:15however has made clear to the public is
2:22:17the basis of the business model for a
2:22:19number of the social media platforms and
2:22:21what that does with younger minds
2:22:24particularly children and genes less
2:22:25developed minds is constantly get you to
2:22:28come back because you are being urged in
2:22:31very very creative and strategic way by
2:22:33very sophisticated engineers to stay on
2:22:35that platform because they make more
2:22:37money so it's the core of the business
2:22:38model that's at stake here and the point
2:22:41that has been made repeatedly and it
2:22:43should be part of the legislation that
2:22:44this committee addresses is you have to
2:22:47have transparency about the design and
2:22:49the algorithms those are separate issues
2:22:51i believe this committee is going to
2:22:53have a separate hearing next week that's
2:22:55going to go to design issues
2:22:56congresswoman x2 they're very important
2:22:59because at the end of the day if we are
2:23:01able to transparently see how facebook
2:23:05builds its platform and nudges you
2:23:08particularly you and all of us but
2:23:09mostly kids and teens to stay on their
2:23:12platform that will change everything it
2:23:14will also change all everything if their
2:23:17liability for that behavior is removed
2:23:19and they're held accountable so you were
2:23:21onto something big that's why i said
2:23:23earlier
2:23:24this committee should up take a reforms
2:23:27of 230 very seriously and move forward
2:23:28on the legislation but also look at this
2:23:31in a comprehensive way and include
2:23:33privacy by design and include all and
2:23:36the design issues you mentioned that is
2:23:38what will protect our kids going forward
2:23:41and will make this the first bipartisan
2:23:44effort in congress in years to protect
2:23:45children
2:23:47thank you very very much jim uh to mr
2:23:50robinson i think we're uh all moved by
2:23:53the examples of uh civil rights harms
2:23:56that you cited in your uh in your
2:23:59written testimony uh can you elaborate
2:24:02on how these are fundamentally uh issues
2:24:05of product design and business model and
2:24:08not issues of uh user generated
2:24:11content
2:24:13well
2:24:14there's all sorts of things that are
2:24:16connected to user-generated content but
2:24:18the fact of the matter is this is about
2:24:20what gets amplified what gets moved on
2:24:22the content another thing that i do
2:24:24think is important is that companies
2:24:26that don't hire black people can't be
2:24:28trusted to create policies to protect
2:24:29black communities and these companies
2:24:31have time and time again have made a
2:24:34choice not to hire black people and so
2:24:37the russians knew more about black
2:24:39people during the 2016 election than the
2:24:41people at facebook and so this the the
2:24:44disinformation that was allowed to
2:24:45travel on their platform was a direct
2:24:48result of choices that they've made um
2:24:51and so the only other thing i'd like to
2:24:52add is that your bill in terms of this
2:24:54comprehensive sort of set of things that
2:24:56we need your build the online privacy
2:24:58act which creates a data privacy
2:25:01a data protection agency is also
2:25:03incredibly important because we need
2:25:05infrastructure in our government to
2:25:07actually be able to meet these 21st
2:25:09century needs
2:25:11thank you very much you yield back mr
2:25:13chairman general lady yields back
2:25:15cheering recognizes mr curtis for five
2:25:18minutes
2:25:19thank you mr chair and mr ranking member
2:25:21and our witnesses it's
2:25:23very interesting to be with you today
2:25:25i think we understand censorship it's an
2:25:28easy concept
2:25:29the suppression of speech public
2:25:31communication or other information
2:25:34when we think of censorship we generally
2:25:36refer to limiting of objectionable
2:25:38harmful obscene or dangerous information
2:25:42censorship can be dangerous because its
2:25:44intent is to control thought
2:25:48i'm not sure we understand the other
2:25:50side of this as well now we've talked
2:25:53about it and i'm not going to give you
2:25:54any new ideas but i'm going to talk
2:25:55about it in a slightly different way
2:25:57today
2:25:59and that is the attempt to control
2:26:00thought by presenting or feeding
2:26:03objectionable harmful obscene or
2:26:05dangerous information
2:26:08as i was preparing for this i could not
2:26:10think of a word of the opposite of
2:26:12censorship right that's what i was
2:26:13trying to come up with
2:26:15and it dawned on me there are words
2:26:18brainwashing propaganda we have done
2:26:21this in war we've dropped pamphlets
2:26:23across enemy lines to influence people's
2:26:26thoughts and behaviors we've had radio
2:26:28stations infiltrating behind enemy lines
2:26:31that's what this is isn't it i'd like to
2:26:34look at this through a slightly
2:26:35different lens which is the algorithm
2:26:38transparency that we've talked about and
2:26:40customers having the ability to tailor
2:26:42their social media experiences based on
2:26:44what they want
2:26:46and not what the social media giant
2:26:47wants
2:26:48in my problem it's the content presented
2:26:51to people without their consent
2:26:54with an accompanied agenda
2:26:56that's the biggest problem
2:26:59miss frederick
2:27:01can you define in simple terms that
2:27:03everybody can understand back home what
2:27:05an algorithm is and how social media
2:27:08uses it
2:27:10so algorithms are codes built by
2:27:14programmers designed by programmers
2:27:17that basically take information so the
2:27:19input whatever however these are
2:27:21designed uh whatever you know data is
2:27:23labeled etc and produce an output that
2:27:25has an effect so
2:27:28input to output algorithm building built
2:27:30by people i think that is a critical
2:27:32element is they are built by people
2:27:34companies can't hide behind the
2:27:36algorithms they're not just ottomans
2:27:37that go forward they're built by people
2:27:40i pay for a substantial amount of a phd
2:27:42of my son who's a data scientist
2:27:46he works has worked for grocery store
2:27:48chain in predicting
2:27:51a rush on milk and eggs and things like
2:27:53that
2:27:54is it possible when we talk about
2:27:56transparency do we really have the
2:27:58ability to to give the average lay
2:28:01person
2:28:02a view into these algorithms in a way
2:28:04that they really can
2:28:06understand what they are
2:28:08i think to some degree and the previous
2:28:11witness was just talking about privacy
2:28:12by design privacy preserving technology
2:28:14so there are ways to actually design
2:28:17these programs to design these machines
2:28:19that are imbued again with values like
2:28:21privacy so there is a way to manipulate
2:28:24them and people should know if they are
2:28:26being manipulated i think what you're
2:28:27saying if i understand it right you tell
2:28:29me if i'm wrong is that these algorithms
2:28:32could be created to manipulate
2:28:35in a harmful way the way people think
2:28:39it's happened before can you are there
2:28:41any examples that come to mind just
2:28:42quickly that you could share that we
2:28:43would all understand
2:28:45i think we're all familiar with the
2:28:46facebook files and uh the documents that
2:28:48have been released that dick that talk
2:28:50about the design of these algorithms and
2:28:52how they were manipulated starting in
2:28:532018 to increase engagement could an
2:28:56algorithm be created to influence the
2:28:58way a person votes
2:29:02it could contribute to
2:29:04their cognitive processes and the
2:29:06decisions that they eventually make in
2:29:08the voting booth should somebody
2:29:11have protection from the law who creates
2:29:14an algorithm to determine how somebody
2:29:16votes
2:29:20i'm not sure i know the answer to that
2:29:21myself i think that's why we're here
2:29:23today right like but that's what's
2:29:24happening isn't it i think in questions
2:29:28that run up against
2:29:30very serious debates uh i think
2:29:32individual liberty and individual
2:29:36freedom in general should always be
2:29:38paramount
2:29:39if there's a bad actor
2:29:42not the companies themselves whose
2:29:44intent is to influence how somebody
2:29:47votes let's hypothetically say russia
2:29:51and a company facilitates
2:29:55their intent and their agenda
2:29:58should they be protected from the law
2:30:01i think you run into a problem of
2:30:03attribution here when the strategic
2:30:05intent of these nation-states blend with
2:30:08patriotic netizens when they blend with
2:30:10hacktivists when they blend with people
2:30:12who just want to be chaos agents in
2:30:14general
2:30:15seven seconds let me try to make a point
2:30:17we have a town square
2:30:19right people can post things in this
2:30:20town square everybody understands that i
2:30:22was a mayor i could put right we could
2:30:24have that it's very complicated if i as
2:30:26the mayor decide i'm going to take some
2:30:28things down
2:30:29and i'm going to take some things and
2:30:30duplicate them and put them back up and
2:30:33it's that simple right but i think what
2:30:35we're talking about is where are the
2:30:37boundaries in this and how do we find
2:30:39the boundaries
2:30:40i chairman to him i briefly comment
2:30:42something uh yes very briefly um
2:30:45in 2018
2:30:46when facebook made that change political
2:30:48parties across europe from a variety of
2:30:50different political indications said we
2:30:53were forced to change our positions to
2:30:55more extreme things on the left on the
2:30:57right because that's what now got
2:30:59distributed we saw a difference in what
2:31:01we could run
2:31:02the idea that our political parties now
2:31:04have the positions they can take
2:31:06influenced by facebook's algorithms and
2:31:08the changes that influences the
2:31:10elections because it controls what we
2:31:11get to even vote on in the ballot box
2:31:13this gentleman's time is expired
2:31:14chairman thank you
2:31:16i yield back uh chair now recognizes
2:31:18miss matsui for five minutes
2:31:23thank you very much mr chairman first of
2:31:25all i want to thank you for holding this
2:31:27legislative hearing today this is really
2:31:29not the first time that our subcommittee
2:31:31has met to consider
2:31:33needed updates to section 230 and it
2:31:35certainly won't be our last
2:31:37well our discussion today can and should
2:31:39be measured and fact-based we cannot
2:31:41lose sight
2:31:42of what brings us here today a crisis
2:31:45exacting an immense human toll and
2:31:48undermining our shared democratic values
2:31:50the magnitude of this crisis will
2:31:53necessitate a comprehensive approach
2:31:55that has implications for privacy on a
2:31:58trust and of course section 230 reform
2:32:01i introduced the algorithmic justice and
2:32:04online platform transparency act with
2:32:06senator markey to bring needed
2:32:08transparency to the algorithms employed
2:32:10by online platforms and establish clear
2:32:13prohibitions on the most discriminatory
2:32:16algorithms in use today
2:32:18the bill has been endorsed by 14 of the
2:32:20most important public interest groups
2:32:23like the anti-defamation league consumer
2:32:26reports and two organizations that are
2:32:28testifying here today with free press
2:32:30action and color of change i'm hopeful
2:32:33my bill will be included on the agenda
2:32:35for consumer protection subcommittee
2:32:37hearing on the 9th
2:32:41you know like many parts of this country
2:32:43i represent a region that is suffering
2:32:45from an acute shortage of affordable
2:32:47housing
2:32:48that's why it's so alarming for me to
2:32:49see case after case of discrimination
2:32:52and housing opportunities online
2:32:54recently the department of housing and
2:32:56urban development took action against
2:32:58facebook over concerns that his targeted
2:33:01advertising platform
2:33:03violates the fair housing act by
2:33:05encouraging enabling and causing
2:33:08unlawful discrimination by restricting
2:33:10who can view housing ads
2:33:14mr robinson as a simple yes or no to set
2:33:17the stage
2:33:18in your experience are the big tech
2:33:20algorithms and practices
2:33:22disproportionately impacting people of
2:33:24color
2:33:25yes
2:33:27thank you
2:33:29i think it's important to reiterate that
2:33:31to frame our discussion my algorithmic
2:33:35justice and online platform transparency
2:33:37establishes an interagency task force
2:33:40composed of a broad group of
2:33:43agencies
2:33:44including the federal trade commission
2:33:46and housing and urban development
2:33:48to investigate the discriminatory
2:33:50algorithmic processes online
2:33:53mr robinson when it comes to enforcement
2:33:56do you believe including sector specific
2:33:59expertise
2:34:00like hud for housing is important to
2:34:03effectively document and police
2:34:05instances of discrimination within
2:34:07specific industries
2:34:10yes
2:34:12um mr robertson are you aware of
2:34:14instances in which facebook or other
2:34:17platforms have designed their products
2:34:19in a manner that allow advertisers or
2:34:22sellers to discriminate in ways that are
2:34:25inconsistent with the country's
2:34:27anti-discrimination laws
2:34:29yes and i've spoken to them about it
2:34:30directly
2:34:32okay fine thank you
2:34:34um
2:34:35i'm very concerned about youth mental
2:34:38health
2:34:39i have grandchildren
2:34:41teenagers and i'm
2:34:43i really see the fact that they are so
2:34:47connected to their social media through
2:34:50their devices now
2:34:51recent revelations from witnesses here
2:34:54today miss holden confirmed that many of
2:34:57us voting you to be true the social
2:34:59media is harming the mental health of
2:35:01america's youth especially pernicious
2:35:04for teen girls and that facebook is
2:35:07aware of the problem
2:35:09the results of these internal documents
2:35:11speak for themselves
2:35:12teens blame instagram for increases in
2:35:14anxiety and depression instagram made
2:35:17body image issues worse for one in three
2:35:20teens girls
2:35:22miss hogan clearly there is a potent mix
2:35:26of psychology and engineering at play
2:35:29here
2:35:30can you describe or can you tell me
2:35:32about the backgrounds of the employees
2:35:35that these companies hire to help them
2:35:38exploit youth psychology with targeted
2:35:41algorithms
2:35:43facebook employs researchers who have
2:35:46phds
2:35:47who may or may not have expertise
2:35:49specifically in child psychology
2:35:51and there are um there are specifically
2:35:54advocates who work with um external
2:35:57partners to develop things like the
2:35:59interventions on self-harm the question
2:36:01though is how much does that actually
2:36:03reach people
2:36:05when i was there there was a dashboard
2:36:06for the self-harm dashboard which
2:36:08facebook loves to promote and has only
2:36:09been shown hundreds of times per day
2:36:12there's a question of what scale of
2:36:13intervention should facebook be doing
2:36:15and i don't believe facebook is acting
2:36:17strongly enough to protect our children
2:36:20okay well thank you very much and i
2:36:23thank you very much for what you've done
2:36:25too so i yield back general ladies time
2:36:28expires she yields back
2:36:32okay uh chair's gonna recognize mr welsh
2:36:35for five minutes uh thank you very much
2:36:37i really want to thank all three of you
2:36:39uh and mr steyer for your testimony
2:36:43the
2:36:44clarity with which you presented the
2:36:45dynamic that now exist uh is
2:36:48overwhelming and i think shared on both
2:36:49sides of the aisle
2:36:51we've got a business model where uh
2:36:54amplifying conflict
2:36:55uh amplifies profit
2:36:58and the two casualties
2:37:01of that
2:37:02business model our our democracy and our
2:37:05children
2:37:08and i want i'm going to lay out my
2:37:09thoughts and i want your response to
2:37:11this but in a democracy it depends
2:37:13ultimately on trust and norms
2:37:16and the algorithms that are promoting
2:37:20engagement are about conflict versus
2:37:23cooperation
2:37:24they're about blame versus acceptance
2:37:28and i see what is happening as a
2:37:31profoundly threatening development for
2:37:33the capacity of us as citizens
2:37:36to engage with one another and sort out
2:37:38the conflicts that are legitimate
2:37:39disputes among us
2:37:42and secondly
2:37:46the horrendous
2:37:48use of a business model
2:37:50that attacks the self-esteem of our kids
2:37:54and i don't care whether those kids come
2:37:55from a family that supported donald
2:37:57trump or a family that voted joe
2:37:59supported joe biden
2:38:01we all love our kids and they all have
2:38:03the same challenges when they're trying
2:38:04to find their identity and to have a
2:38:07business model that essentially erodes
2:38:10those prospects and those efforts uh is
2:38:13one
2:38:13business model that we have to challenge
2:38:18my view on this is i've listened to you
2:38:20and also
2:38:21heard the proposals that i'm supportive
2:38:23of from my colleagues
2:38:26is that we need more than one-off
2:38:28legislation
2:38:30to address what is a constantly evolving
2:38:33situation
2:38:35and in the past our government
2:38:37in order to protect the public interest
2:38:39in the common good has created agencies
2:38:42like the inter the the interstate
2:38:43commerce commission like the securities
2:38:45and exchange commission
2:38:47an agency that is funded
2:38:50that is staffed with experts
2:38:52that has capacity for rulemaking and can
2:38:55engage in the investigation just as an
2:38:58example of algorithms
2:39:00so
2:39:01my view
2:39:03is that congress needs
2:39:06to
2:39:07establish
2:39:08a commission which i'm calling the
2:39:10digital markets act
2:39:12it would set up an independent
2:39:14commission with five commissioners it
2:39:16would have civil penalty authority it
2:39:18would hire technology experts to oversee
2:39:20technology companies
2:39:22it would test algorithms and other
2:39:24technology to ensure that any technology
2:39:26is free from bias and would not amplify
2:39:29potentially harmful con conflict
2:39:32con content the commission will be
2:39:34authorized to engage in additional
2:39:36research and an ongoing basis that's
2:39:38needed for us to have oversight
2:39:41of the industry
2:39:43so this is the approach i think
2:39:47congress needs to take it's not about
2:39:48free speech by the way because it's not
2:39:50about good ideas or bad ideas you make a
2:39:52good point miss frederick
2:39:54and it's not about good people versus
2:39:56bad people it's like recognizing that no
2:39:59mr zuckerberg you're not in charge of
2:40:02the
2:40:03community a forum
2:40:05that we have a democracy that we have to
2:40:07defend we have children that we want to
2:40:09protect so i'm just going to go i'll ask
2:40:11you miss hoggin
2:40:13what's your view about that as an
2:40:16approach
2:40:17to address many of the problems that
2:40:19you've brought to our attention
2:40:20i think one of the core dynamics that
2:40:22has brought us to the place that we're
2:40:24at today is that facebook knows that no
2:40:26one can hold no one can see what they're
2:40:28doing they can claim they're doing
2:40:29whatever they're doing and they've
2:40:30actively gasled investigators
2:40:33researchers academics for years when
2:40:34they identified real problems
2:40:37we need somebody it can be a commission
2:40:40it could be a regulator but need someone
2:40:41who has the authority to demand real
2:40:44data from facebook someone who has
2:40:45investigatory responsibility mr robinson
2:40:48thank you
2:40:49we demanded for years facebook conducted
2:40:51civil rights audit they eventually
2:40:53committed to in front of the united
2:40:54states senate they went about doing it
2:40:56and now we have found out all the places
2:40:59in which they lied and held back and
2:41:00what's your view about my suggestion of
2:41:02an independent commission color change
2:41:04supports the creation of a data
2:41:05protection agency and believes that it
2:41:07needs to have civil rights expertise and
2:41:09mr steyer if you're still there
2:41:11yes i'm here uh congressman welch i
2:41:14think that idea deserves very serious
2:41:16consideration as i've said and i think
2:41:18other witnesses and and and congress
2:41:20people have said this deserves a
2:41:22comprehensive approach so i think your
2:41:24proposal deserves very serious
2:41:26consideration because we have to hold
2:41:28the tech companies accountable period
2:41:30full stop okay thank you very much my
2:41:32time is up and i'm sorry i didn't get to
2:41:34you ms frederick appreciate it
2:41:37i would have disagreed anyway sir pardon
2:41:39me
2:41:40i would have disagreed anyway sir
2:41:43okay
2:41:44duly noted
2:41:46okay let's see uh chair's gonna
2:41:48recognize mr schroeder for five minutes
2:41:52thank you mr chairman and appreciate
2:41:54everyone being here at this hearing we
2:41:56definitely have to figure out what to do
2:41:58and you all give us a lot of food for
2:42:00thought
2:42:01uh ms hagan want to give you a lot of
2:42:03credit for stepping up it's very very
2:42:05very difficult to do occasionally some
2:42:07of us do that here in this body and
2:42:09i share your pain frankly and having to
2:42:11do that
2:42:12uh
2:42:13deeply disturbed uh by that facebook has
2:42:16breaches duty jack responsibly uh uh
2:42:19when it potentially has stood to benefit
2:42:21uh from the misery and suffering of a
2:42:24number of its users it's totally
2:42:25inappropriate it appears that facebook
2:42:28knew that his products were causing harm
2:42:30at the american people particularly
2:42:32mental health of young people as we've
2:42:33heard here today
2:42:35and facebook has not responded as i've
2:42:38listened to the testimony from you all
2:42:40this should raise concerns for every
2:42:42member of our committee it appears to be
2:42:43that way and indeed each and every
2:42:45american
2:42:46democracy public safety the health of
2:42:48our families and our children in
2:42:50particular
2:42:52coming at the cost of profit for these
2:42:54companies
2:42:56power to connect all people around the
2:42:58world could be great you know
2:43:00but uh you know it needs to be checked
2:43:02by democratic norms human rights
2:43:04uh
2:43:05and the rule of
2:43:06law our part is getting to the solution
2:43:09at the end of the day you know how do we
2:43:11avoid censorship to mrs frederick's
2:43:13point i think and at the same time
2:43:15uh allow people to communicate in uh you
2:43:18know in an honest and open way that
2:43:20disrupt
2:43:21advantage one side or the other
2:43:23so i just hit a couple points up
2:43:26facebook and companies like it uh you
2:43:28know promise uh to police themselves you
2:43:31guys have talked about that ms hoggin uh
2:43:34in your opinion uh and firsthand
2:43:36experience is it uh particularly naive
2:43:38of us uh or even negligent of us to
2:43:41expect facebook and other entities to
2:43:43self-police themselves for our benefit
2:43:47i believe there are two at least two
2:43:49criteria for self-governance the first
2:43:51is that facebook must tell the truth
2:43:53which they have not demonstrated they
2:43:55have not earned our trust that they
2:43:57would actually surface to us dangers
2:43:58when they encounter them the second
2:44:00thing and they've actively actively
2:44:02denied it when they've been asked about
2:44:03specific allegations the second criteria
2:44:06is when they encounter conflicts of
2:44:07interest between the public good and
2:44:09their own interests do they resolve them
2:44:11in a way that it would be aligned with
2:44:13the common good and they don't and so in
2:44:16a world where they actively lie to us
2:44:18and they resolve conflicts on the side
2:44:20of their own profits and not the common
2:44:22good we have to have some mechanism and
2:44:25that might be a commission or a
2:44:26regulator but someone has to be able to
2:44:28get truth out of these com out of these
2:44:30companies because they're currently
2:44:31lying to us
2:44:33thank you
2:44:34miss frederick you've hit the nail on
2:44:36the head when it comes to viewpoint
2:44:37censorship i mean uh the eye of the
2:44:39sydney eye the beholder to a large
2:44:41degree
2:44:43so how do we deal with that based on
2:44:45your experience and your extensive
2:44:47research and uh first hand history what
2:44:50what is a way to get at avoiding
2:44:53viewpoint censorship but again getting
2:44:55the clarity that you all have spoken to
2:44:57on the uh on the panel here
2:44:59i think put simply you anchor any sort
2:45:02of legislative reforms to the standard
2:45:04of the first amendment so what the
2:45:07constitution says again these rights are
2:45:09given to us by god they were just
2:45:11enshrined put on paper for americans in
2:45:13the constitution
2:45:14uh so you make sure that any sort of
2:45:16reforms flow from that anchored standard
2:45:19to the first amendment
2:45:21okay it sounds like it's easier said
2:45:22than done though i'll be honest with you
2:45:26uh uh miss hoggin again you talked about
2:45:30uh i think one of your testimony uh that
2:45:32they know how to make it safer
2:45:34so how should they make it safer what in
2:45:36your opinion are some of the reforms
2:45:38that you would suggest uh you've alluded
2:45:40to some already we've spent a lot of
2:45:42time today talking about censorship one
2:45:44of the things that we forget is that
2:45:45when we focus on content on the language
2:45:48that doesn't translate right it require
2:45:50that you have to do the solutions place
2:45:52by place by place language by language
2:45:54which doesn't protect the most
2:45:55vulnerable people in the world that's
2:45:57places like what's happening in ethiopia
2:45:59right now which has 95 different
2:46:01dialects in their country
2:46:02what we need to do is make the platform
2:46:04safer through product choices that's
2:46:06things like imagine alice writes
2:46:09something aubrey shares it carol
2:46:11re-shares it so that's friends of
2:46:13friends let's imagine when it got to
2:46:15that point when it got beyond friends of
2:46:16friends you had to copy and paste it to
2:46:18share it
2:46:19have you been censored i don't think so
2:46:22it doesn't involve content but that
2:46:23action alone reduces misinformation the
2:46:26same amount as the third party fact
2:46:27checking program we need solutions like
2:46:30that friction that make the platform
2:46:32safe for everyone even if you don't
2:46:33speak english
2:46:35um and and but facebook doesn't do it
2:46:37because it costs them little slivers of
2:46:38profit every time they do it
2:46:41sounds like a complicated long it's
2:46:42going to be complicated to do this
2:46:44because you're dealing with how to
2:46:45affect the algorithms in a more positive
2:46:48way without bias if
2:46:50ostensibly and i guess i'm out of time
2:46:53and i go back gentlemen yields back uh
2:46:55chair recognizes mr cardinis
2:46:58for five minutes
2:47:01thank you mr uh chairman and also
2:47:03ranking member lotta for having this
2:47:05very important hearing and again this is
2:47:07not the first time that we're discussing
2:47:08this issue on behalf of the american
2:47:10people who elected us to do our job
2:47:13which is to make sure that they do
2:47:15continue with their freedoms yet at the
2:47:16same time
2:47:17the harm that can be prevented does not
2:47:19come to them
2:47:21i'd like to first start off by
2:47:23submitting for the record a letter by
2:47:26the national hispanic media coalitions
2:47:28in support of h.r 5596
2:47:31justice against malicious algorithms act
2:47:34of 2021
2:47:37and also um i'd like to
2:47:41say to ms hagen the information you
2:47:43provided to the public about facebook's
2:47:46internal deliberations and how the
2:47:48company has dealt with or chosen not to
2:47:50deal with some of the more pressing
2:47:52issues it faces has been illuminating to
2:47:54all of us so thank you so much for your
2:47:56your brave uh willingness to to come out
2:47:59and and speak the truth one issue of
2:48:01critical importance to me is the spanish
2:48:03language disinformation that has flooded
2:48:05social media platforms including
2:48:07facebook but also other social media
2:48:09sites as well
2:48:11one example is the level of the
2:48:12company's resources dedicated to spanish
2:48:15language misinformation in may facebook
2:48:18executives told congress that we and i
2:48:21quote them we conduct spanish language
2:48:24content review 24 hours per day at
2:48:28multiple global sites
2:48:30spanish is one of the most common
2:48:31languages used on our platforms and is
2:48:35also one of the highest resource
2:48:37languages when it comes to the content
2:48:39review end quote
2:48:41yet in february uh
2:48:43of 2020 the product risk assessment
2:48:46indicated that quote we're not good at
2:48:49detecting misinfo in spanish or lots of
2:48:52other media types end quote and another
2:48:55internal report warned that facebook had
2:48:58quote no policies to protect against
2:49:00targeted suppression end quote miss
2:49:03haugen
2:49:04in your testimony you know that we
2:49:06should be concerned about how facebook's
2:49:09products are used to influence
2:49:10vulnerable populations
2:49:12is it your belief that facebook has
2:49:14blatantly lied to congress and the
2:49:16american people
2:49:19facebook is very good at giving you data
2:49:21that just sidesteps the question that
2:49:23you asked so it's probably true that
2:49:26spanish is one of the most resource
2:49:27languages at facebook but when
2:49:29overwhelmingly the misinformation budget
2:49:31so 87 goes to english it doesn't matter
2:49:35if spanish is one of your top funded
2:49:36languages beyond that if you're giving
2:49:39it just like tiny slivers of resources i
2:49:41live in a place that is predominantly
2:49:43spanish-speaking and this is a very
2:49:45personal issue for me um facebook has
2:49:47never been transparent with any
2:49:49government around the world on how many
2:49:51third-party fact checkers speak each
2:49:53language how many third party fact
2:49:54checks are written in each language or
2:49:56locality and as a result things like
2:49:58spanish misinformation are are nowhere
2:50:01near as safe as it is for english
2:50:04okay so basically facebook uh do they
2:50:07have the resources to do a better job of
2:50:10making sure that they police that and
2:50:12actually help reduce the amount of
2:50:15disinformation and harm that comes to
2:50:16the people in this country
2:50:18facebook is on track to make 45 billion
2:50:20dollars of profit in the coming year of
2:50:22course they have resources to solve
2:50:23these problems more effectively than
2:50:25they do today facebook loves to come
2:50:27back and say we spent five billion
2:50:28dollars last year or we're going to on
2:50:30safety the question is not how much they
2:50:32currently spend but whether or not they
2:50:33spend an adequate amount currently they
2:50:35are not keeping spanish speakers safe at
2:50:37the level they do for english speakers
2:50:40and that's unacceptable and
2:50:42and and so they do have the resources to
2:50:44do to do better or to do more and they
2:50:46have the knowledge and the ability and
2:50:48capability to do so they choose not to
2:50:50yes they have they have the financial
2:50:52resources they have the technology they
2:50:55have chosen not to invest in spanish
2:50:57they've chosen not to allocate the
2:50:58moderators or pay for the journalists
2:51:00they are not treating spanish speakers
2:51:02equally as they do english speakers
2:51:05okay thank you
2:51:06mr stark given the repeated evidence
2:51:09that facebook is unable to moderate
2:51:11content with algorithmic and human
2:51:13reviewers adequately
2:51:15can section 230 reform change the
2:51:17approach that facebook and other tech
2:51:19platforms take into moderation con
2:51:21moderating content
2:51:23yes absolutely and in fact a couple of
2:51:25the bills that have been referenced here
2:51:27congressman cardinis uh would actually
2:51:29make major progress on that in addition
2:51:32uh as i said earlier the privacy by
2:51:34design uh issues that will be in next
2:51:36week's hearing will cover um and other
2:51:39measures uh related to uh reining in the
2:51:42facebook's uh algor transparency of
2:51:45algorithms will all work to
2:51:47fundamentally change what's currently
2:51:48going on and just to echo what haugen
2:51:51said they have the resources they have
2:51:54the knowledge but unless congress holds
2:51:57them accountable on a bipartisan basis
2:52:00it will not happen so the ball is really
2:52:02in your court on a bipartisan basis
2:52:05gentleman's time is thank you very much
2:52:06my time has expired i yield back thank
2:52:08you chair recognizes mr carter for five
2:52:11minutes thank you mr chairman and thank
2:52:13all of you for being here we appreciate
2:52:15this is extremely important as you can
2:52:17well imagine i want to start um with you
2:52:19miss frederick and and it's kind of just
2:52:21a general question i think you all
2:52:23realize that we want to keep free speech
2:52:27i don't i with democrat republican i
2:52:29don't think there's any difference and
2:52:31if you're an american that's one of the
2:52:32greatest freedoms that we have and we we
2:52:34value that freedom we all want to take
2:52:36we all want to keep that and and it is
2:52:39important but i want to ask you miss
2:52:40frederick
2:52:42we also want to ensure that one's free
2:52:44speech is is not subject to any kind of
2:52:46political bias particularly if it's
2:52:50supposedly fact checkers who are
2:52:53have a bias against conservative thought
2:52:56or
2:52:57any thought whether it be conservative
2:52:59or liberal we just don't want that bias
2:53:02and it's such a you know this is this is
2:53:04not easy what we're trying to do here
2:53:06it's not it's tough it's i we want free
2:53:10speech but
2:53:12holy cow something's got someone's got
2:53:14to give here
2:53:15i just want to ask you um why why do you
2:53:18think it's necessary for us to
2:53:20to um reform section 230 and and to pass
2:53:23laws to to
2:53:25keep big tech accountable rather than
2:53:27just rely on tech companies to
2:53:30self-regulate i'll be quite honest with
2:53:31you
2:53:32this is my seventh year here my fourth
2:53:34term and i i i've had the opportunity
2:53:37twice to have
2:53:39the ceo of facebook of of twitter and of
2:53:43um google before us in a panel and and
2:53:46i've tried to make it as clear to him as
2:53:47i can i don't want to do this
2:53:50you don't want me to do this
2:53:52so please clean it up yourself so i
2:53:55don't have to do this because you don't
2:53:57want me to do this
2:53:59but it seems to go in one ear and out
2:54:00the other
2:54:02so so tell me why do you
2:54:04why do you think this is necessary
2:54:07i think you're correct i think thus far
2:54:09every tactic that has been tried it's
2:54:11not working and the proof is in the
2:54:13pudding and we see what this
2:54:15self-regulation tactic has wrought toxic
2:54:18practices that inordinately harm young
2:54:20american women
2:54:22you look at when it comes to tick tock
2:54:24the one thing that uh instances of
2:54:27people coming into hospitals developing
2:54:28actual tics have in common according to
2:54:30reporting from the wall street journal
2:54:32is that they all follow influencers on
2:54:34tick-tock who have a some sort of
2:54:36tourette's uh tick so of those toxic
2:54:39practices those behaviors those social
2:54:41issues that they're exacerbating plus
2:54:43rampant censorship that you talked about
2:54:45right now as it stands it's a veritable
2:54:47race to the bottom
2:54:49and so again i'm going to ask you the
2:54:50same question give you the opportunity
2:54:52to respond as well
2:54:54yes why why do you think it's necessary
2:54:56do you think it's necessary to reform
2:54:57section 230 and
2:54:59and
2:55:00you know because
2:55:02they're not they're not responding i've
2:55:04tried it i've done it twice i've had
2:55:07them before
2:55:08the the ceo is before me twice and it's
2:55:10just it ain't working we got to do
2:55:12something
2:55:13we've talked about over and over again
2:55:15today about the nature of censorship the
2:55:17thing that i think uh we need to figure
2:55:19out something to change the incentives
2:55:22is facebook knows lots and lots of
2:55:23solutions that aren't about picking good
2:55:25or bad ideas that's what we've been
2:55:27arguing a lot about today is them
2:55:28picking out ideas
2:55:30they have ways of changing the product
2:55:31to make it safer but they have no
2:55:33incentive right now to make those
2:55:35trade-offs you know this thing like i
2:55:37talked about the reshares that takes a
2:55:39little sliver of profit away from them
2:55:41and they keep not doing these things or
2:55:42not telling us about them because their
2:55:44only incentive is profit we need to do
2:55:46something to change the incentives that
2:55:47these companies is that truly their only
2:55:49incentive
2:55:50profit
2:55:51um i think they do face you know
2:55:53liability right like sharehold they have
2:55:54a fiduciary duty to their shareholders a
2:55:57lot of the things we're talking about
2:55:58here are trade-offs between long-term
2:56:00harms and short-term profits
2:56:02right i think generally good reform of
2:56:05facebook will make it more profitable 10
2:56:07years from now because fewer people will
2:56:08quit but when you look on a short term
2:56:10by short-term basis they're unwilling to
2:56:12trade off these slivers of profit for a
2:56:14safer product okay i'm going to get to
2:56:16this one final question i'm running out
2:56:17of time here um
2:56:19by profession i'm a pharmacist and i've
2:56:21dealt with
2:56:22i've dealt with with drug addiction and
2:56:25with prescription drug addiction and
2:56:27all of you know that in 2020 drug
2:56:30overdose deaths increased increased by
2:56:3255
2:56:33and and you know how accessible these
2:56:36drugs are over the
2:56:38internet and that is that is disturbing
2:56:40and you know that many of them are laced
2:56:41with fentanyl and
2:56:43you're familiar with this but my
2:56:44question and i'll direct it to you miss
2:56:46frederick um yes or no
2:56:49with this proposal theoretically the the
2:56:52proposal by the big tech platforms that
2:56:56they
2:56:57the on the sale of illegal drugs on
2:56:58their platforms and one of the proposals
2:57:00that republicans have put forward is to
2:57:03carve out section 230 liability
2:57:05protection for illegal drug trafficking
2:57:07on a platform yes or no do you think
2:57:09that that would work
2:57:11theoretically it should and it points to
2:57:13a broader problem on the platforms drug
2:57:15cartels advertisements for coyotes
2:57:17trafficking people across the border
2:57:18illegally foreign islamic terrorism yes
2:57:21i think theoretically it should help
2:57:23okay thank you and i'll yield back
2:57:31i want to thank the chairman for holding
2:57:32this hearing today as you've heard the
2:57:34task tasty force is very difficult as we
2:57:36try to pursue legislation fixes to
2:57:38section 230 as chair of the tech
2:57:41accountability caucus i believe that
2:57:42amending a section 230 must be done
2:57:45carefully to ensure we are limiting the
2:57:48unintended consequences and driving the
2:57:50changes we really hope to achieve the
2:57:53harms that were mentioned in the
2:57:54testimony today and the misinformation
2:57:57and disinformation on many platforms
2:57:59cannot persist if we are to continue
2:58:01having a healthy democracy promoting
2:58:04disordered eating body dysmorphia and
2:58:07self-harm is sending kids and teens
2:58:09already struggling with their mental
2:58:10health down a dark path that has been
2:58:12shown to worsen their mental health mr
2:58:15steyer why are parents not able to hold
2:58:17these platforms accountable for pushing
2:58:20this type of content and how can the
2:58:22reform of section 230 impact platforms
2:58:25amplification of harmful content
2:58:30thank you very much for the question
2:58:31connor
2:58:32um i would just tell you first of all
2:58:34because right parents aren't able to
2:58:36hold the platforms accountable because
2:58:38there's no law in place that permits
2:58:39that which is why reforms of section 230
2:58:42will go a long way doing that you have
2:58:44to remove some of the immunity for
2:58:46example the issues that uh ms halkin has
2:58:49talked about in terms of the body image
2:58:51hiding the body image research by
2:58:53instagram uh scientists we i sat with
2:58:57the heads of facebook a decade ago and
2:58:59told them the very same messages about
2:59:01facebook instagram wasn't as popular
2:59:04then they know this but there is no mech
2:59:06they have a legal immunity so unless the
2:59:09that immunity is is removed for harmful
2:59:12behavior like in in the case of body
2:59:14image issues that we've discussed they
2:59:17will they will walk with they will act
2:59:18with impunity as all of the witnesses
2:59:20have said so i think it's extremely
2:59:22important that we at this body acts our
2:59:26prior uh congressman mentioned the idea
2:59:28because these guys delay the answer is
2:59:31clearly no
2:59:32parents across the country we have well
2:59:34over 100 million on common sense media
2:59:37do not believe that that that they have
2:59:39the power to do that you do as congress
2:59:42so a please reform section 230 along the
2:59:45lines of some of the proposals that you
2:59:47put forward have and second
2:59:49look at a broader comprehensive approach
2:59:51that includes privacy by design and some
2:59:54of the an anti-trust and other important
2:59:56ways that will put power in the hands of
2:59:59parents where it belongs thank you very
3:00:01much for the question thank you and mr
3:00:04robinson first and foremost thank you
3:00:05thank you thank you for your leadership
3:00:08in your testimony talk about the
3:00:09particular challenges communities of
3:00:11color face online with regards to
3:00:13content moderation how do we ensure that
3:00:16civil rights are not circumvented
3:00:19online and that platforms are not
3:00:21facilitating discrimination through
3:00:24moderation
3:00:25thank you for that question
3:00:26congresswoman we remove immunity the
3:00:28fact of the matter is is that the
3:00:31technology of the future is dragging us
3:00:33into the past because
3:00:35platforms have been given this idea and
3:00:38have been given these laws to believe
3:00:39that they are immune for a whole set of
3:00:42laws that people died for in this
3:00:44country to put on the books and now we
3:00:46are sort of re-arguing and re-engaging
3:00:49around whether or not it is okay to
3:00:51discriminate against people in housing
3:00:54employment and data these are things
3:00:56that should have already been settled
3:00:58but now the technology of the future is
3:01:00dragging us into the past
3:01:02and the other thing that i think about
3:01:04and listening to you
3:01:06as chair of the tech accountability task
3:01:09force we've called them out on their
3:01:11lack of diversity in their boardrooms
3:01:14you know c-suites whatever and
3:01:17and i can't help but think that's part
3:01:19of the issue
3:01:33then they were too
3:01:34um
3:01:54microphone is not on sorry um um so the
3:01:57so they've they've left huge swaths of
3:01:59of communities out is is deeply is
3:02:02deeply troubling these are choices these
3:02:04platforms have made year over year we
3:02:07end up i'm getting these all sorts of
3:02:09commitments from diversity and inclusion
3:02:11officers at these companies saying
3:02:13they're gonna do better we have asked
3:02:15them to disaggregate their data
3:02:16sometimes they'll say oh we're at two
3:02:18percent or three percent black and then
3:02:19we ask them to disaggregate and then
3:02:21we'll find out that the numbers that
3:02:22they'll be including bus drivers and
3:02:24cafeteria workers who are fighting for a
3:02:26living wage inside of those numbers and
3:02:28so the fact of the matter is is these
3:02:30companies are making choices every
3:02:32single day and they're giving lip
3:02:34service to diversity lip service to
3:02:36inclusion and then creating content
3:02:38creating um all sorts of technologies
3:02:40that harm us all thank you so very much
3:02:43my time is up can i cut a tiny sliver um
3:02:45it's even worse when we talk about
3:02:47international representation from the
3:02:48global south facebook has built the
3:02:50internet for the global south for
3:02:52majority of languages in the world
3:02:53facebook is the internet 80 to 90 of
3:02:56that content in their language and they
3:02:57have almost no representation from the
3:02:59global south thank you
3:03:01thanks rob
3:03:03who's next go ahead
3:03:06i'd like to recognize mr mullen now
3:03:12thank you madam chair um i'm gonna try
3:03:14to be pretty quick here we've been
3:03:15talking about section 230 and the
3:03:17protection that
3:03:19um you know the that these companies
3:03:21seem to
3:03:22seem to hide behind and some of the
3:03:24abuse and and i'm just i'm not trying to
3:03:26play politics here i'm just bringing up
3:03:29you know what has happened just in the
3:03:31last week and underneath section 230 you
3:03:34know it's supposed to be the town square
3:03:36where you can post anything and no one's
3:03:37held responsible for it
3:03:40and and in those parameters you know
3:03:42obviously you can't make a direct threat
3:03:44or a death threat at somebody or or and
3:03:46and these platforms took a little bit
3:03:48further to show extremist views
3:03:51um but they're they're becoming they're
3:03:54becoming political platforms and we know
3:03:56this and so this is kind of what i
3:03:58wanted to bring about miss miss
3:03:59frederick
3:04:00as you know google recently prohibited
3:04:02abortion pill reversal advertisement
3:04:05that was supported by pro-life
3:04:07organizations then they turned around
3:04:09and allowed advertisement to continue
3:04:10for
3:04:11medication-assisted abortion pills to
3:04:14support pro-life or pro-abortion groups
3:04:17uh
3:04:18when we started talking about section
3:04:19230 was section 230 was this what it was
3:04:22designed for uh to to limit someone's
3:04:25ability to to voice their opinion
3:04:28uh and allow somebody to to say that it
3:04:31is or isn't i mean we have
3:04:33uh i mean this is what this is what this
3:04:36country does we have opposite views we
3:04:39have opposite views we air them out we
3:04:41talk about it but completely eliminating
3:04:44one person's view
3:04:46and and just putting stuff that you
3:04:48agree with that doesn't fall within
3:04:50section 230 does it miss federer
3:04:53not at all and this is why the fcc
3:04:55chairman brendan carr says that section
3:04:57230 right now amounts to a regulatory
3:05:00legal advantage for one set of political
3:05:03actors
3:05:04and we see the disparity between what
3:05:07big tech companies censor coming from
3:05:09the right and then what uh they censor
3:05:11that maybe uh cleaves to a leftist
3:05:14narrative that they approve of if you
3:05:16look at the hypocrisy it's rampant as we
3:05:18talked about just in the national
3:05:20security space iranian officials north
3:05:22korean officials ccp spokespeople uh the
3:05:25taliban all of these people are free to
3:05:27say what they want on these tech
3:05:29companies usually it's a vociferous or
3:05:31even an obstreperous right who says what
3:05:33is going on here this hypocrisy it can't
3:05:35stand and then they maybe think about it
3:05:37they maybe say this is human error and
3:05:39uh redress those issues but but that
3:05:41doesn't happen often and it doesn't
3:05:43happen unless we talk very seriously or
3:05:46at least flag these issues so this is
3:05:48not what section 230 was created for we
3:05:51need to realign it with congress's
3:05:53original intent but it's it's being
3:05:55abused right now
3:05:58i couldn't agree with more i agree with
3:06:00you more on that so with that i yield
3:06:01back thank you
3:06:03okay who's next uh
3:06:05chair recognizes miss craig for five
3:06:08minutes
3:06:10thank you so much mr chair uh both you
3:06:13and to ranking member lada for holding
3:06:15this really really important hearing
3:06:17thank you so much for the witness
3:06:19testimony uh we've been talking about
3:06:22section 230 reform in in various formats
3:06:25i know for for many years and some of
3:06:27the folks who've been here for
3:06:29more than a decade have brought that up
3:06:32today
3:06:33and i'm i'm glad we're finally diving
3:06:35into some specific pieces of legislation
3:06:38uh whether they're perfect or not
3:06:40as mr steyer noted children and young
3:06:42adults are living much of their lives
3:06:44online in a world that is created by the
3:06:48various tech platforms
3:06:50that world is increasingly controlled by
3:06:52algorithms
3:06:54over which young people and their
3:06:56parents have absolutely no control
3:06:59this lack of control has a real world
3:07:02impact on people and families in our
3:07:04communities one example is the role that
3:07:07as you've talked about today these
3:07:09platforms play in the sale of illegal
3:07:11drugs to young members in our
3:07:13communities you've talked about it a lot
3:07:15today but i just want to describe
3:07:17what i experienced a month ago
3:07:20back in october i joined community
3:07:23members in a
3:07:25small mississippi river town called
3:07:28hastings in my congressional district
3:07:30and we gathered to talk about the opioid
3:07:33and fentanyl crisis because we've had
3:07:36too many young people who we've lost in
3:07:38that community
3:07:39during that event i listened to the
3:07:41story
3:07:42of
3:07:43a woman a mother who's now become an
3:07:45advocate
3:07:47by the name of bridget noring she lost
3:07:49her son devin in a tragic and accidental
3:07:52overdose after he bought a pill through
3:07:54a snapchat interaction
3:07:57devon thought the pill was a common
3:07:59painkiller that would help him with his
3:08:01debilitating migraines instead it was
3:08:04laced with fentanyl
3:08:06the questions that bridget has
3:08:09they really get right to the point for
3:08:11all of you
3:08:12how can we trust platforms to ensure the
3:08:14best outcomes for our society when too
3:08:17many young people like devon have been
3:08:19lost
3:08:20because of those algorithms that don't
3:08:22account for human safety and well-being
3:08:25how do we make smart long-lasting and
3:08:27constructive changes to these laws to
3:08:29ensure that online environments are a
3:08:32place where young people can learn and
3:08:34build communities safely not be pushed
3:08:37toward destructive or harmful content
3:08:39simply because it's the thing that is
3:08:42most likely to get the most clicks
3:08:44i believe that the answers lie somewhere
3:08:47in some of the bills that are before us
3:08:49today
3:08:50and i guess i just
3:08:52start with miss haugen for my first
3:08:55question
3:08:56can you help us understand how facebook
3:08:58and the other tech companies you've
3:09:00worked for
3:09:01factor the impact on children and young
3:09:04adults into their decision making and
3:09:06does that real world impact and
3:09:08potential
3:09:09cause
3:09:11them does it shape their algorithm
3:09:13development at all at this point
3:09:16and
3:09:17mr robinson mentioned the lack of
3:09:19diversity at these tech companies one of
3:09:21the groups that is never represented
3:09:23amongst tech company employees is
3:09:25children
3:09:26and it's important for us to also
3:09:28acknowledge that many of the people who
3:09:29found startups or who populate even
3:09:31large companies are people who are very
3:09:33young they're under the age of 30 and
3:09:35they almost always don't have children i
3:09:37think the role of children and
3:09:38acknowledging them as people and as
3:09:40people who have different needs is not
3:09:42present enough at tech companies and
3:09:44that means that often just as
3:09:46diversity is usually not designed in
3:09:48from the start acknowledgement of the
3:09:50needs of children is also usually not
3:09:52designed and from the start and as a
3:09:54result it doesn't get as much support as
3:09:56it needs
3:09:57thank you for that
3:09:58a follow-up maybe for mr steyer in your
3:10:01work at common sense you identified
3:10:03specific solutions to address
3:10:06the sale of illegal drugs on tech
3:10:07platforms
3:10:09how do you
3:10:10see the that issue addressed in any of
3:10:13these bills or these bills or not
3:10:15addressed in the bills are there gaps
3:10:17that you think we also need to put more
3:10:20thought into
3:10:21very good question congresswoman craig
3:10:23so first of all i think most of the
3:10:25bills will remove liability for harmful
3:10:27behavior and that clearly would fall
3:10:29under that category so i think that
3:10:32several of the bills in front of you and
3:10:34a couple of the ones that have been
3:10:35mentioned by other members will actually
3:10:37address that i think your point is
3:10:39extremely well taken concrete because
3:10:43the really by part of the thing that
3:10:45will move this forward and that will i
3:10:47believe get this committee to act in a
3:10:49way that will have
3:10:50extraordinarily important impact for
3:10:52kids and families across the country no
3:10:54matter what
3:10:55politics they have is the focus on
3:10:57children and you have the power to do
3:10:59that and if we reform section 230 and
3:11:02remove the liability protections around
3:11:04harmful behaviors like the drug sales
3:11:06you're talking about that will be an
3:11:08extraordinarily important move forward
3:11:10so i really urge you all to do this on a
3:11:12bipartisan
3:11:14now
3:11:15the parents of america are counting on
3:11:17you thank you so much for that answer
3:11:20and you know i have four boys
3:11:23it's too late
3:11:25they range in age from 18 to 24 to be
3:11:28able to impact their lives but i have an
3:11:29eight-week-old grandson and it sure is
3:11:32damn better not take us another decade
3:11:34to figure this out thank you mr chair
3:11:36and i hear that
3:11:38general lady yields back chair now
3:11:40recognizes uh
3:11:41miss fletcher
3:11:45thank you chairman doyle um thanks to
3:11:47you and ranking member latta for
3:11:48organizing and holding this hearing
3:11:50today and thank you to all of the
3:11:51witnesses who are here today your
3:11:53testimony has been very useful for all
3:11:56of us and listening to you and my
3:11:58colleagues today as we've addressed
3:12:00these issues over time as this isn't our
3:12:03first hearing um but it is clear that
3:12:06the legislation we're talking about
3:12:07today the things that we're taking to
3:12:09address 230 is important
3:12:12um
3:12:13and as is the broader approach that mr
3:12:15welch discussed and as mr trader and
3:12:18kelly both said this is not at all easy
3:12:20to do because we're talking about how we
3:12:23balance a lot of interest here a lot of
3:12:26challenges we want to protect our
3:12:28children we want to protect the free
3:12:29exchange of ideas in our marketplace of
3:12:31ideas and that's really the foundation
3:12:33of a democratic society an exchange of
3:12:35ideas and debate and ultimately
3:12:37hopefully some consensus
3:12:38um but what we have learned and are
3:12:40continuing to learn is that some of
3:12:42these addictive design features have not
3:12:44only the potential to sow division and
3:12:46extremism but the actual effect of doing
3:12:49so um and as as we've heard today
3:12:52uh what we saw in some of the wall
3:12:54street journal reporting and the
3:12:55facebook files that facebook made some
3:12:58changes to that algorithm that were
3:12:59meant to encourage people to interact
3:13:01more with friends and family uh through
3:13:04meaningful social interaction but they
3:13:06actually did something very different um
3:13:08and i i know that um
3:13:11i'd like to direct my questions to ms
3:13:13haugen a little bit we know we've read
3:13:16and we've heard uh from your testimony
3:13:17that researchers within the company um
3:13:20as well as online publishers who used
3:13:22facebook to drive traffic to their
3:13:23websites warned the company that
3:13:25divisive toxic and inflammatory content
3:13:28was being rewarded by the algorithm and
3:13:30pushed into more and more users news
3:13:32feeds um so ms howie can you talk a
3:13:35little bit about how and why the
3:13:36algorithm had such a different
3:13:39and devastating result than was intended
3:13:42uh can you talk a little bit about that
3:13:44and then i have a follow-up after that
3:13:45if we have time
3:13:47mark zuckerberg said in 2018 that
3:13:49engagement-based ranking by prioritizing
3:13:52content based on its ability to elicit a
3:13:54reaction from you was dangerous because
3:13:56people were drawn to engage with extreme
3:13:59content even when they asked them
3:14:00afterwards did you like that they said
3:14:02no
3:14:03and he said but don't worry ai will save
3:14:05us
3:14:06ignoring the fact that the ais that they
3:14:07built were insufficient
3:14:09what happens is there's two sides to the
3:14:11problem one is that publishers
3:14:14see that if they make content that has
3:14:17more negative comments the more negative
3:14:20the comments on your content the more
3:14:21likely you get to click back to your
3:14:22site the more likely a publisher makes
3:14:24money off of that interaction so there's
3:14:26an incentive for publishers to make more
3:14:28and more divisive and polarizing content
3:14:30the second side is that the algorithm
3:14:33gives more reach and distribution to
3:14:34people if it's more likely to elicit a
3:14:37reaction and so any threat that causes
3:14:39controversy versus one that brings
3:14:41reconciliation will get more
3:14:43distribution in the system
3:14:45this has been known in psychology for
3:14:47years that it's
3:14:49easier to elicit anger from someone than
3:14:50compassion and it's known inside the
3:14:52company but they don't change it because
3:14:55the way the system is built today causes
3:14:57you to produce the most content because
3:14:59when it elicits that reaction from you a
3:15:01comment like a reshare it encourages the
3:15:03other person to keep making content so
3:15:06this is not here for us to have more
3:15:07meaningful interactions so that we can
3:15:10be a tool for more content to be product
3:15:12produced
3:15:15okay thank you so following up on that
3:15:18um and i think you you addressed it a
3:15:20little bit already um in your response
3:15:22to mr carter and some of the discussions
3:15:24that we've had already today but
3:15:27can you talk a little bit about i mean
3:15:29that's one thing to have the stated
3:15:31goal um to do this is it possible for
3:15:34the platforms to change their algorithms
3:15:38or their other practices some of which
3:15:39you talked about earlier um to promote
3:15:42healthy user engagement and reduce some
3:15:45of these negative outcomes um and and
3:15:48coupled with that can you just talk
3:15:49about the ways that you think congress
3:15:50can help make that happen
3:15:52facebook has lots of solutions that lead
3:15:55to less misinformation less polarization
3:15:57more divisiveness that don't require us
3:16:00picking and choosing which ideas are
3:16:01good i'll give you an example they have
3:16:04a picker that allows you to re-share not
3:16:06to one group but to many groups
3:16:08simultaneously they don't have to have
3:16:09that feature they have it because it
3:16:11makes the platform grow faster but that
3:16:13feature causes more misinformation and
3:16:15they know that because a small number of
3:16:17people are hyper spreaders when we add
3:16:19friction to the system when we make
3:16:21people make intentional choices to
3:16:22spread information it happens to be we
3:16:24get less violence we get less hate
3:16:26speech for free we don't have to pick
3:16:28and choose the individual things the
3:16:30question is how do we incentivize
3:16:32facebook to make these decisions because
3:16:34in order to make them they have to
3:16:36sacrifice little slivers of growth
3:16:38and the reality is we have to create
3:16:39incentives that counterweigh these
3:16:41profit motives if we want facebook to
3:16:43act on the common good
3:16:47okay well thank you very much for that
3:16:50uh testimony and i am out of time so mr
3:16:53chairman i yield back general lady
3:16:55yields back i think that is all the
3:16:58members of the subcommittee so now we're
3:17:00going to those members who have waived
3:17:02on and we will start with dr burgess
3:17:07i think thank the chair for the
3:17:09recognition thank you all for your
3:17:11testimony and your ability to
3:17:14survive during a very lengthy
3:17:16congressional hearing and i appreciate
3:17:18your
3:17:18your input and your attendance today
3:17:21ms frederick if i could just ask you on
3:17:24the uh
3:17:25on the issue of
3:17:26the fact that platforming other
3:17:28platforms do use algorithms to filter
3:17:30content and to help identify posts or
3:17:32information that might violate their
3:17:34content moderation policies
3:17:37but the sheer volume of of that content
3:17:41that they that they have to evaluate
3:17:44can you give us some guidance as how
3:17:46congress might incentivize fair and
3:17:47accurate enforcement of content
3:17:50moderation policies by the tech
3:17:51companies
3:17:52that have the section 230 liability
3:17:56so i think there are a couple ways to do
3:17:57that as i said before use that first
3:17:59amendment as a standard to reform
3:18:01section 230 and then i think that
3:18:02companies should implement a
3:18:04user-friendly appeals process to provide
3:18:07that prompt and meaningful recourse for
3:18:09users who think that they've been
3:18:11wrongfully targeted for their speech so
3:18:13basically give power back to the hands
3:18:15of the people and not the platforms
3:18:17itself let them actually use the
3:18:19judicial system to address those issues
3:18:22and we i really think we should examine
3:18:24discrepancies in between what these
3:18:26companies say they do what they say they
3:18:28stand for these are us-based companies
3:18:31their terms of service their policies
3:18:32and those implementation if there is a
3:18:34discrepancy why not bring them up on
3:18:36breach of contract why not uh examine
3:18:39them as possible cases of fraud so you
3:18:41have to give the people some efficacy
3:18:43against these platforms because frankly
3:18:45they're not afraid they're not afraid of
3:18:47congress they're not afraid of you
3:18:48especially on the right side of the
3:18:49aisle they do not fear the use or the
3:18:52incentivization of any of these
3:18:54mechanisms to cause them to fix what
3:18:56they've been doing wrong
3:18:58i have
3:19:00an impression that you're correct they
3:19:02don't
3:19:03they don't fear on this side of the of
3:19:04the diocese
3:19:06so and kind of what you're talking about
3:19:08there is a way to increase the
3:19:09transparency of the algorithms
3:19:11they use on that that are used on those
3:19:13platforms so is there a way to get to
3:19:16the transparency without jeopardizing
3:19:17the proprietary business nature of the
3:19:19information
3:19:20i think there's a difference between
3:19:22proprietary designs of algorithms and
3:19:24then reporting and details on how these
3:19:26algorithms affect users and impact users
3:19:30on the platform so that distinction
3:19:32should be made and when we're
3:19:33incentivizing algorithmic transparency i
3:19:36do think there has to be a publicly a
3:19:38public availability component and there
3:19:40has to be some sort of of teeth again we
3:19:43have institutions that exist for a
3:19:44reason the ftc exists for a reason there
3:19:47are enforcement mechanisms that already
3:19:49exist we don't have to expand government
3:19:51power we don't have to weaponize it but
3:19:53we do need to give this some teeth well
3:19:56let me just ask you ms algon do you
3:19:57think that transparency that insight
3:19:59exists within the company say a company
3:20:02like facebook are they aware
3:20:04that
3:20:05this occurs
3:20:10um that there's not a recourse for for
3:20:13um for for over enforcement or what's
3:20:15the right so the algorithms that are
3:20:17developed for content moderation are
3:20:19they aware of the effect that that has
3:20:21on the on the end user they're very
3:20:24aware that people have a very strong
3:20:26emotional response when their content is
3:20:28moderated and they're very aware that um
3:20:31the system the amount of content that
3:20:33has to be moderated is so high
3:20:35that they make they take i i don't want
3:20:38to describe them as shortcuts but they
3:20:40make many
3:20:41optimizations that lead potentially to
3:20:43inaccurate enforcement sure it gets back
3:20:45to the sheer volume
3:20:46argument
3:20:48well let me ask you something because
3:20:49when your uh
3:20:52testimony before the senate came out the
3:20:54wall street journal did their series of
3:20:56articles on on facebook
3:20:58and i heard an interview with
3:21:00dr sanjay gupton cnn talking about teen
3:21:03suicide
3:21:06interesting comments that he had and
3:21:08then he went further and said
3:21:11it's it's far in excess in in teenage
3:21:14girls in adolescent girls
3:21:16and apparently if you look at the
3:21:18studies that that is the case
3:21:20and some of it does seem to be related
3:21:23to screen time and and usage
3:21:26is this something that is known
3:21:28internally within the company
3:21:31facebook has done um
3:21:33proactive investigations they have
3:21:34things called proactive incident
3:21:36responses so these are things where they
3:21:37hear a rumor and they go check for it
3:21:39they know that you can follow very
3:21:42neutral interests like um healthy eating
3:21:45and just by clicking on the content
3:21:47provided be led to anorexia content like
3:21:50that's that's what the algorithms do
3:21:52they lead to amplification they know
3:21:54that children sometimes self-soothe that
3:21:56as they get more depressed as they get
3:21:58more anxious they consume more and more
3:22:00and more content and when the content
3:22:02itself is the driving factor on the
3:22:04problem that leads to tragedy and
3:22:05facebook is aware of all those things
3:22:07you know one of the things that strikes
3:22:08me and i'm a physician in my former life
3:22:12to be able to have that information
3:22:13available to caregivers so that they're
3:22:16aware of the clues or cues that should
3:22:19be sought
3:22:20um you know we're all trained to to ask
3:22:23about whether someone is is is depressed
3:22:25whether someone is worried about hurting
3:22:27themselves or someone else but here it
3:22:29seems so specific
3:22:31and it seems like the information
3:22:34that the company could make available to
3:22:37to doctors nurses caregivers in general
3:22:40it seems like that should be something
3:22:41that is just done
3:22:43but i get the impression that it's not
3:22:45yeah
3:22:46i've been told by government official
3:22:48governmental officials in other
3:22:49countries that they have asked facebook
3:22:50things like how many children are
3:22:52overexposed to self-harm content
3:22:54and facebook says we don't track what
3:22:56content is self-harm content so we don't
3:22:58know
3:22:59i think facebook facebook has some
3:23:00willful ignorance with regard to the
3:23:02harms against children where they have
3:23:04intentionally not investigated or
3:23:06invested resources in understanding
3:23:07these problems because they are afraid
3:23:09that they would have to do something if
3:23:10they if they could concretely know what
3:23:12was going on yeah gentleman's time has
3:23:13expired what does i made it seems like
3:23:15we have an obligation to inform the
3:23:17provider community that this is
3:23:19important and this is something that
3:23:20should be actively sought in taking a
3:23:22history with a patient thank you i'll
3:23:24yield back the chair recognizes ms
3:23:26schakowsky for five minutes
3:23:28thank you mr chairman and thank you for
3:23:30allowing to wave on to this really
3:23:33extraordinary
3:23:34hearing and i want to thank all of the
3:23:37panelists this has been so important
3:23:41and i would especially like to
3:23:45thank um that the testimony of miss
3:23:47haugen and thank you for your
3:23:50um courage and your strength in
3:23:52testifying today and really clearing
3:23:55clarifying
3:23:57for the committee and for the the public
3:24:00the
3:24:01um in incredible harms
3:24:03that can be created on online so
3:24:07yesterday i i introduced a bill called
3:24:10the ftc whistleblower act
3:24:14with my colleague representative treyhan
3:24:18and this legislation
3:24:20would protect whistleblowers
3:24:23who
3:24:25that that provide information to the
3:24:27federal trade commission's uh
3:24:30federal trade commission
3:24:32um from retaliation
3:24:35um from their brave um and uh courageous
3:24:40activities by uh disclosing the kinds of
3:24:43things that we think need to be
3:24:45disclosed
3:24:46so here's my my question for for you why
3:24:50is it and can you explain um to us
3:24:53why you brought your
3:24:55um
3:24:56evidence to the securities and exchange
3:24:59commission how'd that decision got made
3:25:03my lawyers have advised me that uh by
3:25:06disclosing to the sec i would receive
3:25:08federal whistleblower protections i
3:25:10think it's extremely important for us to
3:25:12expand those protections both to private
3:25:14companies because if i had been at tick
3:25:16tock i would not have been eligible for
3:25:17those protections
3:25:19so um
3:25:20in your in your view are um
3:25:23whistleblowers who want to expose
3:25:26wrongdoing or
3:25:28um help uh to
3:25:31defend consumers by reporting to the
3:25:34federal trade commission
3:25:36um protected under that law
3:25:40was the question are are they protected
3:25:42under ftc or they should be
3:25:45well
3:25:46i mean no my my question is under what
3:25:49you did would not protect them oh yeah
3:25:52if they went to the uh if they were
3:25:55reviewing revealing something from the
3:25:56federal trade to the federal trade
3:25:58commission i think this is an issue that
3:25:59both the right and the left can get
3:26:01behind like when the right worries about
3:26:03over enforcement that's a thing that we
3:26:04should be able to know about if it's
3:26:06happening inside companies or on the
3:26:07left if we want to have democrat control
3:26:09of these institutions no one but the
3:26:11employees at these platforms knows
3:26:13what's going on except the employees so
3:26:15we need to have whistleblower
3:26:16protections in more parts of the
3:26:18government
3:26:19and i strongly encourage having
3:26:20protections for former employees also
3:26:23because
3:26:24that clarity in the law is vitally
3:26:26important
3:26:27so then you do believe that
3:26:30establishing some sort of legal
3:26:32protection against retaliation and
3:26:37you know what
3:26:38whistleblower protections at the federal
3:26:40trade commission would be important but
3:26:42i hear you also saying
3:26:44that the fact that it is like agency by
3:26:47agency that we don't have any kind of
3:26:51umbrella protection for consumer
3:26:54whistleblowers is a is a problem as you
3:26:56see it it's a huge huge problem we are
3:26:59living in a time when technology is
3:27:00accelerating technology is always
3:27:03governance is always lagged behind
3:27:04technology and as technology gets faster
3:27:07and faster and more opaque it becomes
3:27:10more and more important for us to have
3:27:11systemic protections for whistleblowers
3:27:13if we want to remain with the government
3:27:15in control of these things technology
3:27:17needs to live in democracy's house
3:27:20thank you really that was the only
3:27:22question that i had i just wanted to
3:27:24raise the issue that you needed to go
3:27:26there on the advice of your attorneys
3:27:29because
3:27:30that was a place that you would have
3:27:32protection
3:27:33but the fact that ordinary people
3:27:36who have legitimate claims that know
3:27:39things that need to be shared do not
3:27:42have that protection right now i
3:27:44actually didn't know that it also did
3:27:46not apply to ex-federal employees and i
3:27:50think that they should be um covered as
3:27:52well the import i want to really
3:27:54emphasize again that concept of private
3:27:57versus public employees so if i had
3:27:59worked at a private company like tick
3:28:00tock i would not have received
3:28:02protections from the sec and i want a
3:28:05thing that is not necessarily obvious to
3:28:06people is that companies are going
3:28:08public later and later and later they're
3:28:10huge companies by the time they go
3:28:12public and so we need to have laws that
3:28:14protect across the federal government
3:28:16whistleblowers and they need to be at
3:28:17private and public companies
3:28:19so you're saying that only those
3:28:21corporations that have gone public
3:28:24um
3:28:26right now would would be uh included
3:28:30um if i my understanding i'm not a
3:28:32lawyer my understanding is if i had been
3:28:34at a private company i would not have
3:28:36gotten sec protections because the
3:28:38whistleblower protect program at the sec
3:28:40only covers public employees
3:28:42general ladies time has expired thank
3:28:44you
3:28:46uh chair now recognizes mr pence for
3:28:48five minutes
3:28:50thank you chairman doyle and ranking
3:28:51meme marlatta for allowing me to join
3:28:53today and thank the witnesses for their
3:28:56testimony and answering the questions
3:28:58while i'm encouraged that this hearing
3:29:00represents a positive step towards
3:29:02reforming section 230 i hope we can
3:29:05create bipartisan bills for
3:29:07consideration
3:29:08republicans on this committee have put
3:29:11forth thoughtful reforms of section 230
3:29:14that would greatly rein in big tech's
3:29:16unchecked authority the silence
3:29:18hard-working hoosiers and all americans
3:29:21i encourage my colleagues in the
3:29:23majority
3:29:24to continue to include proposals from
3:29:26this side of the aisle on issues
3:29:28affecting all of our constituents
3:29:31as i stated during our hearing earlier
3:29:33this year with big tech ceos these
3:29:36platforms have become reminiscent of all
3:29:38encompassing monopolies whether it was
3:29:41standard oil or mobile most of the
3:29:44country had no choice but to rely on
3:29:46their services likewise social media
3:29:49platforms connect every aspect of our
3:29:51lives from family photos to political
3:29:54opinions
3:29:55even representatives in congress are all
3:29:58but required to have a facebook and
3:30:00twitter account to reach our
3:30:02constituents which is very bothersome to
3:30:04a 65 year old congressman
3:30:06big tech claims to understand the
3:30:08gravity of their influence but their
3:30:10actions say otherwise
3:30:12twitter allows the supreme leader of
3:30:14iran to have a megaphone to proclaim
3:30:16derogatory statements against jewish
3:30:18culture and endorse violence against the
3:30:21u.s and western world
3:30:24which i called out in
3:30:26earlier committee hearing they continue
3:30:28to allow the chinese communist party to
3:30:30peddle propaganda here at home google
3:30:33allegedly tried to use their own
3:30:35advertising monopoly to financially harm
3:30:38a conservative news outlet the
3:30:40federalist as one of the witnesses today
3:30:42talked about and other companies as well
3:30:45when jack dorsey announced his departure
3:30:47from twitter on monday he ended his
3:30:50message wishing they would be the most
3:30:52transparent company in the world
3:30:54i hope this commitment reverberates
3:30:57across the entire industry
3:30:59hoosiers and all americans should know
3:31:01exactly how these companies are
3:31:02profiting off the personal infra
3:31:05information of its users how i p has
3:31:09been stolen by adversarial countries
3:31:11like china and how social media
3:31:14platforms give megaphones to dictators
3:31:16and terrorists while manipulating
3:31:19addictive qualities of posts
3:31:21likes and comments to hook our children
3:31:24into their service
3:31:26we should have a better understanding
3:31:28behind big tech's decision to moderate
3:31:31content under their section 230 shield
3:31:36miss halogen
3:31:38i'm hoping you can comment on a
3:31:39suggested reform to section 230 that i
3:31:42don't necessarily agree with
3:31:44or disagree with i just want to get your
3:31:46thoughts on this it's been suggested
3:31:48that a revised version of section 230
3:31:51for the treatment of a publisher or
3:31:53speaker would read and i quote
3:31:56no provider or user of an interactive
3:31:59computer service shall be treated as a
3:32:00publisher or speaker of any speech
3:32:03protected by the first amendment wholly
3:32:05provided by another information content
3:32:07provider
3:32:08unless
3:32:10such provider or user intentionally
3:32:13encourages
3:32:14solicits or generates revenue from that
3:32:18speech
3:32:20if this language was signed into law how
3:32:22would this affect social media platforms
3:32:24ability to monetize higher engagement
3:32:27from harmful rhetoric
3:32:32i'm not a lawyer so i don't understand
3:32:33the the necessarily the nuances is the
3:32:36difference between the current version
3:32:37and that version that uh if you profit
3:32:40from the content then you're liable like
3:32:41i'm not sure what the current wording of
3:32:43the law is if you're promoting uh
3:32:46you would no longer have protection if
3:32:48you were monetizing it if you were
3:32:50monetizing if you're promoting yes um
3:32:52monetizing it correct i uh i do not
3:32:56support removing 230 protections from
3:32:58individual pieces of content because it
3:33:01is it is basically it's functionally
3:33:02impossible to do and have products like
3:33:04we have today um if we called out the
3:33:07idea that you would have to
3:33:10that if it was monet uh in a place like
3:33:12facebook it's actually quite hard to say
3:33:14which piece of content led to
3:33:16monetization right so if you look at a
3:33:19feed of 30 posts but but if they're
3:33:21shooting it out all over the place
3:33:23because it's uh because it's negativity
3:33:26or anger or hatred and let me ask uh in
3:33:29a timer rating miss frederick uh could
3:33:31you answer that real quick i'm also not
3:33:34a lawyer um but i do like money um so
3:33:36that gives me a little bit of pause when
3:33:38we think about people's ability to
3:33:39monetize their livings on these
3:33:41platforms because part of the problem we
3:33:43know is that normal people who just want
3:33:45to have a business and maybe have some
3:33:47skepticism about what public health
3:33:49officials say when they question that
3:33:51dogma or that orthodoxy or that leftist
3:33:54narrative they're suspended or banned
3:33:56from the platform so i want to protect
3:33:57the individual and the individual rights
3:33:59more than anything gentlemen's time has
3:34:01expired thank you very much recognizes
3:34:04miss caster for five minutes
3:34:07well thank you chairman doyle for uh
3:34:08calling this very important hearing and
3:34:10thank you to our witnesses and to miss
3:34:12hagen um you're courageous and i think
3:34:15we all owe you a debt of gratitude for
3:34:17blowing the whistle on facebook's
3:34:19harmful
3:34:20uh corporate uh operation the
3:34:23the harmful the design of their platform
3:34:26they they know the damage they're
3:34:29causing and yet they look the other way
3:34:30and
3:34:31fatten their wallets at the same time
3:34:34and mr steyer thank you for your years
3:34:36of
3:34:37commitment to keeping our children safe
3:34:39online thank you for your advice as we
3:34:43drafted the kids privacy act the update
3:34:45to uh coppa
3:34:46hopefully we'll get to privacy uh as we
3:34:49move design reform and section 230
3:34:52reform along as well
3:34:53uh and mr robinson thank you uh
3:34:56let's get into section 230 a little bit
3:34:59you say we should not nullify consumer
3:35:01safety or civil rights laws we shouldn't
3:35:04encourage illegal
3:35:06harmful behavior i mean we don't allow
3:35:08this to happen in the real world we
3:35:11shouldn't allow it to happen in the
3:35:12online world
3:35:14section 230 the courts have interpreted
3:35:18this section
3:35:19to provide and remember this was adopted
3:35:21in 1996 a world away from where we are
3:35:24now online but the courts have
3:35:26interpreted section 230 as a almost a
3:35:30complete
3:35:31uh
3:35:32immunity from liability for what happens
3:35:34on their platform no matter how illegal
3:35:37harmful it's so flagrantly bad that
3:35:40judges now
3:35:41are asking the congress to please weigh
3:35:44in and reform section 230. so that's why
3:35:48i filed the safe tech act with
3:35:51congressman mckeachen who was on earlier
3:35:54the safe tech act would remove section
3:35:57230 liability
3:35:59the liability shield for violations of
3:36:01civil rights laws
3:36:03antitrust laws stalking harassment
3:36:06intimidation laws
3:36:08international human rights laws and
3:36:10wrongful death actions some of the bills
3:36:13the other bills on the agenda today
3:36:16focus on the algorithm algorithmic
3:36:19amplification or targeting uh that leads
3:36:22to certain harms
3:36:23do we need to blend these approaches or
3:36:26do you would you highlight one uh over
3:36:29the other i'll start with you mr
3:36:30robinson i think we need multiple
3:36:32approaches and i think we need to start
3:36:35by um really by removing all the
3:36:38immunity that these companies have when
3:36:39it comes to violating existing law both
3:36:42in terms of um amplification and in
3:36:45terms of sort of what they allow on
3:36:47their platform
3:36:48um the fact of the matter is is that
3:36:50this has to go hand in hand though with
3:36:51transparency because what we end up with
3:36:54is these companies determining when they
3:36:57let us know or when we get to know we
3:36:59just got a whole new set of documents um
3:37:02through the washington post that let us
3:37:04know that they had done all sorts of
3:37:05internal research to actually show and i
3:37:07know there's been a lot of conversation
3:37:09here today about this idea of
3:37:11conservative bias but in fact black
3:37:13people were sort of much more likely to
3:37:16have their content pulled down
3:37:18than white people on the platform for
3:37:20similar levels of violations
3:37:23time and time again this was facebook's
3:37:25own internal research they got the
3:37:26research then they squashed that
3:37:29research so we end up with these
3:37:30conversations about this idea of
3:37:32conservative bias when their own
3:37:34research tells them something different
3:37:35and then they refuse to do anything
3:37:37about it so you because they have a
3:37:38blunt that blended approach miss haugen
3:37:41what's your view
3:37:44i agree that we need
3:37:45multiple approaches just removing
3:37:47immunity will not be sufficient we need
3:37:49to have ways of being able to get
3:37:52information out of these companies
3:37:54because one of the things that is
3:37:55lacking for facebook that is not lacking
3:37:57for any similarly powerful industry is
3:38:00because they've hid the data they've hid
3:38:02the knowledge you can't get a master's
3:38:04degree and the things that drive
3:38:05facebook right now or any of the other
3:38:06social media companies you have to learn
3:38:08inside the company is that we lack
3:38:11public muscle
3:38:12to approach these problems to develop
3:38:14our own solutions and until we have
3:38:16something more systematic we will not be
3:38:18able to hold these companies accountable
3:38:20mr steyer
3:38:24mr starr had to leave early i'm sorry i
3:38:26should have made that announcement we
3:38:28thank him for being on the panel but
3:38:30he's not with us anymore ms frederick do
3:38:31you want to weigh in on the uh the
3:38:34design and the algorithm rhythmic
3:38:37amplification
3:38:38in section 230 reform what's your view
3:38:41so section 230 reform generally i think
3:38:43again it starts with that first
3:38:44amendment standard and then you allow
3:38:47people to have recourse in courts and
3:38:49then you let companies uh where you make
3:38:52sure that companies report their content
3:38:54moderation methodology their practices
3:38:57to some sort of mechanism like the ftc
3:39:00with that public availability component
3:39:02and then you add algorithmic
3:39:03transparency into that as well so it's
3:39:05the the public availability component
3:39:07that i think helps give people uh power
3:39:10back when it comes to them standing up
3:39:12against these companies and their
3:39:13concentrations of power thank you very
3:39:16much inspired uh let's see mr crenshaw
3:39:19you're recognized for five minutes
3:39:21thank you mr chairman thank you everyone
3:39:22for for being here uh miss haugen i'd
3:39:24like to start with you please
3:39:26uh you're a lead product manager at the
3:39:28at the civic misinformation department
3:39:31at facebook or civic integrity
3:39:33as it's sometimes called
3:39:34i want you to help us understand
3:39:37what standards are used to decide what
3:39:39is misinformation and what isn't and i
3:39:41know that could be an hour long answer
3:39:43if you could do a short one um so just
3:39:45for for clarification um people have
3:39:46sometimes said that my team
3:39:48took down i think the hunter biden story
3:39:50there are two teams at facebook or more
3:39:52than two teams that deal with
3:39:53misinformation so the main
3:39:55misinformation team which was under
3:39:56community integrity uses third party
3:39:59fact checkers which are independent
3:40:00journalists who identify
3:40:03may allow to make any choice they want
3:40:04to within the queue of stories and then
3:40:07they write their own journalism and that
3:40:08is what how things are decided to be
3:40:10true or false my team worked on you guys
3:40:12see any problem with outsourcing the
3:40:14fact checking to people who really don't
3:40:16check facts but instead check opinions i
3:40:18mean i'm a victim of that many times by
3:40:20these so-called journalists who are
3:40:22so-called fact checkers is there any
3:40:23concern about that at facebook
3:40:25um i
3:40:27it is a very complicated and nuanced
3:40:31issue um i did not work on the third
3:40:33party fact-checking program though so i
3:40:35am not aware of it but that's one
3:40:36standard so any other principles that we
3:40:38might point to that are that would that
3:40:41would lead us to understanding what the
3:40:42standard is and what is misinformation
3:40:44facebook's policy is very clear they are
3:40:46not the arbiters of truth um so i think
3:40:48uh there is an open opportunity for
3:40:50public discussion on how third-party
3:40:53fact checks should be conducted
3:40:55but that is outside the scope of the
3:40:56things that i worked on
3:40:57okay
3:40:59mr robinson in your testimony say that
3:41:01we must take racism head on finally
3:41:03eliminate the racially ignorant
3:41:04exploitative and harmful components of
3:41:06big tech
3:41:08um
3:41:09and you we would do so by supporting
3:41:12legislation that removes liability um
3:41:15if they do not remove content that
3:41:16causes irreparable harm now in principle
3:41:18i already have objections to that just
3:41:20because it's too vague but that's not
3:41:21actually what i want you to address i
3:41:23want you to address of whether it would
3:41:25be really applied neutrally across the
3:41:27board that that general principle of of
3:41:30that irreparable harm
3:41:33well i don't know if we can absolutely
3:41:35get to neutrality but we don't get to
3:41:38consequences when companies have blanket
3:41:40immunity and right now these companies
3:41:42have blanket immunity and so as a result
3:41:44we don't allow um regulators enforcers
3:41:47judges and juries to be able to i'm more
3:41:49asking about the intent of your
3:41:51proposals as opposed to my intent the
3:41:53intent of our proposals is to stop
3:41:55allowing silicon valley companies to
3:41:58skirt civil rights and to stop allowing
3:42:00them to be able to decide when and when
3:42:03and where civil rights are enforced
3:42:05right i mean on the one hand i am
3:42:06sympathetic to it because i hate racism
3:42:09and um we recently had six people die in
3:42:11wisconsin
3:42:12possibly because of racism because of
3:42:14posts that were on facebook to 2015
3:42:16racist posts violent post 2020 again
3:42:20and now six people are dead um but would
3:42:22would you would these proposals address
3:42:24that
3:42:25as well
3:42:26the proposals would would remove the
3:42:29profit and growth incentive over safety
3:42:31integrity and security and so it it
3:42:34places a set of consequences on these
3:42:37platforms and then gets us to a place
3:42:39where there's actually consequences
3:42:41right now there are not consequences
3:42:42they can come here and lie to you about
3:42:44transparency they can come here and lie
3:42:46to you what they're doing to keep these
3:42:48companies safe and they have and you all
3:42:50have no risk recourse and this has been
3:42:52happening for you i understand thank you
3:42:53mr robinson i appreciate your answers
3:42:55and i just want to say a few things
3:42:57um
3:42:58one of the concerns we have is that it
3:43:00seems the advocates of censorship or
3:43:01content management or whatever we want
3:43:03to call it they tend to want to censor
3:43:05in only one direction they don't want to
3:43:06be neutral
3:43:08in their application of community
3:43:09standards
3:43:10second
3:43:11brings to light this fundamental
3:43:13question whose fault is it that human
3:43:15beings are horrible to one another whose
3:43:17fault is it that a bad person spreads
3:43:18lies or hate is it the medium of
3:43:20communication or is it the person
3:43:22spreading it this is a very fundamental
3:43:24question
3:43:24because free speech is very messy our
3:43:26founders knew that when they wrote the
3:43:27first amendment it can result in all
3:43:29sorts of chaos and pain and hurt
3:43:31feelings because the human race is
3:43:33indeed what it is
3:43:34but let's be clear that's a heck of a
3:43:35lot better than the alternative this
3:43:38independent oversight committee being
3:43:39discussed with an elite unaccountable
3:43:41few regulating what we see and what we
3:43:43don't i don't want us to go down that
3:43:45path
3:43:46and i want to be clear about something
3:43:47else republicans and democrats do not
3:43:48agree on this issue i've observed a
3:43:51clever strategy by the media and some of
3:43:53my colleagues implying that we all agree
3:43:54that we're all moving in the right
3:43:55direction towards the same thing we're
3:43:57all mad at big tech this is not really
3:43:59true we have very different views of the
3:44:01problem and as the ranking member
3:44:02pointed out one of the bills being
3:44:03considered today puts companies on the
3:44:05hook for any content that causes severe
3:44:07emotional injury which remains undefined
3:44:10and open to interpretation it's
3:44:11fundamentally un-american that your hurt
3:44:14feelings should dictate my free speech
3:44:16and i think the democrat party wants to
3:44:18censorship
3:44:19wants to censor based on vague
3:44:20interpretations of harmful speech and
3:44:23misinformation which invariably means
3:44:25things they just disagree with
3:44:27they can't legally infringe on the first
3:44:28amendment so bully big tech into doing
3:44:30it for you
3:44:31gentlemen go down this path
3:44:34thank you i yield back
3:44:36chair now recognizes ms trahan for five
3:44:38minutes
3:44:40uh thank you mr chairman i thank you to
3:44:42all our witnesses uh miss hoggin just
3:44:45let me echo what all my colleagues have
3:44:48said
3:44:48uh thanks for your bravery um bringing
3:44:51to
3:44:52light some so many important issues i
3:44:54worked in tech and i can't imagine that
3:44:56this has been easy for you
3:44:58uh the papers you provided have shown
3:45:00that when executives at facebook and
3:45:02companies like
3:45:04like it make decisions about content
3:45:06moderation processes and algorithmic
3:45:08design that that the harms caused to
3:45:10users are real in many cases devastating
3:45:14it's especially true for our young users
3:45:16already on services like instagram and
3:45:18it's true for young girls like my seven
3:45:20and eleven-year-old daughters who
3:45:21facebook's internal plans identified as
3:45:24the company's next growth frontier
3:45:27the fact that these companies view our
3:45:29children as expendable
3:45:30in their pursuit of profitability shows
3:45:32just how flawed the status quo is yet
3:45:35while these company-run ads pleading for
3:45:38updated internet regulations everyone on
3:45:40this panel is aware that the goal of
3:45:42their multi-million dollar lobbying
3:45:44efforts is the exact opposite i
3:45:47recognize that bipartisanship can seem
3:45:49to be in short supply these days like my
3:45:51colleague mr crenshaw pointed out but if
3:45:53protecting our children cannot garner
3:45:55the support of republicans and democrats
3:45:57alike i truly fear for our future
3:46:00there are a number of pieces of
3:46:01legislation either introduced already or
3:46:03currently in the works that all of us
3:46:05should be able to get behind especially
3:46:06when it comes to requiring transparency
3:46:09to that end i am the author of the
3:46:12social media data act which would direct
3:46:14the ftc to issue guidance on how
3:46:16internal research much like the research
3:46:17published in the facebook papers along
3:46:20with a range of other internal company
3:46:22data can be shared with academics in a
3:46:24way that protects privacy
3:46:26that way we can be informed by
3:46:28independent analysis of the full extent
3:46:30of harm that users like our children
3:46:32face when they open an app like
3:46:34instagram so in your experience miss
3:46:36haugen
3:46:37uh what types of internal studies are
3:46:39already regularly performed uh do
3:46:41platforms mostly perform surveys and
3:46:43interviews like we saw in the facebook
3:46:45papers or
3:46:47do they also do they employ other forms
3:46:49of study as well
3:46:51i want to encourage you when you talk
3:46:53about having data to encourage that in
3:46:56cases of aggregate data so it's not
3:46:58individually identifiable data that be
3:46:59made public because for other companies
3:47:01like twitter they have a fire hose
3:47:03that's one-tenth of all the tweets and
3:47:05there's probably ten thousand
3:47:06researchers in the world that hold
3:47:08twitter accountable so if you just send
3:47:10it to academics you won't reach
3:47:12independent consultants like myself and
3:47:14you'll miss out on a huge opportunity
3:47:15the second thing is what kinds of
3:47:17resources exist internally you have
3:47:18presentations you have
3:47:21you have large quantitative studies
3:47:23these might be based on user data or
3:47:24they might be literally surveys sent out
3:47:26to 50 000 people
3:47:28and they do do small group studies as
3:47:29well
3:47:32i appreciate that uh and so many of your
3:47:35comments have actually made of some of
3:47:36our existing bills already stronger uh
3:47:39you know similarly i'm working on
3:47:40legislation right now that would create
3:47:42a new bureau at the ftc focused on
3:47:44platform oversight and include an office
3:47:47of independent research facilitation you
3:47:50know researchers have several methods
3:47:52for proving causation but the
3:47:55quote-unquote gold standard is randomly
3:47:57controlled trials which is well
3:47:59understood for product safety across
3:48:01multiple industries um
3:48:03at facebook were you aware of whether
3:48:05internal resource researchers were doing
3:48:08randomly controlled trials and if so
3:48:10when in the product life cycle was that
3:48:12most likely to happen
3:48:14randomized trials happen all the time
3:48:16they're usually called ap trials
3:48:18for example in the case of removing
3:48:20likes off of instagram they ran a real a
3:48:23b trial where they randomly chose a
3:48:25number of users and removed the likes to
3:48:27see if it and then surveyed them
3:48:29afterwards and said you know did this
3:48:30decrease social comparison or did this
3:48:32decrease a variety of mental health
3:48:34harms so they have the infrastructure to
3:48:36run those trials um they just haven't
3:48:38maybe ran them on as many things as the
3:48:40public we need would want to know
3:48:42so what do you think is the likelihood
3:48:44in the future of platforms regularly
3:48:47collaborating with independent
3:48:48researchers you know using institutional
3:48:51review boards and ethical best practices
3:48:53to design and run
3:48:55controlled trials unless you legally
3:48:57mandate it you will not get those you
3:48:59just won't get them like researchers
3:49:00have begged and begged and begged for
3:49:02very basic data and for example a couple
3:49:05months ago after begging for years for a
3:49:07very small amount of data on the most
3:49:09popular links on facebook
3:49:12researchers accidentally caught that
3:49:14facebook had misc had pulled different
3:49:16data and then given it to them which
3:49:18invalidated the phd's of probably
3:49:20countless students so we need legally
3:49:22mandated ways to get data out of these
3:49:24companies
3:49:25which becomes very important when these
3:49:27companies talk about creation of things
3:49:29like instagram for kids so i
3:49:32i appreciate that i don't know how much
3:49:33time i'm going to get to this next line
3:49:35of questioning if i run out i will
3:49:36submit my questions for the record
3:49:38because i'm so interested in your
3:49:39responses but mr robinson you were one
3:49:42of the leaders of the aspen institute's
3:49:43commission on information disorder which
3:49:45recently issued a report that included
3:49:47suggestions for policymakers one
3:49:50suggestion was that congress require
3:49:51that platforms provide high reach
3:49:53content disclosures or lists of popular
3:49:56content and my office is currently
3:49:57working
3:49:58on text to do just that and we would
3:50:00love to connect with you but for now can
3:50:02you just explain why this type of
3:50:04disclosure is important how it
3:50:06complements several of the proposals
3:50:08we're discussing today which aim to
3:50:09limit section 230 immunity when
3:50:11recommendation algorithms are involved
3:50:13the aspen commission institutes um
3:50:16there the proposal should be taken
3:50:18together because we can't actually get
3:50:20to policy recommendations or new
3:50:22policies if we don't have more
3:50:24transparency and this actually gets to
3:50:26transparency around how these algorithms
3:50:28are functioning how they are sort of
3:50:30moving content and getting much more
3:50:32clear about all those things and so that
3:50:34is one of the pieces in transparency
3:50:35that i think is really clear and
3:50:37essential to getting towards the next
3:50:38steps
3:50:39general ladies time has expired thank
3:50:41you sir okay last but certainly not
3:50:44least start gentleman from pennsylvania
3:50:46mr joyce you have five minutes thank you
3:50:49chairman doyle and ranking member lada
3:50:51for holding this important hearing on
3:50:54holding big tech accountable
3:50:56in light of what's happened over the
3:50:58past year
3:50:59it's abundantly clear
3:51:01that this body needs to act on reforming
3:51:04section 230 and reigning in big tech
3:51:08recent reports have shown how far social
3:51:10media companies will go
3:51:12in order to maximize profit
3:51:15at the expense of consumers well-being
3:51:18it is disturbing to see this callous and
3:51:21harmful behavior from some of our
3:51:24largest companies
3:51:26and personally it worries me that it
3:51:28took a whistleblower coming forward for
3:51:31us to learn about these harmful effects
3:51:34that these products potentially
3:51:37and do often have
3:51:40to take on the unchecked power of big
3:51:42tech in silicon valley
3:51:45my colleagues and i have proposed a
3:51:47comprehensive package
3:51:49that will hold big tech accountable
3:51:52and work to protect consumers
3:51:55and actually most importantly our
3:51:57children
3:51:58i implore the majority to take up these
3:52:01crucial pieces of legislation
3:52:04and to do it now
3:52:06miss frederick
3:52:08conservatives especially in my district
3:52:11feel as though their voices are being
3:52:14silenced by content regulators in
3:52:17silicon valley
3:52:19how can we broadly ensure that this
3:52:21doesn't happen
3:52:24so what really hasn't been talked about
3:52:25much here is the fact that it's not even
3:52:27just about individual users or
3:52:30individual accounts or individual pieces
3:52:32of content we are talking about market
3:52:34dominance that translates to americans
3:52:36ability to access information you look
3:52:39at something like amazon web services
3:52:41which you know google apple they took
3:52:43down parlor okay whatever you can get it
3:52:45on their desktop people weren't
3:52:46extremely fussed about that but then
3:52:48within 24 hours when amazon web services
3:52:51at the cloud hosting infrastructure
3:52:52level pulled the plug on parlor entirely
3:52:55a whole slew litany of conservative
3:52:57users were silent lights out at the snap
3:53:00of a of a finger insane so in my mind we
3:53:04absolutely need to use that first
3:53:06amendment standard so things can happen
3:53:08uh to the content moderation issue to we
3:53:12need to make sure we increase
3:53:14transparency like we talked about it
3:53:15let's have some legislative teeth here
3:53:17let's incentivize those quarterly or
3:53:19even biannual reports when these
3:53:21companies report on what they're
3:53:22actually doing their content moderation
3:53:24decisions and the inconsistent not
3:53:27even-handed application of them
3:53:29and then just frankly remove liability
3:53:31protections when these companies censor
3:53:34based on political views again strip
3:53:36that immunity when it's abused and then
3:53:38finally i think there are reforms that
3:53:40exist outside of section 230 civil
3:53:43society grassroots we need to get
3:53:45invigorated about this let's use that
3:53:47anti-critical race theory model to gin
3:53:49up the the population when these abuses
3:53:52harm our children which they are which
3:53:54has been proven so that civil society is
3:53:57huge and states states can wield power
3:53:59here as well and i think a lot of good
3:54:02ideas have been put forward in those
3:54:03labs of democracy and we should amplify
3:54:06those ideas and promote them as
3:54:07conservatives as well and i agree with
3:54:09you that first amendment rights must be
3:54:12amplified and must be maintained
3:54:16additionally we see harmful impact as
3:54:18social media is having on children and
3:54:21you recognize this as a significant
3:54:22concern of mine and my colleagues
3:54:25the potential lasting psychological
3:54:28impacts that come with endless contests
3:54:31and are readily accessible to so many
3:54:33users
3:54:35miss frederick can you talk about the
3:54:37information that you exposed and how you
3:54:39feel we as members of congress must be
3:54:42able to further utilize that
3:54:45so i wasn't the one who exposed any of
3:54:47this information um i just read it in
3:54:49the paper uh like most people however
3:54:51what you do learn what i learned from
3:54:53working at this company was they are
3:54:55concerned about growth at all costs
3:54:57which translates to bottom line at all
3:54:59costs which translates to
3:55:02pr problems and brand and reputation
3:55:04concerns so they should focus on the
3:55:07brand and reputation concern and
3:55:08recognize that these children when they
3:55:11have these devices in their hands they
3:55:13do not yet have fully formed
3:55:14consciousness consciences to deal with
3:55:17the effects that that device is
3:55:19admitting admitting so i think that
3:55:21people need to rethink the way that
3:55:24these devices impact children we need to
3:55:26rethink whether or not children can even
3:55:28have these devices as was mentioned
3:55:30earlier famously tech oligarchs they
3:55:33don't give their kids these devices
3:55:35there's a reason for that and that
3:55:36should be all you need to know
3:55:39miss haugen can you as the individual
3:55:42who did this
3:55:43can you comment on how this effects will
3:55:46move forward in being able to protect
3:55:48our children
3:55:50uh which affects the the things that
3:55:52she's described yes exactly what was
3:55:54just described by miss frederick um
3:55:57we have huge opportunities to protect
3:55:59our children in more effective ways we
3:56:01need more transparency on children who
3:56:03are exposed to these harms we need to
3:56:04know what facebook is actually doing to
3:56:06protect kids they've been using the
3:56:09efforts that they've done so far like
3:56:10things like the um they've a help center
3:56:12that comes up occasionally they've
3:56:14promoted that as if it's a huge
3:56:16intervention but only hundreds of kids
3:56:17see it per day so we need transparency
3:56:20we need like a parent board that can
3:56:22weigh in on these decisions and we need
3:56:24to have independent academic researchers
3:56:26have enough access that that we can know
3:56:28what the effects are on the kid our kids
3:56:30until we have those things we're not
3:56:31going to be able to protect children
3:56:32adequately gentleman's time is here my
3:56:35team has expired thank you mr chair so
3:56:38this uh concludes the witness testimony
3:56:40and questions for our first panel
3:56:43i want to thank all of our witnesses
3:56:45miss hogan uh when congress finally acts
3:56:48i won't say if congress finally acts
3:56:50i'll say when uh you will be chiefly
3:56:53responsible for
3:56:55whatever happens here uh through the
3:56:58brave step that you took to come forward
3:57:01and and
3:57:02open up the door and shine a light on on
3:57:04what was really happening here so i
3:57:06thank you for being here mr robinson uh
3:57:09miss frederick mr steyer uh all of you
3:57:12thank you so much uh your your testimony
3:57:14and your
3:57:15answering of our questions have been
3:57:17very helpful um we are committed to
3:57:19working in a bipartisan fashion to get
3:57:22some legislation done so with that um i
3:57:25will dismiss you with our
3:57:27thanks and gratitude and uh we're going
3:57:30to bring the second panel in thank you
3:57:34thank you for having us
3:57:45see you soon
3:58:09[Music]
3:58:14[Music]
3:59:09foreign
3:59:15[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testifies before Congress | full video by CBS News, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 39,641 words across 6,642 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.