YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → LIVE: U.S. House Committee hearing with Facebook's ex-employee Frances Haugen

LIVE: U.S. House Committee hearing with Facebook's ex-employee Frances Haugen — Transcript

by Reuters · 19,639 words · 3,283 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00realized that his ex had created a fake
0:02profile of him on a dating app
0:04this app's geo-targeting function and
0:07algorithm allowed other users to connect
0:10with this fake profile
0:12throughout this app through this app
0:14matthews x sent men to matthew's home
0:16and work with the expectation that they
0:19would be fulfilling his rape fantasy
0:21these traumatizing encounters
0:24matthew was followed home and into
0:26stairwells where he worked and accosted
0:29after a shift shook matthew both
0:31emotionally and professionally
0:33matthew repeatedly asked the app to
0:35remove the fake profile the app however
0:38did nothing
0:39wesley's family and matthew share
0:42something in common they were denied the
0:44basic opportunity to determine if these
0:47websites shared any legal blame along
0:50with the users who posted the content
0:52the question of whether the platform
0:54should be held liable the companies that
0:56developed the algorithms gathered the
0:58data and profited off the users was
1:01precluded by section 230.
1:04they might not have won but they never
1:06even had a chance to get their case
1:08tried
1:09these are just two instances of section
1:11230 locking the courthouse doors to
1:14people with real-world injuries caused
1:16by online actions
1:18since i have chaired this subcommittee
1:20we have held multiple hearings on this
1:22issue we've heard from ceos of the
1:25largest tech platforms we've heard from
1:27small platforms we've heard from experts
1:30and we've heard from those most affected
1:32by these behaviors
1:34and these oversight activities didn't
1:36start with me though republicans have
1:38been investigating this issue as well
1:40they have a number of discussion drafts
1:42and bills they have introduced
1:44many of those ideas are worth exploring
1:47the concept of not providing immunity
1:49for platforms algorithms for example are
1:52in both the justice against malicious
1:54algorithms act that i've introduced and
1:57and mrs mcnorris rogers discussion draft
2:00there's a bipartisan desire to reform
2:03the court's interpretation of section
2:05230 and the american public wants to see
2:08us get things done
2:10i urge all my colleagues republican and
2:12democratic to bring their ideas forward
2:15now and let's work together on
2:17bipartisan legislation because we can't
2:20continue to wait
2:22the largest tech companies would like
2:24nothing more than for congress to fight
2:27amongst itself while nothing happens and
2:30they welcome those complaining about
2:32process claiming that congress doesn't
2:34understand or saying that this would
2:36break the internet because these
2:38platforms don't want to be held
2:40accountable
2:41the users suffering harm deserve better
2:43from us and we will act but for the
2:46pandemic we would have some of these
2:48victims with us in the room today and
2:50while they cannot be here in person the
2:53family of wesley is watching today
2:55matthew herrick is watching today and
2:58the advocates for children and
2:59marginalized groups and victims rights
3:02are watching today
3:03to start today we will hear from experts
3:06about the harms we are seeing online and
3:08our second expert panel will focus on
3:10perform proposals to reform section 230.
3:14and in a little over a week chairwoman
3:16schakowsky will continue this series in
3:18her subcommittee reviewing legislation
3:21that can bring additional transparency
3:23and accountability for the problems we
3:25consider today i want to thank all our
3:28panelists for joining us and i look
3:30forward to their testimony and with that
3:32i yield the remainder of my time to
3:34congresswoman eshoo
3:36thank you mr chairman for yielding to me
3:39uh by way of background i was on the
3:41conference committee for the 1996
3:44uh telecom act
3:46and i continue to strongly believe in
3:49section 230's core
3:51benefit which is to protect user speech
3:54but algorithms select what content will
3:57appear personalized for each user the
4:00platform is then more than just a
4:03conduit transferring one user's speech
4:06to others
4:07platforms should not be immune from
4:09courts examining if algorithmic
4:12amplification causes harms and that's
4:15the core idea of the two bills i've
4:18co-led so thank you mr chairman for
4:21convening this highly important hearing
4:24uh and i yield back general lady yields
4:26back the chair now recognizes my good
4:28friend mr latta the ranking member for
4:30the subcommittee on communications and
4:32technology for five minutes for his
4:34opening statement well thank you my uh
4:36good friend and chairman i greatly
4:39appreciate it i also want to thank our
4:40witness panel for being here today to
4:42discuss the potential legislative
4:43reforms of section 230 of the
4:45communications decency act
4:48republicans on the energy and commerce
4:49committee are leading on ways to hold
4:51big tech com companies accountable for
4:54the harms caused by their platforms
4:56in january january we announced our big
4:59tech accountability platform which began
5:01our efforts to take a comprehensive look
5:03at ways to perform section 230.
5:06and proud republicans have been focused
5:08on and remain focused on reconsidering
5:10the extent to which big tech deserves to
5:13retain their significant liability
5:14protections
5:16every step of the way we have encouraged
5:18our democratic democratic colleagues to
5:20join us in the quest to hold big tech
5:21accountable while evaluating how we can
5:24reform section 230. we saw input from
5:27the public on their concerns with big
5:29tech from stakeholders on ways to stop
5:31censorship while protecting small
5:33businesses and innovation and for
5:35members of congress on proposals that
5:37they have supported
5:39hearing from the public stakeholders and
5:40members of congress informed the
5:42discussion drafts that every republican
5:45on this committee released in july our
5:47discussion drafts range from amending
5:49section 230 to holding big tech
5:51accountable for taking down
5:53constitutionally protected speech and
5:55facilitating illegal drug sales to
5:58increasing transparency requirements on
6:00how social media companies moderate
6:02content
6:03section 230 became law in 1996 in
6:06response to several court cases most
6:08notably stratton oakmont versus prodigy
6:10services
6:11to allow online platforms to moderate
6:14unlawful or indecent content without
6:16fear of liability
6:18it has two main components a provision
6:20that exempts platforms for being liable
6:22for content that is posted on their site
6:25by a third-party user
6:27and a second provision that exempts
6:29platforms from being liable for content
6:31that they remove in good faith
6:33the internet has grown substantially
6:35since 1996 and it is clear big tech has
6:38abused this power granted to them enter
6:40the event panelist numero password
6:42followed by pound
6:46they censor conservative voices and use
6:48algorithms to suppress content that does
6:50not fit their narrative
6:52they hide research that shows the
6:53negative impact their platforms have on
6:55the mental health of our children
6:58they allow the sale of illegal drugs on
7:00their platforms including fentanyl which
7:02we all know is killing americans every
7:04day
7:05while these actions are happening on big
7:07tech platforms users have no recourse
7:09when conservatives are silenced the
7:11appeals process if it exists can be
7:13difficult to navigate big tech hides
7:16behind section 230 to avoid liability
7:19for real world harms their platforms are
7:21causing including harms to our children
7:24section 230 is supposed to protect
7:26platforms for removing content and good
7:28faith but says nothing about their
7:30liability for when they are acting as
7:32bad stewards of their platforms
7:34to address this issue i've authored a
7:37carve-out section 230 protection for
7:40platforms that proposedly
7:42promote solicit or purposely actually
7:45purposely promote solicit or facilitate
7:47material by another information content
7:49provider if the platform knew or had
7:51reason to know that the kind of intent
7:53would violate criminal federal law
7:55when big tech acts as bad stewards on
7:57their platforms or as bad samaritans
7:59they should no longer be entitled to
8:01protections under section 230.
8:04we will also discuss legislation notice
8:06on today's hearing which i am concerned
8:08could lead to unintended consequences
8:09like curtailing free speech and
8:11innovation
8:12section 230 reform must be taken
8:14seriously and any legislative proposal
8:16that eventually gets enacted must be
8:18thoroughly vetted
8:20we're at pivotal time for free speech in
8:22america as our generation's turn to
8:24uphold the rights of on which our
8:26country was founded i look forward to
8:28hearing feedback from the witnesses on
8:30the proposals in front of us today and
8:32before i yield back
8:34mr chairman i'd ask the unanimous
8:35consent that dr burgess
8:38who's not a member of the subcommittee
8:40but a distinguished member of the full
8:41committee be able to wave on to the
8:43committee
8:44yeah put out objection thank you very
8:45much and with that mr chairman i yield
8:47back the balance of my time
8:49gentlemen yields back chair now
8:51recognizes mr pallone for five minutes
8:53for his opening statement
8:55thank you chairman doyle today's hearing
8:57is the first of two in which this
8:59committee will discuss legislative
9:01reforms to hold social media companies
9:04accountable and we have two panels today
9:06the first will focus on the insidious
9:08problems from which some social media
9:10platforms online are profiting and the
9:12second will consider how reforms to
9:14section 230 of the communications
9:16decency act and play a part in
9:18addressing those problems and then next
9:20week in a consumer protection and
9:22commerce subcommittee hearing we'll
9:24discuss how consumer protection focused
9:26proposals can increase these companies
9:28accountability to the public
9:29now these two legislative hearings come
9:31after years of repeated bipartisan calls
9:33for online platforms to change their
9:35ways since 2018 we've held six hearings
9:38examining tech platforms accountability
9:41and our members have sent countless
9:42letters the most prominent online
9:45platforms have repeatedly feigned
9:46ignorance before this committee but our
9:48suspicions unfortunately have been
9:50repeatedly confirmed the latest coming
9:52from former facebook employee francis
9:55haugen we learned how the platforms
9:57downplayed research that teen girls were
9:59especially vulnerable and suffering
10:01online we've learned how executives knew
10:03their algorithms amplify harmful and
10:05divisive content and rejected proposals
10:08to fix the issue we've seen a pattern of
10:10platforms highlighting covet 19 in
10:12misinformation conspiracy theories and
10:15divisiveness we've learned that during a
10:17civil rights audit one platform failed
10:19to disclose that its algorithms
10:21disproportionately harm minority groups
10:23for years now these platforms have acted
10:25above the law and outside the reach of
10:27regulators and the public and its time
10:29and it's a time for change in my opinion
10:31the legal protections provided by
10:33section 230 of the communications
10:35decency act have played a role in that
10:37lack of accountability by stopping
10:39victims from having their cases heard
10:41and one recently filed suit a video
10:43chatting platform that is commonly used
10:45to engage in online sex between users
10:48paired a young girl with a middle-aged
10:50man he convinced her to send nude photos
10:52and videos of herself including by
10:54blackmailing her this man forced her to
10:56engage in sexual performances for
10:58himself and his friends and even to
11:00recruit others and based on court
11:02precedent section 230 may very well
11:04threaten justice for this young girl and
11:07i hope it does not because the platform
11:09was responsible for pairing the young
11:11girl with the middle-aged man now judges
11:14and a whole host of diverse interests
11:15including many of our witnesses have
11:17suggested that courts may have
11:19interpreted section 230 more broadly
11:21than congress intended and averaged
11:23reform to be clear section 230 is
11:26critically important to promoting a
11:27vibrant and free internet but i agree
11:29with those who suggest the courts have
11:31allowed it to stray too far judge
11:33katzman the late chief judge of the
11:34second circuit brought some clarity to
11:36this issue in his dissent in force
11:38versus facebook he stated that section
11:40230 does not and should not bar relief
11:43when a plaintiff brings a claim that is
11:44based not on the content of the
11:46information shown but rather on the
11:48connections that platforms algorithms
11:50make between individuals of course that
11:52was not the court's ruling in that case
11:54and a challenge for us is to clarify the
11:56statute if the courts don't while
11:58ensuring that we balance the statutes
11:59good against the pain it inflicts so
12:02today we'll consider four proposals that
12:04would amend or clarify section 230 to
12:06protect users while promoting open and
12:08free online dialogue these bills do not
12:11impose liability on the platforms and do
12:13not directly restrict the content that
12:14platforms make available they simply
12:17limit the section 230 protections in
12:19certain circumstances including when
12:21platforms use algorithms to amplify
12:23certain content and these targeted
12:25proposals for reformer intend to balance
12:27the benefits of vibrant free expression
12:29online while ensuring that platforms
12:31cannot hide behind section 230 when
12:33their business practices meaningfully
12:35contribute to real harm now i have to
12:37say i'm disappointed that my republican
12:39colleagues chose not to introduce the
12:41discussion drafts they released in july
12:43so that they could be included in
12:44today's hearing in order to actually
12:46pass legislation that will begin to hold
12:48these platforms accountable we must work
12:51together and i urge my colleagues not to
12:52close the door on bipartisanship for an
12:55issue that is so critical because after
12:57all i believe there is more than unites
12:59us than divides us on clarifying section
13:01230. for example
13:03ranking member rogers discussion draft
13:05includes a provision similar to my
13:07justice against malicious algorithms act
13:10and that her proposal would clarify the
13:12section 230 immunity does not apply to
13:14algorithmic recommendations while the
13:17proposals aren't identical this is a
13:19place for us to start what i hope could
13:21be bipartisan work
13:23i just wanted to say one more thing mr
13:25chairman you know the real problem i see
13:27is that big tech's primary focus is to
13:29make money and i know we have a market
13:31economy and that's always a company's
13:33primary purpose but they give the
13:35impression to the public that they care
13:37about content values and have a social
13:39purpose that somehow they care about
13:42consumers of the first amendment and
13:44they have and that you know they have
13:45some value to the consumer or to the
13:47public and i hope that continues to be
13:50true but if it is then they should be
13:52held accountable to achieve these goals
13:54you can't go out and say i'm not
13:56primarily focused on making money i want
13:58to help people but then not be
14:00accountable for these bad actions so i
14:02just wanted to mention that thank you mr
14:04chairman the gentleman yields back
14:06here now recognizes mrs rogers for five
14:09minutes for her opening statement
14:11thank you mr chairman good morning
14:14big tech companies have not been good
14:16stewards of their platforms i've been
14:18pretty clear with all the the ceos
14:21big tech has broken my trust
14:23big tech has failed to uphold the
14:25fundamental american principle free
14:27speech and
14:28expression big tech platforms like
14:31twitter and facebook used to provide a a
14:33promising platform for free speech and
14:35robust debates but they no longer
14:37operate as public squares
14:39they do not promote the battle of ideas
14:42they actively work against it
14:44they shut down free speech and censor
14:47any viewpoint that does not fit their
14:50liberal ideology
14:52and big tech has exploited and harmed
14:55our children
14:56in our march hearing with the ceos i
14:58asked the big tech companies why they
14:59deserve liability protections congress
15:02provided for them more than 20 years ago
15:05unfortunately their behavior has not
15:07improved and we only have more examples
15:10of them being poor stewards of their
15:13platforms
15:14big tech has abused its power
15:17by defining what is true
15:19what we should believe what we should
15:21think and controlling what we need
15:24it's wrong destroying free speech is
15:27what happens in authoritarian countries
15:30behind the great chinese firewall here
15:32in america we believe in the
15:34we believe in dialogue we believe in the
15:37battle of ideas we defend the battle of
15:40ideas and we used to fight to protect
15:41our fundamental principles
15:44rather than censor and silence speech
15:47the answer should be more speech that's
15:50the american way
15:51big tech should not be the arbiters of
15:54truth
15:55not for me my community
15:57our children or any american
16:00today we should be focused on solutions
16:02that hold big tech accountable for how
16:04they sense censor
16:07allow and promote illegal content and
16:09knowingly endanger our children
16:12it's wrong for anyone to use this
16:13opportunity to push for more censorship
16:17more power and more control over what
16:20they determine americans should say
16:23post think
16:24and do
16:26which is why i'm deeply troubled by the
16:28path before us
16:30it's calling for more censorship one of
16:32the bills before us today the justice
16:35against malicious algorithms act
16:37is a thinly veiled attempt to pressure
16:39companies to censor more speech
16:42the proposal will put companies on the
16:43hook for any content an algorithm
16:46amplifies or recommends that contributes
16:49to quote severe emotional injury of any
16:52person
16:54how does the bill define severe
16:55emotional injury
16:57it doesn't
16:59clearly companies will have to decide
17:01between leaving up content that may
17:03offend someone or fight it in court or
17:06censor content that reaches a user
17:10which do you think that they will choose
17:12and there's no doubt who they will
17:14silence
17:15content that does not line up with their
17:18liberal ideology
17:20while the section 230 bill before us
17:22today pushes for more censorship
17:25we believe republicans are fighting for
17:27free speech in january we rolled out our
17:30big tech accountability platform that
17:32made clear we will protect free speech
17:34and robust debates on big tech platforms
17:37and we've been working hard since then
17:40today we will discuss a number of
17:41proposals that reform section 230. my
17:44proposal which i'm leading along with my
17:46good friend congressman jim jordan
17:48narrowly amends
17:49section 230 to protect free speech
17:52small businesses and startups will not
17:54be impacted by our bill we remove the
17:57largest big tech companies from existing
17:59230 protections and put them under their
18:01own set of rules
18:03under this proposal big tech will be
18:05held accountable for censoring
18:07constitutionally protected speech
18:09big tech will no longer be able to
18:11exploit the ambiguity and discretion we
18:13see in the current law big tech will be
18:16more responsible for content that they
18:18choose to amplify promote or suggest big
18:21tech will be forced to be transparent
18:23about their content decisions and
18:25conservatives will be empowered to
18:27challenge big tech censorship decisions
18:30amending 230 alone is not enough which
18:32is why we are taking an all-of-the-above
18:34approach
18:35which includes increasing transparency
18:37and also holding big tech accountable
18:40for how they intentionally manipulate
18:43and harm children
18:45for their own bottom line
18:47while there's agreement on the need to
18:48hold big tech accountable with this
18:50section 230 reforms it's clear there are
18:53drastically different approaches and
18:55solutions i look forward to hearing from
18:57the witnesses today and i yield back
19:01general lady yields back chair would
19:03like to remind members that pursuant to
19:05committee rules all members written
19:07opening statements shall be made part of
19:09the record
19:10so now i'd like to introduce our
19:12witnesses for today's first panel
19:14miss francis haugen former facebook
19:17employee
19:18mr james steyer founder and ceo of
19:20common sense media
19:22ms cara frederick research fellow in
19:24technology policy
19:26heritage foundation and mr rashad
19:29robinson president of the color of
19:32change uh we want to thank our witnesses
19:34for joining us today
19:36we look forward to your testimony i do
19:38understand that we will lose mr steyer
19:40for about 10 minutes at 11 30 so i would
19:43encourage members to be conscious of
19:45that i understand he will be back at 11
19:4840 and of course members may always
19:50submit questions for the record
19:52at this time the chair will recognize
19:54each witness for five minutes to provide
19:57their opening statement before we begin
19:59i would like to explain the lighting
20:01system in front of our witnesses as a
20:03series of lights the light will turn
20:05initially be green it will turn yellow
20:07when you have a minute remaining please
20:09begin to wrap up your testimony at that
20:11point the light will turn red when your
20:13time expires so let's get started miss
20:16hogan you are now recognized for five
20:17minutes
20:21subcommittee chairman doyle ranking
20:23member lada members of the committee
20:26thank you for the opportunity to appear
20:28before you today
20:30my name is francis haugen
20:32i used to work at facebook i joined the
20:34company because i believe facebook has
20:36the potential to bring out the best in
20:38us
20:39but i'm here today because i believe
20:40that facebook's products harm children
20:43stoke division in our communities
20:45threaten our democracy weaken our
20:47national security and much more
20:50facebook is a company that is paid for
20:52its immense profits with our safety
20:55and security i am honored to be here
20:58today to share what i know and i am
21:00grateful for the level of scrutiny these
21:02issues are getting i hope we can stay
21:04focused on the real harms to real people
21:07rather than talk in abstractions
21:09this is about the teenagers whose mental
21:11health is undermined by instagram and is
21:13about their parents and teachers who are
21:15struggling to deal with the consequences
21:17of that harm
21:18it is about the doctors and nurses who
21:20have to cope with conspiracies about
21:22covid19 and vaccines
21:25is about people who have suffered
21:26harassment online
21:28it is about families at home and around
21:30the world who live in places where hate
21:33fear and conflict have been ratcheted up
21:35to a fever pitch amongst
21:37as a result of online radicalization
21:40facebook may not be the cause of all
21:42these problems but the company has
21:43unquestionably made them worse
21:46facebook knows what is happening on the
21:48platform and they have systematically
21:50under-invested in fighting these those
21:52harms
21:53they know they do far too little about
21:55it in fact they have incentives for it
21:57to be this way
21:58and that is what has to change
22:01facebook will not change until the
22:03incentives change
22:06the company's leadership knows how to
22:07make facebook and instagram safer but
22:10they repeatedly chose to ignore the
22:12these options and continue to put their
22:14profits before people
22:15they can change the name of the company
22:17but unless they change the products they
22:19will continue to damage the health and
22:20safety of our communities and threaten
22:22the entire integrity of our democracies
22:25there have been many others sounding the
22:27same alarm this committee has heard from
22:29many experts in recent years
22:31they have done the painstaking work of
22:32documenting these harms and have been
22:34repeatedly gas-lit by facebook about
22:36what they found
22:38my disclosures back up their findings we
22:40have long known that facebook's business
22:42model is problematic now we have the
22:44evidence to prove it the documents i
22:46have shared with congress speak for
22:48themselves
22:49what i have to say about these documents
22:51is grounded in far more than my
22:53experience at facebook i have worked as
22:55a product manager at large tech
22:56companies since 2006 including google
22:59pinterest yelp and facebook
23:01my job has largely focused on
23:03algorithmic products like google plus
23:05search and recommendation systems like
23:07the one that powers facebook news feed
23:10i know my way around these products and
23:11i've watched them evolve over the many
23:13years
23:15working at four major tech companies uh
23:17that operate different types of social
23:19networks has given me the perspective to
23:20compare and contrast how each company
23:22approaches and deals with different
23:24challenges
23:25the choices being made by facebook's
23:27leadership are a huge problem for our
23:29children for our communities and for our
23:30democracy that's why i came forward
23:34and let's be clear it doesn't have to be
23:36this way they can make different choices
23:39we are here today because of deliberate
23:41choices facebook has made
23:43during my time at the company first
23:44working as the lead product manager for
23:46civic misinformation and later on
23:48counter espionage i saw that facebook
23:50repeatedly encountered conflicts between
23:52its own profits and our safety
23:55management consistently resolved those
23:56conflicts in favor of its own profits
23:59i want to be extremely clear
24:02this is not about good ideas or bad
24:04ideas or good people and bad people
24:07facebook has hidden from you the
24:09countless ways to make the platform
24:11itself safer so you don't that and that
24:13don't require anyone to pick and choose
24:15what ideas are good
24:17but facebook hid these options from you
24:19because the status quo made them more
24:21money
24:22we're having a conflict over over or
24:25things that we could solve in other ways
24:26that don't
24:27compromise speech
24:29facebook wants you to have analysis
24:31paralysis to get stuck in false choices
24:33and not act here
24:35facebook does not have safety by design
24:37and it chooses every day to run the
24:39system hot because it maximizes their
24:41profit the result is a system that
24:43amplifies division extremism and
24:45polarization
24:46facebook is running the show whether we
24:48know it or not
24:50facebook's choices have led to disaster
24:52sends in too many cases
24:54facebook's amplification promotes
24:55violence that harms and even kills
24:57people
24:58in other cases facebook's profit
25:00optimizing machine is generating
25:01self-harm and self-hate especially for
25:03vulnerable groups like teenage girls the
25:06socially isolated and the recently
25:08widowed no one is held accountable
25:11these problems have been confirmed
25:12repeatedly by facebook's own internal
25:14research secrets that do not see the
25:17light of day
25:18this is not simply a matter of some
25:20social media users being angry or
25:21unstable
25:22facebook has made a one trillion dollar
25:25company by paying for its profits with
25:27our safety including the safety of our
25:29children and that is unacceptable
25:32this committee's attention this
25:34congress's action are critical the
25:36public deserves further investigation
25:38and action to protect customers on
25:40several fronts
25:42first given that platforms like facebook
25:45have become the new cyber security
25:47attack surface on the united states our
25:49national security demands
25:51demands more oversight
25:52second we should be concerned about how
25:54facebook's products are used to
25:55influence vulnerable populations
25:58third we must correct the broken
25:59incentive system that perpetuates
26:01consistent misalignment between
26:03facebook's decisions ms hogan you need
26:05to wrap up your statement okay
26:08um
26:09okay i'll skip forward um
26:11as you consider uh reforms to section
26:14230 i i encourage you to to move forward
26:16with your eyes open
26:18to the consequences of reform congress
26:20has instituted carve-outs of two section
26:23230 in recent years i encourage you to
26:25talk to human rights advocates who can
26:27help provide context on how the last
26:28reform of 230 had dramatic impacts on
26:31the safety of some some of the most
26:32vulnerable people in our society but has
26:34been rarely used for its original
26:35purpose
26:37last last thing they should consult with
26:39international human right the
26:40international human rights community who
26:42have seen firsthand how authoritarian
26:44authoritarian governments around the
26:45world can weaponize reductions in inter
26:48intermediary liability and silence
26:50descent
26:51there is a lot at stake here you have a
26:53once in a generation opportunity to
26:54create new rules for our online world
26:57i came forward at great personal risk
26:59because i believe we still have time to
27:00act but we must act now thank you thank
27:04you um
27:06we we well we're going to try to adhere
27:08to the five-minute roll this is a very
27:10important topic and and so i wanted to
27:11give
27:12the speakers some leeway and we'll have
27:14time to ask questions but uh thank you
27:16very much mr steyer uh you are
27:18recognized for five minutes
27:30do we have mr steyer remotely
27:36please
27:37thank you very much
27:39hey there you go
27:41thank you very much chairman pallone
27:42chairman doyle ranking member rogers and
27:45ranking member lada um and all the
27:47distinguished subcommittee members this
27:48is really a privilege and an honor to
27:50testify in front of you today um i am
27:52james p steyer i'm the founder and ceo
27:55of common sense media the nation's
27:57leading children's media and
27:59non-partisan advocacy organization uh as
28:02many of you know we have well over 100
28:03million unique users over 110 000 member
28:06schools definitely in all of your
28:08districts and we are a non-partisan
28:11powerful voice for kids and families
28:12here in this country and the fact that
28:14you're having this hearing is actually
28:16remarkable and important the other thing
28:18i would say is i'm the father of four
28:20kids so i've lived through over the past
28:2220 years the evolution of this
28:25extraordinary tech
28:26uh society that we've all lived through
28:29and over the last nearly two years the
28:31pandemic where my kids have been going
28:33to school online and distance learning
28:35so as a parent i see these issues and
28:37i'd also mention because i know the
28:39first amendment will come up that i've
28:40been a professor at stanford for over 30
28:42years teaching first amendment law so
28:44i'd be happy to speak to some of those
28:46issues as well as they intersect with
28:48some of the 230 issues
28:5010 years ago i wrote a book called
28:52talking back to facebook uh the heads of
28:55the company at that point that ms hogan
28:57just spoke about literally uh threatened
29:00to block the publication of the book
29:02part of the reason was there was a
29:03chapter in there about girls and boys
29:05body image and the impact of social
29:07media platforms on body image and
29:10obviously ten years ago the heads of
29:12that company who i have met with
29:14repeatedly
29:15knew that there were issues and so when
29:17francis halligan came forward uh
29:20recently to talk about additional
29:22research that they know it merely just
29:24shows you that not just facebook but all
29:26of the major tech companies are aware of
29:28the impact of their platforms on our
29:31society the key is we are now at a
29:34watershed moment and you have mentioned
29:37this in your opening statements but it
29:39is true we have literally been over a
29:42decade without major reforms for these
29:44companies and we've assumed that in some
29:46cases they would self-police or
29:48self-regulate well that's not true and
29:50the record is clear so the bipartisan
29:53leadership of this committee could not
29:55be more important and could not come at
29:58a more important time and i would argue
30:00that in the next three to six months the
30:02most important legislation including
30:04some of the legislation that this
30:06subcommittee is considering today
30:08will move forward and will finally put
30:11the guardrails on that america's
30:13children and families deserved um
30:15we all know that kids and teens are
30:17uniquely vulnerable online because their
30:19brains are still developing they are
30:21prone to over sharing uh they're not
30:23equipped to think through all the
30:25consequences of what they do and they're
30:27spending more time online than ever
30:29before
30:30so
30:30even though kids get a tremendous amount
30:32of benefits from the internet and from
30:34social media platforms
30:36it's absolutely clear that we have to
30:38regulate them thoughtfully and carefully
30:41and the moment is now and congress has a
30:44responsibility to kids and families in
30:47this country to act
30:48my written testimony will give you more
30:50examples but just a handful of
30:52details that i think
30:53we should all remember when we think
30:55about the impact of social media
30:58platforms on kids and families and
31:00therefore the relevance of section 230
31:02and other laws first platforms drag kids
31:05down rabbit holes um they have led to
31:08issues like eating disorders body
31:10dysmorphia suicide ideation and more we
31:12could tell you stories uh as some of our
31:15opening statements said some of you've
31:17done your own statements of individual
31:19kids who've committed suicide or gone
31:21through extraordinary challenges as a
31:23result of these platforms and their
31:26harmful content they literally feed off
31:29kids teens that die and teens desire to
31:30be accepted through their likes and
31:32their follows and they enable sometimes
31:35harmful comment virally so
31:38the bottom line is you have this
31:40bipartisan consensus with well over 100
31:43million members common sense is out
31:44there in the field every day talking to
31:46families this is not a republican issue
31:48this is not a democratic issue this is
31:51an american family issue and you have
31:53the opportunity to
31:55do something very very important now and
31:58this is the time to act look miss haugen
32:01talked about the ways in which facebook
32:03has acted with impunity for decades um
32:06reforming section 230 is clearly one big
32:08piece of the puzzle but i would add that
32:11there must be a more comprehensive
32:12approach you cannot just deal with
32:15section 230 we also have to deal with uh
32:18privacy issues and other related issues
32:20they're all one big comprehensive
32:22package so the hearing next week will
32:24also be critically important and passing
32:27revised kappa and the kids acting on the
32:29things will matter the bottom line is
32:32our kids and our families well-being is
32:35at stake you have the power to improve
32:37that and change that the moment is here
32:40bless you for taking this on and let's
32:42move forward together on a bipartisan
32:44basis thank you very much thank you mr
32:46star
32:48uh chair now recognizes miss frederick
32:50uh for five minutes
32:53chairs doyle and pallone ranking members
32:55lotta and mcmorris rogers distinguished
32:57members
32:58thank you for the opportunity to testify
33:00today
33:01i too used to work at facebook
33:04i joined the company after three tours
33:06in afghanistan helping special
33:08operations forces target al qaeda
33:10because i believed in facebook's mission
33:13as well
33:14the democratization of information
33:17but i was wrong
33:18it's 2021 and the verdict is in
33:22big tech is an enemy of the people
33:25it is time all independently minded
33:27citizens recognize this
33:30so what makes this moment different
33:33traditional gatekeepers of information
33:35corporate media
33:36the academy various organs of the
33:38culture are captured by the left
33:41as the past year has borne out big tech
33:44companies like google facebook twitter
33:46and amazon
33:48are not afraid to exercise their power
33:50in the service of this ideology
33:52big tech companies they tell us not to
33:54believe our lying eyes that viewpoint
33:57censorship is all in our heads
33:59tell that to the gold star mom who
34:01criticized biden's afghanistan
34:02withdrawal and was deleted by facebook
34:05after the death of her son a u.s marine
34:08tell that to ali best stuckey who had
34:10the temerity to say that biological men
34:13should not compete in women's sports
34:15before being suspended by twitter
34:18tell that to clarence thomas whose
34:20documentary on amazon was deleted
34:22without explanation
34:24beyond these examples which are legion
34:27the confluence of evidence is
34:29irrefutable
34:30twitter and facebook censor republican
34:33members of congress
34:34at a rate of 53 to 1 compared to
34:36democrats
34:38twitter suspends conservatives 21 times
34:40more often than liberals
34:42facebook created two internal tools in
34:45the aftermath of trump's 2016 victory
34:47that suppressed right-wing content media
34:50traffic and reach on its platform
34:52google stifled conservative leaning
34:54outlets like the daily caller breitbart
34:56and the federalist during the 2020
34:58election season with breitbart search
35:00visibility shrinking by 99 compared to
35:03the 2016 election cycle
35:06apple dumped the conservative friendly
35:08parlor app as a sata topics app store
35:10google and amazon web services did so as
35:13well
35:14and these practices have distinct
35:16political effects
35:18the media research center found in 2020
35:20that one in six biden voters claimed
35:22they would have modified their vote had
35:24they been aware of information that was
35:26actively suppressed by tech companies
35:2852 of americans believe social media
35:31suppression of the hunter biden laptop
35:33story constituted election interference
35:37these practices erode our culture of
35:39free speech
35:40chill open discourse and engender
35:42self-censorship
35:44all while the taliban the chinese
35:46communist party and iranian officials
35:48spew their bile and genocidal rhetoric
35:51on american-owned platforms
35:53big tech is also working hand in glove
35:55with the government to do its bidding
35:58jen saki admitted from the white house
36:00podium that the government is
36:01communicating with facebook to single
36:03out accounts and posts for censorship
36:05and that's just what she admitted out
36:06loud
36:07the outlook is grim
36:09a lack of accountability and the
36:10sweeping immunity conferred on big tech
36:12by broad interpretations of section 230
36:15has emboldened these companies to abuse
36:17their concentrations of power constrict
36:19the digital lives of those who express
36:21specific political views and sharpen
36:23digital surveillance on ordinary
36:25americans
36:26just look at apple's now paused plans to
36:28scan the content directly on your
36:30personal device starting with iphotos
36:34put simply big tech companies are not
36:36afraid of the american people and
36:38they're not afraid of meaningful checks
36:39on their abuse of power and it shows
36:42yet we should be wary of calls to
36:44further suppress content based on
36:46politically expedient definitions of
36:48misinformation
36:49clearly this definition is in the eye of
36:51the beholder
36:52the wuhan labley theory comes to mind
36:54so let the whistleblower docs speak for
36:56themselves
36:57holding big tech accountable should
36:59result in less censorship not more
37:02in fact the first amendment should be
37:04the standard from which all section 230
37:06reforms flow despite what the new
37:09twitter ceo might think
37:10american lawmakers have a duty to
37:12protect and defend the rights given to
37:14us by god
37:16and enshrined in our constitution by the
37:18founders
37:19rights that specific tech companies in
37:21conjunction with the government are
37:23actively and deliberately eroding
37:26the argument that private companies do
37:27not bear free speech responsibilities
37:30ignores overt collaboration between the
37:32government and big tech companies
37:33working together to stifle free
37:35expression
37:37most importantly section 230 reform is
37:39not a silver bullet we have to look
37:41outside of dc for answers
37:43states civil societies and tech founders
37:46all have a role to play here
37:48we cannot let tech totalitarians shape a
37:50digital world where one set of thinkers
37:52are second-class citizens the window of
37:55opportunity to do something is closing
37:59thank you miss frederick chernow
38:01recognizes mr robinson for five minutes
38:05chair pallone chair doyle ranking member
38:08mcmorris rogers ranking member lotta
38:10thank you for having me here today i am
38:12rashad robinson president of color of
38:14change the uh the nation's largest
38:17online racial justice organization i
38:19also co-chaired the aspen institute's
38:21commission on information disorder which
38:23just released our comprehensive set of
38:25recommendations for effectively tackling
38:27misinformation and disinformation i want
38:30to thank this committee and its leaders
38:31for your work introducing the justice
38:33against malicious algorithm act the safe
38:35tech act the civil rights modernization
38:38act and the protecting americans from
38:40dangerous algorithms act each one is
38:42essential for reducing the tech
38:43industry's harmful effects on our lives
38:46congress is rightly called to major
38:48action when an industry's business model
38:50is at odds with the public interest when
38:52it generates its greatest profits only
38:55by causing the greatest harms
38:57big tech corporations like facebook
38:59amazon and google maintain near total
39:01control over all three areas of online
39:04life online commerce online content and
39:08online social connection to keep control
39:11they lie about the effects of their
39:12products just like big tobacco lies
39:15about the deaths their products cause
39:17they lie to the public they lie to
39:19regulators and they lie to you mark
39:21zuckerberg lied to me personally more
39:23than once it's time to make the truth
39:26louder than their lies but skip the part
39:28where we wait 40 years to do it
39:31the most important first step is
39:33something we have more control over than
39:35we think and that is drawing a bright
39:37clear line between fake solutions and
39:40real solutions big tech would love for
39:43congress to pass laws that mimic their
39:45own corporate policies fake solutions
39:48that are ineffective designed to protect
39:50nothing more than their profits and
39:51their power
39:52and we can't let that happen
39:55we know it's a fake solution if we're
39:56letting them blame the victims by
39:58shifting the burden of solving these
40:00problems to consumers because consumer
40:02literacy or use of technology is not the
40:04problem the problem is corporations
40:07design of technology and that is what we
40:09need to regulate
40:10if we're pretending that colorblind
40:12policies will solve problems that have
40:14everything to do with race because
40:16algorithms advertisers moderators and
40:18bad advertisers are targeting black
40:20people and we don't get closer to the
40:23solution by backing away from that
40:25problem if we're putting trust in
40:27anything big tech corporations say
40:29because it's a lie that self-regulation
40:32is anything other than complete
40:34non-regulation and it's a lie that this
40:37is about free speech when the real issue
40:40is regulating deceptive and manipulative
40:42content consumer exploitation calls to
40:44violence and discriminatory products
40:47section 230 is not here to nullify 60
40:50years of civil rights and consumer
40:52safety law no matter what any
40:54billionaire from silicon valley comes
40:55here to tell you
40:57there are three ways to know we are
40:59heading towards real solutions laws and
41:01regulations must be crystal clear big
41:03tech corporations are responsible and
41:05liable for the damages and violations of
41:07people's rights and they not that they
41:09not only enable but outright encourage
41:12that requires well-vetted and targeted
41:15amendments to section 230. you are
41:17responsible for what you sell big tech
41:20corporations sell content that is their
41:22main product congress must allow judges
41:25juries regulators and government
41:27enforcers to do their jobs to determine
41:29what's hurting people and stop it and
41:31hold the responsible parties liable
41:34responsibility without accountability
41:36isn't responsibility at all congress
41:39must enable proper enforcement i want to
41:41applaud this committee for ensuring that
41:43the bill back better legislation
41:45includes funding for the ftc the next
41:48step is making sure the ftc hires staff
41:50with true civil rights expertise
41:53laws and regulations must be crystal
41:55clear big tech products must be subject
41:57to regulatory scrutiny and approval
41:59before they release on to the public and
42:01hurt people just like a drug formula
42:03should be approved by the fda tech
42:05products need to pass inspection an
42:07independent auditing process that
42:09exposes what they would like to hide
42:12but regulators can't fall for shifting
42:14the burden and blame to consumers the
42:16lie that we simply need to put more
42:18control in the hands of users is like
42:20stacking our supermarket shelves with
42:22poison and expiring food and then saying
42:24we are simply giving consumers more
42:26choice
42:27finally congress must take anti-trust
42:30action seriously with big tech ending
42:32their massive concentration of power is
42:34necessary condition to ending the major
42:37damage they cause
42:38the right approach is not complicated if
42:42we make the internet safe for those who
42:44are being hurt the most
42:46it automatically makes the system safe
42:48for everyone and that that is why i'm
42:51here because big tech puts black people
42:54and people of color in danger more than
42:56anyone else passing and enforcing laws
42:59that guarantee freedom and safety for
43:01black people in online commerce content
43:04and social connection will create the
43:05safest internet for the largest number
43:07of people
43:08you can make technology the vehicle for
43:10progress that it should be and no longer
43:13the threat to freedom fairness and
43:15safety it has become
43:16do not allow the technology that is
43:19supposed to take us into the future
43:21drag us into the past thank you
43:24thank you mr robinson
43:26we've concluded our openings uh we now
43:29move to member questions each member
43:31will have five minutes to ask questions
43:33of our witnesses i will start by
43:35recognizing myself for five minutes
43:39miss hoggin last week the washington
43:41post reported that facebook knew the
43:44structure of its algorithms was allowing
43:46hateful content targeting predominantly
43:49black muslim lgbtq and jewish
43:52communities
43:53facebook knew it could take steps with
43:55its algorithm to lessen the reach of
43:57such harmful content while still leaving
44:00the content up on their website but they
44:02declined to do so
44:04this appears to be a clear case where
44:06facebook knew its own actions would
44:08cause hateful harmful content to spread
44:11and took those actions anyway
44:13i would also note that when mr
44:15zuckerberg testified before us earlier
44:17this year he bragged about the steps his
44:19company took to reduce the spread of
44:21hateful content
44:23shamefully he left this known
44:25information out of his testimony
44:28miss hoggins setting law aside do you
44:30think facebook has a moral duty to
44:33reduce this type of content on its
44:34platform and do you believe they've
44:36lived up to that moral duty
44:41i believe
44:43i believe facebook has a moral duty to
44:45be transparent about the operation of
44:47its algorithms and the performance of
44:48those systems currently they operate in
44:51the dark because they know that it with
44:52no with no transparency there is no
44:54accountability
44:55um i also believe that once someone
44:57knows a harm exists and they know that
44:59they are causing that harm they do have
45:02a duty to address it facebook has known
45:05since uh 2018 the changes they made to
45:08their algorithm in order to get people
45:10to produce more content
45:12uh i.e the change from goaling on time
45:15spent to meaningful social interactions
45:17increase the amount of extreme and
45:19polarizing content on the platform i
45:22can't speak to that specific example
45:24because i don't know the exact
45:25circumstances of it but facebook knew
45:27that they were giving the most reach to
45:29the most
45:30offensive content and i'll give you a
45:32very specific example on those let's
45:33imagine you encountered a piece of
45:35content that was actively um defaming a
45:38group that you belong to it could be
45:40christians it could be muslims it could
45:42be anyone if that post causes
45:44controversy in the comments it'll get
45:47blasted out to those people's friends
45:49even if they didn't follow that group
45:51and so the most offensive content the
45:52most extreme content gets the most
45:54distribution yeah
45:56turning to instagram which is owned by
45:58facebook can you tell the committee in
45:59plain words how teen girls are being
46:02harmed by the content they see on that
46:04platform and how decisions of instagram
46:07led to this arm
46:08facebook's internal research states that
46:10not only is
46:12instagram dangerous for teenagers it's
46:14actually substantially more dangerous
46:16than other social media platforms
46:18because uh tick tock is about
46:20performance and doing things with your
46:22friends snapchat is largely about
46:24augmented reality and faces but
46:26instagram is about bodies and social
46:28comparison teenagers are very vulnerable
46:31to social comparison they're going
46:33through a phase of their lives where
46:34there's a lot of things changing and
46:36what what facebook's own research says
46:38is that when kids fall down these rabbit
46:40holes when the algorithm finds like you
46:43start from something like healthy eating
46:45and it pushes you towards anorexia
46:47content
46:48you have the perfect storm where kids
46:50are put in vulnerable environments and
46:52then given the most extreme content yeah
46:55mr robinson it's disappointing if not
46:57surprising to hear the lack of action on
46:59the part of facebook after your
47:01negotiations with mr zuckerberg and i i
47:03share your concern which you discussed
47:05in your testimony that highlights how
47:08not just the advertisers but the
47:09platforms themselves can perpetuate
47:11discrimination can you discuss how you
47:14think targeted amendments to section 230
47:16can address some of the actions of the
47:18big platforms
47:21um well right now we are all in this
47:23situation where we have to go to
47:25facebook and ask for their benevolence
47:27in dealing with the harms on their
47:29platforms going to billionaires where
47:32every single day their incentive
47:33structure is growth and profit over
47:35safety integrity and security and so
47:38we've done this before with other
47:39industries
47:40congress has done this before in this
47:42country with other industries where we
47:44create rules that actually hold them
47:46accountable and right now whether it is
47:48their product design on what they
47:51recommend and what they lead you to or
47:53it is in the paid advertisement and
47:55content facebook is completely um
47:58not accountable and the other thing that
48:00i think is incredibly important is that
48:02they believe that they do not have to
48:04adhere to civil rights law they've said
48:06that before congress they've said that
48:08to us and the idea that we are going to
48:10allow silicon valley companies and their
48:12lawyers to come here and say that there
48:13are some laws that they are accountable
48:15and some laws they are not is that is
48:17outrageous and i think that those
48:19targeted amendments to section 230 both
48:21allow for free speech to exist which as
48:24any civil rights leader in this country
48:26will tell you that we value and believe
48:28in free speech while also having
48:30accountability for things that are
48:32absolutely not about free speech
48:34thank you i see my time has expired i
48:36will now yield to mr latta the ranking
48:39member for five minutes
48:41well thank you mr chairman and uh
48:43miss hogg and um
48:45i can start my question with you the the
48:47documents you brought forward
48:49from your time at facebook show that
48:51facebook has intentionally misled the
48:52public about the research they have
48:54conducted about the impacts
48:56of their platforms including the mental
48:58health of children
48:59we've heard from the big tech companies
49:01including facebook talk to us about how
49:03amending section section 230 will cause
49:05them to leave content up or take content
49:08down depending on who they are speaking
49:10to
49:11you've spoken your testimony about how
49:13facebook puts its profits over people if
49:16that is the case how do you think
49:17facebook would adapt to section 230
49:20reform
49:22where they would be held liable for
49:23certain content on its platform
49:28there are facebook has tried to reduce
49:30uh this discussion to the idea of are we
49:33taking down enough content are we
49:34leaving up too much content that kind of
49:36thing when reality they have lots and
49:38lots of ways to make the platform safer
49:40product choices designed in the
49:42algorithm where it's not about picking
49:43good or bad ideas it's about making sure
49:45that the most extreme polarizing ideas
49:47don't get the most reach i don't know
49:50exactly how facebook would adapt to 230
49:52reform but i believe that in a world
49:54where
49:55making a series of intentional choices
49:57to prioritize growth and running the
50:00system hot over
50:02having safer options i would hope that
50:04pattern of behavior would be held
50:05accountable well thank you
50:08miss frederick you're a former facebook
50:10employee and have done significant
50:12research on how these platforms censor
50:14content including political speech
50:17which they disagree
50:19the platforms claim they do not censor
50:21based on political viewpoint what's your
50:23response to that
50:26my response is believe your lying eyes
50:28tech companies they're not neutral
50:30gatekeepers of information
50:32you can see the sourcing in my testimony
50:34of the litany of examples and new
50:38research that i went over in my opening
50:40testimony testifies to exactly what
50:42they're doing and how skewed it is
50:44against viewpoint uh big tech companies
50:47are against viewpoints uh talk to
50:49senator rand paul talk to reverend call
50:51truman talk to governor ron desantis
50:53talk to stephen crowder talk to dr scott
50:56atlas talk to the gold star mom talk to
50:59uh jim banks uh talk to jenna ellis talk
51:02to ali best stucky talk to mike gonzalez
51:04talk to ryan t anderson all of these
51:06american citizens have been victimized
51:09by these tech companies and by viewpoint
51:11censorship so when tech companies say
51:13look away this is not actually happening
51:15i say believe your lying eyes
51:18thank you let me continue mr frederick
51:20as part of the big tech academy
51:23accountability platform i've offered
51:24draft legislation with men's section 230
51:27to narrow liability protection for
51:29platforms that promote or facilitate
51:31content that the platform knew or had
51:33reasonably violated federal criminal law
51:37in short if a platform is acting as a
51:40bad samaritan they would not receive
51:42section 230 liability protection in
51:44those instances
51:46uh how how do you think uh
51:48or what what do you think about the
51:50impacts that this legislation would have
51:53if it would be enacted in the law
51:56my thoughts are that you strip immunity
51:58when it's being abused
51:59so if the abuses of this immunity
52:02continue then you get rid of it you get
52:04rid of the freedom from civil
52:05liabilities when it is being abused by
52:08these tech companies it's as simple as
52:09that
52:10you know let me let me go back to your
52:11testimony because you know when you were
52:13talking i believe it was 52 to 53 to one
52:16when it was conservatives to
52:19maybe liberal viewpoints
52:21how you know if this is presented to the
52:24big tech companies out there what's the
52:26response that you
52:28hear from them on that
52:31so i think people uh try to cover their
52:34rear ends in a lot of ways um but i
52:36think americans are waking up can i ask
52:38you uh real quick is how are they
52:40covering themselves
52:43i'm sorry are they covering themselves
52:45by by saying that we don't do this by
52:48employing an army of lobbyists in dc
52:51that say we don't do this that it's all
52:53in your head by denying reality and what
52:56people who use these platforms actually
52:58see happening for the suppression of
52:59political viewpoints um there's a high
53:02level of
53:04tech company apologists who come into
53:06these doors sit at these dioceses and
53:08say
53:09this is not happening don't believe it
53:11but we have the concrete information to
53:13say that yes this is actually happening
53:15you have the media research center which
53:17is acting as a lion in this regard to
53:19actually get the numbers and make sure
53:22that these viewpoint censorship
53:24instances are quantified
53:26a lot of people especially independent
53:28research organizations partisan research
53:30organizations don't want to see that
53:33actually happen and that information get
53:35out there so they they smear the source
53:37but now i think the there's stuff
53:40leaking through the cracks and this is
53:41going to eventually get bigger and
53:43bigger and become a more prodigious
53:45movement and we need to ensure and
53:47support the sources that actually do
53:49that well thank you very much mr
53:50chairman my time's expired and i yield
53:52back gentlemen yields back chair now
53:54recognizes mr pallone the full committee
53:56chairman for five minutes to ask
53:58questions
54:00thank you chairman doyle
54:01in our march hearing i heard or i asked
54:04mark zuckerberg about whether he was
54:07aware of the company's internal research
54:09showing that his company's algorithms
54:11were recommending that its users join
54:13fringe extremist groups in europe and
54:15here in large numbers and reporting from
54:18the wall street journal indicated that
54:20mr zuckerberg failed to fully implement
54:22corrective measures his employees push
54:24for internally because it could have
54:26undermined advertising revenue back to
54:28profit again so miss uh how hogan
54:32this seems like a pattern of behavior so
54:34in your view what are the most
54:36compelling examples of the company
54:38ignoring threats to users in the name of
54:40profits
54:45facebook has known since 2018 that there
54:48are that the choices that they made
54:50around the design of the newsfeed
54:52algorithm uh
54:53were while increasing the amount of
54:55content consumed increasing the length
54:57of sessions that it was uh providing
54:59hyper amplification for the worst ideas
55:02i'll give an example groups like most
55:04people think facebook is about your
55:05family and friends facebook has pushed
55:08people more and more aggressively
55:10towards large groups
55:12uh because it lengthens your session
55:14right
55:15if we had a facebook that was like what
55:17we had in 20 2008 you know it's about
55:19your family and friends for free you
55:22would get less hate speech less nudity
55:24less violence but facebook would make
55:26less money because your family and
55:28friends don't produce enough content for
55:29you to look at two thousand two thousand
55:31pieces of content a day facebook has
55:34implemented policies like if you are
55:36invited to a group even if you don't
55:38accept it you will begin to receive
55:40content from that group for 30 days and
55:42if you engage with any of it it will be
55:43considered a follow in a world where the
55:46algorithms pick the most extreme content
55:48from these mega groups and distribute it
55:50that kind of behavior
55:52directly is facebook promoting their
55:54profits over our safety
56:00light went back on the internet and
56:02social media platforms have made it
56:04easier for civil rights groups and so
56:05and racial justice groups like color of
56:07change to organize around vitally
56:09important issues however you firmly
56:11demonstrated in your testimony how the
56:13current practices of these platforms
56:15have harmed black and marginalized
56:17communities so my question is as we work
56:19to refine the proposals before us can
56:21you describe how my bill the justice
56:23against malicious algorithms act will
56:25help protect black and marginalized
56:27voices online
56:29great well first of all you have a bill
56:31so thank you because i think that that
56:33has been incredibly important is moving
56:35towards action but your bill removes
56:37liability for content information
56:39provided through personalized algorithms
56:42or algorithms that are specifically
56:44tailored to specific individuals and
56:46that essentially has been sort of one of
56:48the problem it's doing something that
56:51you know we can't wait we've seen
56:52facebook
56:53allow advertisers to exclude black
56:55people from housing exclude women from
56:57jobs creating these sort of personalized
57:00algorithms that give people experiences
57:02that actually take us outside of
57:04hard-won and hard-fought victories we've
57:06had around laws dragging us from the
57:0821st century back to the 1950s and and
57:12your bill as well as other pieces of
57:14legislation that are before this
57:16committee um hold these institutions
57:18accountable to not be immune to a whole
57:21set of laws and standards that every
57:23single other business in this country
57:25has to adhere to
57:26thank you let me ask you another
57:27question some defenders of section 230
57:30say that changes to the law will result
57:32in a deluge of frivolous lawsuits
57:34against platforms big and small so i
57:37wanted to ask you would reforming
57:38section 230 in your opinion even if that
57:41results in increased lawsuits
57:43hurt or harm marginalized communities
57:46and smaller or non-profit websites that
57:48do good work
57:49giving giving everyday people access an
57:52opportunity to hold big institutions
57:54accountable
57:55is part of this country's fabric being
57:58able to give people the opportunity to
58:00raise their voices and push back and
58:02right now what we have is
58:05big companies huge multinational
58:07companies facebook has nearly 3 billion
58:10users that is more followers than
58:12christianity and for us to say that we
58:14shouldn't be able to hold them
58:15accountable that we shouldn't be able to
58:17push back against them is an outrageous
58:20statement and so yes there will be more
58:22um lawsuits there will be more
58:24accountability but that means that they
58:26will hopefully be changes to the
58:28structures and the way that they do
58:29business just like um the toys you will
58:33be giving to the children in your family
58:35this holiday season um
58:37have to be accountable before they get
58:39to the shelves because of lawsuits
58:41because of accountability we need these
58:43companies to be accountable and so there
58:46will be a trade-off but as someone who's
58:47gone back and forth in the room with
58:49mark zuckerberg with jack with cheryl
58:52sandberg and all these people have tried
58:54for years to get them to actually not
58:57only um
58:58move new policies to be more accountable
59:01but then to actually implement them and
59:03enforce them um we cannot allow them to
59:05continue to self-regulate themselves
59:07thank you thank you mr chairman
59:09gentleman yields back chair now
59:11recognizes mrs rogers full committee
59:13ranking member for five minutes to ask
59:15questions thank you mr chairman
59:17ms haugen i wanted to start with a yes
59:19or no question
59:20do you support big tech's censorship of
59:23constitutionally protected speech on
59:24their platforms
59:27do i support
59:29um what do you define as censorship
59:32censorship them controlling what is
59:35constitutionally protected speech under
59:37the first amendment
59:38i am a strong proponent of
59:41re-architecting these systems so they
59:43are more focused on our family and
59:44friends because so this is not about
59:47good ideas or bad ideas it is about
59:49making the system safer question is yes
59:51or no
59:52do you support them censoring
59:55constitutionally protected speech under
59:57the first amendment
59:58i believe that we should have things
1:00:01like fact checks included along with
1:00:04content i think the current system i
1:00:06guess i take it as a no uh and
1:00:09i think there are better solutions than
1:00:10censorship that we should be using
1:00:13okay miss frederick um
1:00:16obviously many americans have lost trust
1:00:19with big tech
1:00:21and it's because they are arbitrarily
1:00:23censoring speech that they don't agree
1:00:26with
1:00:26and it seems like the censorship is in
1:00:28one direction it's against the
1:00:30conservative content
1:00:31so as we think about solutions
1:00:34as to how we're going to hold big tech
1:00:35accountable
1:00:36we absolutely have to be thoughtful
1:00:39about being bringing transparency and
1:00:41accountability i wanted to ask you to
1:00:42talk about the difference between
1:00:44misinformation and disinformation
1:00:48are we talking about these differences
1:00:50in a sane world because in a sane world
1:00:53disinformation would be the intentional
1:00:55propagation of misleading or false
1:00:58information and misinformation would
1:01:00just be false information that sort of
1:01:02spreads on these platforms but now we
1:01:04know that both of these terms are being
1:01:06conflated into a catch-all for
1:01:08information that the left doesn't like
1:01:11so a perfect example of this is the
1:01:14wuhan institute of virology when in the
1:01:17early days of the pandemic tom cotton
1:01:19floated this theory and people thought
1:01:21he's a deranged conspiracy theorists we
1:01:23have to suppress this information big
1:01:25tech actively suppressed mentions of the
1:01:27wuhan lab league theory
1:01:29now it's part of acceptable discourse
1:01:31the new yorker gets to talk about it the
1:01:33wall street journal talks about it okay
1:01:34we can talk about it again when tom
1:01:36cotton was very much on to something in
1:01:38the beginning and then you look at the
1:01:40same thing the hunter biden laptop story
1:01:42this is from the new york post
1:01:43incriminating hunter biden and his
1:01:45relationship with ukraine et cetera et
1:01:47cetera and joe biden as well and the new
1:01:50york post uh excuse me and facebook and
1:01:53twitter we have proof of this actively
1:01:55suppressed links to that information
1:01:57they didn't allow people to actually
1:01:59click on this story so
1:02:02you have high level intelligence
1:02:04community officials i'm talking the
1:02:06highest level of the us intelligence
1:02:07community saying that the hunter biden
1:02:09laptop story bore all the hallmarks of
1:02:12russian disinformation and tech
1:02:14companies were completely in tandem with
1:02:17those decisions now hunter biden goes on
1:02:20tv doesn't deny that the laptop is his
1:02:22politico even confirmed the story this
1:02:24information would you speak to
1:02:27concerns around the government
1:02:28regulating misinformation
1:02:31this is huge and in july jens hockey and
1:02:34the surgeon general they got up on the
1:02:36podium they spoke from the white house
1:02:38with the imprimatur of the state and
1:02:40they said we are directly communicating
1:02:42with facebook and we have pointed out
1:02:44specific posts specific accounts that we
1:02:47want them to take off the platform
1:02:49within a month all of those accounts and
1:02:51those users those posts 12 of them in
1:02:53fact were gone cnn gloated about it
1:02:55later so when the government works with
1:02:58these big tech companies to stifle
1:03:00speech you have a problem and you have a
1:03:02first amendment problem in that regard
1:03:04the difference between tech companies
1:03:05and the government policing speech is
1:03:07allighted when that happens
1:03:10so
1:03:11i've been working on some legislation
1:03:13with with jim jordan
1:03:15and what it proposes is that it would
1:03:18remove those section 230 protections for
1:03:21big tech when they are taking down the
1:03:23constitutionally protected speech it
1:03:25also sunsets the new provisions in five
1:03:27years
1:03:28the goal here is for them to have to
1:03:30earn the liability protections so
1:03:34do you believe that this would be an
1:03:35effective way to to hold them
1:03:36accountable and prevent this censorship
1:03:38i think tech always outpaces attempts to
1:03:41govern it the sunset clause is a great
1:03:43idea we advocated for it at the heritage
1:03:45foundation so definitely a good idea
1:03:48allow time for us to redress some of the
1:03:51imbalance between these big tech
1:03:52companies and the users the american
1:03:54people by letting us legislate on it and
1:03:57we shouldn't be afraid to legislate
1:03:58thank you thank you um i'm quickly
1:04:00running out of time miss how can i i do
1:04:02um i have
1:04:04significant concerns about the impact on
1:04:06on our youth on the on the young
1:04:08generation on children and just
1:04:10would you speak um briefly about
1:04:12facebook and and their internal models
1:04:14uh impact on mental health of children
1:04:17and how it alters their business model
1:04:18automatically yeah facebook knows the
1:04:21future of growth on the platform as
1:04:22children that's why they're pushing into
1:04:23things like instagram kids even though
1:04:25they know that the rates of problematic
1:04:27use are highest in their youngest users
1:04:30it's because the younger you are the
1:04:31less your brain is is formed facebook
1:04:34also knows that kids are suffering alone
1:04:35right now because their parents didn't
1:04:37live through this experience of
1:04:38addictive software when they were
1:04:40used and kids end up getting advice like
1:04:43why don't you just not use it not
1:04:45understanding how addictive these
1:04:46platforms are i think the fact that
1:04:48facebook knows that the kids are
1:04:49suffering alone and that their product
1:04:51products are actively contributing to
1:04:53this is a problem and the fact that they
1:04:55lied to congress repeatedly about these
1:04:57harms is unacceptable so i hope that you
1:04:59guys act because our children deserve
1:05:01something better thank you thank you mr
1:05:03chairman general lady's time has expired
1:05:05the cheer now recognizes mr mcnerney for
1:05:07five minutes
1:05:08well thank the chair i thank the
1:05:10witnesses uh for this testimony
1:05:13ms hagan i had to leave a company for
1:05:15bad policies and it was painful so i
1:05:16appreciate what you've gone through
1:05:19you've discussed a 2018 change and this
1:05:21has been discussed already in this
1:05:23committee uh the company made to its
1:05:25algorithms to favor meaningful social
1:05:28interactions also known as msis this
1:05:31change was made to increase engagement
1:05:33based on
1:05:34my understanding that it continues to
1:05:37favor content that is more likely to be
1:05:39shared by others
1:05:41the problem is that facebook research
1:05:43found that msi rewarded provocative and
1:05:47negative content of low quality and
1:05:50promoted spread of divisive content
1:05:53facebook executives rejected changes
1:05:55suggested by employees that would have
1:05:57countered this
1:05:59so how difficult is it for facebook uh
1:06:02to change its algorithms uh to uh to
1:06:05lessen the impact of that
1:06:09facebook facebook knows that individual
1:06:10factors within meaningful social
1:06:12interactions and i want to be clear hate
1:06:14speech and bullying is considered
1:06:16meaningful as a social interaction in
1:06:18most languages in the world
1:06:20and
1:06:20facebook knows that there are individual
1:06:22terms within that that algorithm that if
1:06:25you remove them you instantly get
1:06:27substantially less misinformation
1:06:29substantially less nudity and facebook
1:06:31has intentionally chosen not to remove
1:06:33those factors because it would decrease
1:06:36their profits so yes they could do they
1:06:38could do a change tomorrow that would
1:06:39give us 25 less misinformation so that
1:06:41was gonna be my next question is why
1:06:42wouldn't they do that but it's obviously
1:06:44because they want to running actually i
1:06:45want a slight tweak they claim they did
1:06:47it because they wanted people to engage
1:06:49more that they wanted to be more
1:06:50meaningful but when they checked six
1:06:52months later people said their home
1:06:54feeds were or their news feeds were less
1:06:55meaningful and i wanted on the record
1:06:57they didn't do this because they wanted
1:06:59us to engage they did it because it made
1:07:01us produce more content that the only
1:07:04thing they found that could get us to
1:07:06produce more things was giving us more
1:07:08little hits of dopamine in the form of
1:07:09likes comments and reshares
1:07:12so are there other problematic design
1:07:14choices the company is making today that
1:07:16would increase profits and
1:07:20increase proliferation of harmful
1:07:22content facebook knows that people who
1:07:24are suffering from extreme loneliness
1:07:26isolation are often the ones that form
1:07:29very intense habits involving usage
1:07:31we're talking about thousands of pieces
1:07:33of content per day you could imagine
1:07:35simple things that said are you going
1:07:38down a rabbit hole are you spending
1:07:4010 hours a day on the system
1:07:42often when people get depressed or
1:07:43experience other things they self-soothe
1:07:45like we see this with children all the
1:07:47time facebook could acknowledge this
1:07:50pattern and put a little bit of friction
1:07:52in to decrease these kinds of things and
1:07:54it would help the most vulnerable users
1:07:55on the platform but it would decrease
1:07:57their profits thank you
1:07:59um mr robinson your stark testimony
1:08:02details the harm the lack of tech
1:08:04platform accountability has had on
1:08:06marginalized communities such as some of
1:08:09my communities
1:08:10and your testimony you state that
1:08:12facebook is not just a tool
1:08:14of discrimination by businesses but but
1:08:16facebook's own algorithms are drivers of
1:08:19this discrimination
1:08:20can you talk more about how the
1:08:21algorithms created and implemented by
1:08:23the platform
1:08:25including facebook leads to
1:08:26discrimination
1:08:29um absolutely well you know facebook's
1:08:31um facebook's algorithms um especially
1:08:34the personalized algorithms allow for um
1:08:38a whole set of ways that people are
1:08:39excluded from opportunities or over
1:08:42included um in opportunities and
1:08:44over-included um and over-recommended
1:08:47into sharing um leading people down sort
1:08:50of deep rabbit holes or cutting people
1:08:52off from housing opportunities job
1:08:55opportunities and everything else and
1:08:57they've said you know i remember a
1:08:59conversation where we were
1:09:02trying to deal with
1:09:03housing and job employment
1:09:05discrimination on their platform there
1:09:07was a lawsuit against facebook that they
1:09:09eventually settled but never took all
1:09:11the way to the courts because they
1:09:13essentially want to be able to keep 230
1:09:15protections
1:09:16in place and the back and forth with um
1:09:20cheryl sandberg and mark zuckerberg
1:09:22about both of those about both of those
1:09:25cases they they said to us deeply we
1:09:27care about civil rights you know we care
1:09:29about these issues it pains us
1:09:32deeply um that our platform is causing
1:09:35um these harms and um and we're going to
1:09:37work to fix it and so they settled the
1:09:39case and then research comes out just a
1:09:42couple months later that the same thing
1:09:45is continuing to happen after they've
1:09:47told us and they've told you that it's
1:09:49no longer happening on their platform i
1:09:51sat across from mark zuckerberg
1:09:53and specifically talked to him about
1:09:55voter suppression
1:09:56on their platform only to work with them
1:09:59to get policies in place then to watch
1:10:01them while they then don't enforce those
1:10:03policies we've sat in the room with them
1:10:05on multiple occasions and i have to just
1:10:07say time and time again that there is no
1:10:09other place that these changes are going
1:10:11to happen if it does not happen here
1:10:13thank you very good answers uh yield
1:10:15back gentlemen yields back uh the chair
1:10:17now recognizes mr guthrie for five
1:10:20minutes thank you mr chair i appreciate
1:10:22it very much and we're all concerned
1:10:24about misinformation
1:10:26uh and don't want misinformation spread
1:10:28on the internet the question is how do
1:10:29you define this information who gets to
1:10:31define it and miss frederick i'll ask
1:10:34the question of you but first i want to
1:10:35set up the question you kind of set it
1:10:37up earlier with the wuhan
1:10:38lab i'm the ranking member of the
1:10:40healthcare subcommittee and we've been
1:10:41really looking into the luham wuhan lab
1:10:45and i just want to set up this isn't a
1:10:47hypothetical snare this is a real
1:10:48scenario of information getting blocked
1:10:50by from facebook
1:10:52and it goes uh to some of the comments
1:10:54and i've got documentation here if you
1:10:56go back to the uh april 17th white house
1:10:58press briefing somebody asked the
1:11:00president would you and i want to ask dr
1:11:02fauci could you address the suggestions
1:11:03or concerns
1:11:05that the virus is somehow man-made
1:11:06possibly came out of laboratory in china
1:11:09the president says want to go and so uh
1:11:11dr fauci said there was a study recently
1:11:13that we can make available to you where
1:11:15a group of highly qualified evolutionary
1:11:17biologists
1:11:18looked at the sequences they're there
1:11:20and the sequences and bats as they
1:11:22evolve and the mutations that it took to
1:11:24get to the point where it is now totally
1:11:26consistent with the jump of a species
1:11:28from an animal to a human
1:11:30so disregarding the lab
1:11:33sir peter dazek sent an email the next
1:11:35data dr fauci
1:11:37as the pi of the ira one grant publicly
1:11:39targeted by fox news now this grant was
1:11:42where echo health systems was being paid
1:11:44by taxpayer dollars to go to caves in
1:11:48china and harvest viruses from bats
1:11:51bats that may never see a human being
1:11:53and then taking them to a city of 11
1:11:55million people wuhan taking 11 million
1:11:57people but he said to dr fauci as the pi
1:12:00of the r1 grant publicly targeted by fox
1:12:03reporters at the presidential press
1:12:04briefing last night
1:12:06i just wanted to say a personal thank
1:12:08you on behalf of our staff and
1:12:09collaborators this is from public
1:12:11information you could foia
1:12:14i want to our staff for publicly
1:12:16standing up and stating that the
1:12:17scientific evidence supports a natural
1:12:19origin for kova 19 from a bat to human
1:12:22spillover not a lab release from luwahan
1:12:24institute of virology
1:12:26from my perspective your comments are
1:12:28brave and coming from your trusted voice
1:12:30you help dispel the myths being spun
1:12:34around the virus origins and the return
1:12:36email from dr peter man many thanks for
1:12:39your kind note best regards tony
1:12:41so i say that
1:12:43because we had if who's going to
1:12:45determine what's misinformation or not
1:12:47here's uh
1:12:48the national institutes of health
1:12:50that we have funded tremendously over
1:12:52the last few years we all had a lot of
1:12:54faith and trust in
1:12:56dismissing uh
1:12:58that it came from the wuhan lab
1:13:01when there was no evidence to dismiss it
1:13:03absolutely evidence doesn't exist today
1:13:06it didn't exist at the time to say that
1:13:07it couldn't have come from the lab
1:13:09i had a conversation last spring with dr
1:13:12collins and brought this up and was
1:13:13really concerned about
1:13:15a lot of faith in what these guys did
1:13:17and matter of fact i quoted dr faucio on
1:13:19this when people say this came from
1:13:20muhammad all we have virologists saying
1:13:22that that it didn't because we've had
1:13:24these before our committee and had no
1:13:26reason to not uh believe what they said
1:13:29and when i talked with dr collins and if
1:13:30somebody wants to ask him to see if this
1:13:32is an accurate description of the a
1:13:33phone call i'll certainly welcome
1:13:35somebody to do that but essentially i
1:13:36said i'm disappointed and where it's
1:13:38coming because i've looked at a lot of
1:13:39evidence and it really appears this
1:13:41could have come possible very more
1:13:42likely than not through the lab and he
1:13:44goes well it did originate in nature
1:13:48so it's not man-made originated in
1:13:49nature now if we went to a bat to a
1:13:51human from bat to a
1:13:53bat to a mammal to a human
1:13:56or bat to the lab or to the human
1:13:58because it got leaked through the lab we
1:14:00don't we can't rule that out
1:14:03so we're talking about the people
1:14:04recalling myths
1:14:06talking conspiracies whatever and the
1:14:08whole time they never could rule it out
1:14:10the reason it's relevant to this hearing
1:14:11is because facebook
1:14:13took down and i got to hear
1:14:16any comments that it came from the wuhan
1:14:18lab man made in luhan lab and on may
1:14:1926th i need to look at the dates i
1:14:22talked to dr collins it's not pretty
1:14:23close in light of the ongoing wait
1:14:25facebook po posted in the light of the
1:14:27ongoing investigation to the origin of
1:14:29kova 19 and in consultation with public
1:14:32health experts we will no longer remove
1:14:34the claim that cover 19 is man made or
1:14:36manufactured
1:14:38so
1:14:39my point is who gets we've got the top
1:14:41scientists at nih people that a lot of
1:14:43us had faith in
1:14:45and quoted and now that regret that i
1:14:48quoted them
1:14:49to to constituents who brought these
1:14:50things to my attention
1:14:52and now we know that what they were
1:14:54saying if you look at sparse the words
1:14:56they might be saying the truth but it
1:14:58wasn't accurate in terms of could it
1:15:00have somehow the wuhan lab was involved
1:15:02and moving forward now the preponderance
1:15:04evidence that it is so ms frederick i
1:15:06just the question i have is uh how did
1:15:08the social media platforms fail in this
1:15:10and then who do we look to for expertise
1:15:12if we're going to try to
1:15:14well i've used all my time so you won't
1:15:16be able to answer but how how are we
1:15:17going to uh
1:15:18how are we going to define what
1:15:20misinformation is and who gets to define
1:15:22that those are the questions we're going
1:15:23to have to address as we move forward
1:15:25and i yield back thank you
1:15:28was there a question there
1:15:32uh gentleman yields back cheer now
1:15:34recognizes miss clark for five minutes
1:15:38uh good morning and let me start by
1:15:40thanking chairman dole
1:15:42and uh chairman pallone for calling this
1:15:45very important hearing i'd also like to
1:15:47thank all of our witnesses for joining
1:15:49us today to discuss accountability in
1:15:51tech examining the harm done by the
1:15:53current governing rules
1:15:55governing the internet and exploring
1:15:58targeted reforms to ensure that the
1:16:00rules and regulations which initially
1:16:03created the conditions necessary for
1:16:05internet use to flourish and to grow are
1:16:08not outdated in the face of the
1:16:10technological advances made this century
1:16:14under the leadership of chairman pallone
1:16:16and doyle this committee has worked for
1:16:18years to better understand and limit the
1:16:20spread of harmful content on social
1:16:22media platforms and now is the time for
1:16:25action
1:16:26as many social media platforms have
1:16:28moved away from chronological
1:16:30ranking to a more targeted user
1:16:32experience the use of algorithmic
1:16:35amplification has become increasingly
1:16:37widespread while remaining opaque to
1:16:40users and policy makers alike
1:16:43this use of algorithmic amplification
1:16:46has far too often resulted in
1:16:48discriminatory outcomes and the
1:16:50promotion of harmful content
1:16:52the lack of transparency into how
1:16:54algorithms are used coupled with big
1:16:56tech's increasing dominance in the world
1:16:59of online advertising and commerce have
1:17:02seemingly incentivized business mode
1:17:05models that rely on discriminatory
1:17:07practices and the promotion of harmful
1:17:10content
1:17:11my first question is from mr robinson
1:17:14you touched on this a bit in your
1:17:15written testimony but could you expound
1:17:18on how this combination of a lack of
1:17:20transparency in an industry dominated by
1:17:23a few major players has been detrimental
1:17:26to communities of color and how my
1:17:28legislation the civil rights
1:17:29modernization act would help
1:17:32absolutely um well your piece of
1:17:35legislation congresswoman takes away
1:17:37liability shield claims um um when it
1:17:40comes to targeted advertising and that's
1:17:42incredibly important because as i've
1:17:44already stated what we end up having is
1:17:47these um companies creating all sorts of
1:17:49loopholes and back doors um to get
1:17:52around civil rights law um and in
1:17:55essence creating an incredibly hostile
1:17:57environment when it comes to the
1:17:59amplification of hate you know big tech
1:18:02is profiting off of yelling fire in a
1:18:04crowded theater and so i understand that
1:18:07we have these conversations about the
1:18:08first amendment but there are
1:18:10limitations to what you can and cannot
1:18:12say and right now the incentive
1:18:15structures in the business models of big
1:18:17tech the recommendations what they
1:18:19amplify and what they choose to amplify
1:18:21in a conversation with mark zuckerberg
1:18:24about um dealing with the the the
1:18:27deep impact of census disinformation on
1:18:30his platform we were trying to have a
1:18:32conversation about a set of policies
1:18:34they could have put in place to deal
1:18:36with census disinformation mark decided
1:18:39to bring up a young woman a young
1:18:41dreamer that he mentors in east palo
1:18:43alto and told the story of her being a
1:18:45daca recipient and he was afraid that if
1:18:47he limited in some way senses
1:18:49disinformation that it would limit her
1:18:51from being able to express concern given
1:18:54the challenges that happened around daca
1:18:56my response was well what other
1:18:58decisions does this young woman get to
1:19:00make at facebook and is she putting
1:19:02millions of dollars behind her post
1:19:04because if she's not putting millions of
1:19:05dollars behind her post then in fact
1:19:08maybe her friends won't even see it on
1:19:09the platform but this is essentially
1:19:11what we're dealing with and this is why
1:19:13we're before congress because at the end
1:19:16of the day self-regulated companies are
1:19:18unregulated companies and
1:19:20facebook and their billionaires will
1:19:22continue to put their hands on the scale
1:19:24of injustice as long as it makes them
1:19:26more money and only congress can stop
1:19:29them from doing it and congress has done
1:19:31this before in the past when it comes to
1:19:33other companies which have harmed and
1:19:35hurt us and that's why we're here
1:19:38thank you mr steiner your testimony
1:19:41focused on many of the negative impacts
1:19:43of algorithmic amplification and
1:19:45prolonged screen time on children and
1:19:47young people this is something i'm very
1:19:50concerned about particularly because we
1:19:52cannot yet fully understand the
1:19:54long-term impact as the children of
1:19:55today grow into leaders of tomorrow can
1:19:58you please explain for the committee how
1:20:00companies use section 230 protections to
1:20:03continue these dangerous practices
1:20:05sure and i think that uh miss haugen has
1:20:08actually also referenced that uh
1:20:09congresswoman clark and the truth is
1:20:12this because of the fact and and we're
1:20:14using facebook an example but don't
1:20:15forget there are other social media
1:20:17platforms that act similarly because
1:20:19they focus completely on engagement and
1:20:22attention this is really an arms race
1:20:24for attention what happens is kids are
1:20:27urge basically become addicted to the
1:20:30screen because of the design techniques
1:20:32actually uh congresswoman chakowski can
1:20:34have a hearing next week about it but
1:20:36the bottom line is they are trying to
1:20:38the business model encourages engagement
1:20:41and a constant attention and that is
1:20:43very damaging to children because it
1:20:45means they spend more and more time in
1:20:46front of a screen and that is not a
1:20:48healthy thing so that is the fundamental
1:20:50business model that leads to the focus
1:20:52on attention and engagement that is
1:20:54damaging to children thank you very much
1:20:56for the question
1:20:57thank you mr chairman i yield back
1:21:00general lady yields back the chair now
1:21:02recognizes mr kenzinger for five minutes
1:21:06well thank you mr chairman and thank you
1:21:08all for being here
1:21:09uh this hearing's important and timely i
1:21:11find the underlying subject is growing
1:21:14tiring at the same time we ask social
1:21:17media companies nicely to change their
1:21:18operations for the public good we hold
1:21:20hearings
1:21:22we warn of major legislative and
1:21:23regulatory changes and nothing gives
1:21:26they nibble around the edges from time
1:21:27to time
1:21:28usually when major news stories break
1:21:30but things continue to get worse over
1:21:32time and not better which is why i've
1:21:34been working for years now to find
1:21:36reasonable and equitable policy
1:21:37solutions
1:21:39in recent years my approach has been to
1:21:41avoid amending section 230 because i
1:21:43felt that we should be considering other
1:21:44options first so i introduced two bills
1:21:47social media accountability and account
1:21:49verification act and the social media
1:21:51fraud mitigation act both narrow in
1:21:53scope and donorman
1:21:55it would have had the ftc undertaken
1:21:57narrow rule making uh to require more
1:22:00action from social media companies to
1:22:02investigate complaints about deceptive
1:22:04accounts and fraudulent activity on
1:22:06their platform and i believe they strike
1:22:07a good balance they would have a
1:22:09positive impact on consumer protection
1:22:11without making drastic policy changes
1:22:14but today given the current state of
1:22:15affairs and the clear dangers social
1:22:17media is posing to society i'm more open
1:22:19to the men's section 230 camp than i
1:22:22used to be
1:22:23and just to drive home my initial point
1:22:25about how tiresome this has become the
1:22:27blame can't be placed solely on social
1:22:29media companies
1:22:31despite my lengthy engagement with my
1:22:32colleagues before introducing my bills
1:22:34and even after making changes to the
1:22:36bills based on their feedback it could
1:22:38not find a partner on the other side of
1:22:40the aisle to lock arms with me take a
1:22:42stand and put something bipartisan out
1:22:44there to at least get the conversation
1:22:46going honestly there are ideas coming
1:22:48from both sides of the diocese that are
1:22:49worthy of debating but the devil's
1:22:52always in the details but if we're not
1:22:54even trying to engage in a bipartisan
1:22:56process we're never going to get a
1:22:59strong or lasting set of policy
1:23:01solutions
1:23:02i'm disappointed it's taken my
1:23:04colleagues nearly a year to engage
1:23:06with me on this issue but i hope this
1:23:08hearing is a first step of many steps
1:23:11that seemingly we've already had
1:23:13to join together and hold big tech
1:23:16accountable
1:23:17miss uh halogen i want to thank you
1:23:19directly for your recent efforts to
1:23:22bring about a broader conversation about
1:23:24the harms of social media
1:23:26as you may recall in the spring of 2018
1:23:28mark zuckerberg testified before us
1:23:31during the course of that hearing he
1:23:33stated that facebook has a
1:23:34responsibility to protect its users
1:23:37do you agree that facebook and other
1:23:39social media companies have a
1:23:41responsibility to protect their users
1:23:43and if you do
1:23:44do you believe that they are fulfilling
1:23:46that responsibility
1:23:48i do believe they have a duty to protect
1:23:50their users i want to remind everyone in
1:23:51this room that the majority of languages
1:23:53in the world facebook is the internet
1:23:56you know 80 to 90 of all the content in
1:23:58that language will be on facebook in a
1:24:00world where facebook holds that much
1:24:02power they have an extra high duty to
1:24:04protect i do not believe they are up
1:24:06filling that duty today and because of a
1:24:08variety of organizational um incentives
1:24:10that are misaligned and congress must
1:24:13act in order to realign those incentives
1:24:16i agree with you miss frederick let me
1:24:18ask you you're also a former facebook
1:24:20employee as part of their global
1:24:22security counterterrorism analysis
1:24:23program so i'm going to ask you the same
1:24:25question
1:24:26do facebook and other social media
1:24:28companies have a responsibility to
1:24:29protect their users and are they
1:24:31fulfilling that responsibility
1:24:34they do have a responsibility to protect
1:24:35their users the days of only blaming the
1:24:38addict and letting the dealer get off
1:24:40scot-free are over i think everybody
1:24:42recognizes this at that point and i want
1:24:44to say in october of 2019 mark
1:24:47zuckerberg stood on the stage at
1:24:48georgetown university and said facebook
1:24:51was going to be the platform that stands
1:24:53up for freedom of expression he has
1:24:56rankly abrogated those values and the
1:25:00difference between what these companies
1:25:03say and what they actually do is now a
1:25:05yawning chasm
1:25:08it's been reported and discussed today
1:25:10that algorithms employed by some of the
1:25:12biggest companies tend to lead users to
1:25:14content
1:25:15which reinforces their existing belief
1:25:17or worst which causes anxiety fear and
1:25:19anger all of which have been shown to
1:25:21lead to decreased to increase engagement
1:25:24from the user regardless of their
1:25:25damaging effects so ms frederick given
1:25:27your background can you describe the
1:25:28national security concerns
1:25:31with the ways in which social media
1:25:32companies design and employ those and if
1:25:34we have time miss halogen too
1:25:37yeah i went to work for facebook because
1:25:38i believed in the danger of foreign
1:25:40islamic terrorism i went to make sure
1:25:42that the platform was hostile to those
1:25:45bad actors illegal actors and i think
1:25:48when
1:25:49i think we can imbue technology with our
1:25:51values this is the whole concept behind
1:25:53privacy by design and you need to let
1:25:56those programmers who actually code
1:25:57these algorithms they need to be
1:25:59transparent about what they're doing and
1:26:00how they operate and how they impact
1:26:02users as well
1:26:04i am extremely concerned about
1:26:06facebook's role in things like
1:26:07counterterrorism or other counter or
1:26:10counter state actors that are
1:26:11weaponizing the platform facebook is
1:26:13chronically underinvested in those
1:26:15capacities and if you knew the size of
1:26:17the counter terrorism team for the
1:26:19threat investigators you'd be shocked
1:26:20like i'm pretty sure it's under like 10
1:26:22people this should be something that is
1:26:24publicly listed because they need to be
1:26:25funding hundreds of people not 10 people
1:26:28thank you mr chairman thank you to the
1:26:29witnesses and thank you i yield back the
1:26:31gentleman yields back uh chair now
1:26:33recognizes mr mckeachen for five minutes
1:26:38thank you mr chairman and i want to say
1:26:40to my colleague and friends
1:26:42and king conservatives forgive me for
1:26:44which in your name
1:26:46uh that i appreciate your comments about
1:26:48the partisanship i share them in
1:26:51with the notion of if we're going to
1:26:52have something that's going to last
1:26:54uh congress from congress changes and
1:26:56parties and whatnot we're going to need
1:26:58to have some of this bipartisan
1:27:00and i invite you to take a look at the
1:27:02safe act which i think takes a
1:27:04unique and different approach to section
1:27:06230
1:27:08liability
1:27:10uh that being said colleagues i would
1:27:12ask all of you all to rethink
1:27:14or really understand the message we're
1:27:16sending when we talk about immunity
1:27:19because when we say immunity what we're
1:27:21really saying is that we don't trust
1:27:22juries
1:27:24think about that we don't trust the jury
1:27:26properly instructed to get it right
1:27:29that's one reason you'd have immunity
1:27:31because you're afraid the jury's gonna
1:27:32get it wrong
1:27:34remember my colleagues the juries are
1:27:36composed of the same people who send us
1:27:38to congress
1:27:39they're the people who trust us to make
1:27:41trillion-dollar judgments to decide war
1:27:44and peace to deciding a number of things
1:27:46if they're wise enough to do that
1:27:49why are we so arrogant to believe that
1:27:51it's not wise enough when properly
1:27:53impaneled
1:27:54properly instructed by a jury that they
1:27:56can't get it right
1:27:58and so i want you to start thinking
1:27:59about immunity in that context
1:28:02as we go forward if you
1:28:04would do would be so kind of do so
1:28:08um i'd like to direct my uh first
1:28:10question mr chairman
1:28:12uh to uh the color of change uh
1:28:15miss robinson
1:28:17and i note that you say that there are
1:28:18three ways that we know we're headed
1:28:20towards a real solution
1:28:21and the first one jumps out at me and
1:28:23say the laws and regulations must be
1:28:25crystal clear
1:28:26now when i came to congress i was just a
1:28:28small town lawyer trying to make good
1:28:30and i don't know what an algorithm is
1:28:32from a rhythm blues section quite
1:28:34frankly
1:28:36um but i do know how to say that
1:28:38immunity is not
1:28:41available if you violate civil rights
1:28:42immunity is not available for any number
1:28:44of legal actions that's the approach to
1:28:46safe tech act takes do you see that as
1:28:49meeting your first criteria can you
1:28:51comment on
1:28:52how and if you believe the safe act will
1:28:55um
1:28:56ultimately help with the
1:28:58big tech's uh big text abuses
1:29:02absolutely i do believe that it it meets
1:29:04that mark i believe that it meets the
1:29:06mark because um the fact of the matter
1:29:08is is that facebook
1:29:10um twitter google amazon they've all
1:29:14come before you and have explained that
1:29:16they
1:29:16are not um subject to civil rights law
1:29:19and that they can get around the laws on
1:29:22the books and create all sorts of harms
1:29:25through the choices that they're making
1:29:26and right now we need a set of laws that
1:29:30make it so that they are not immune and
1:29:32your point around juries i mean i would
1:29:35add regulators i would add sort of the
1:29:37infrastructure that we have in this
1:29:39country to hold institutions accountable
1:29:42um gets thrown out the window when we're
1:29:44dealing with tech companies out in
1:29:46silicon valley because somehow they
1:29:48exist on a completely different plane
1:29:50and are allowed to have a completely
1:29:52different set of rules than everyone
1:29:55else and the the fact of the matter is
1:29:57is freedom of speech is not freedom from
1:29:59the consequences of speech this is not
1:30:02about throwing someone in jail this is
1:30:04about ensuring that if you say things
1:30:06that are deeply liable if you incite
1:30:09violence if you incite hate that you are
1:30:11you can be held accountable for that and
1:30:14that if you are recommending folks to
1:30:16that and you are moving people through
1:30:17paid advertisement and your business
1:30:19model is amplifying that that there is
1:30:22accountability baked into it and i don't
1:30:25understand why um we continue to let
1:30:28these platforms make billions of dollars
1:30:31off of violating things that we have
1:30:33worked hard in this country to move
1:30:35forward on and that i think is why
1:30:38really understanding the difference
1:30:39between solutions that are real and
1:30:41solutions that are fake and i think the
1:30:43safe act gets us there as one of the
1:30:45pieces of of a piece of legislation that
1:30:48we need to consider
1:30:50mr robertson i would ask you um
1:30:52do you agree with me that just because
1:30:55uh the immunity is removed doesn't mean
1:30:57the plaintiffs are all of a sudden going
1:30:58to win every lawsuit
1:31:01um
1:31:02no of course not and and i don't think
1:31:04anyone here believes that but what it
1:31:06does mean is that we end up actually
1:31:08being in a place where there can be some
1:31:11level of accountability and we and you
1:31:13don't end up having a situation where
1:31:16mark zuckerberg or cheryl sandberg or
1:31:18jack or anyone else can come here and
1:31:20sit before you and lie about what their
1:31:23platforms are doing decide when they're
1:31:25going to be transparent or not and walk
1:31:28and walk away and and feel like no
1:31:30absolutely no accountability and this is
1:31:33not just impacting black communities
1:31:36this is impacting evangelical
1:31:37communities this is impacting lgbtq
1:31:40communities this is impacting women it's
1:31:43impacting people at the intersection of
1:31:44so many different experiences in life
1:31:47that we have allowed these companies to
1:31:49operate in ways that is completely
1:31:51outside of what our rules should look
1:31:53like
1:31:55thank you mr chairman um i thank you for
1:31:57your patience and allow me to trespass
1:31:59on your time and i yield back
1:32:01gentlemen yields back uh chair now
1:32:03recognizes mr belarakis for five minutes
1:32:06thank you mr chairman i appreciate it i
1:32:08want to focus my questions on the
1:32:10section 230 how it interacts with child
1:32:13exploitation online
1:32:15in 2019 research from the national
1:32:17center for missing and exploited
1:32:19children reported that child pornography
1:32:22has grown to nearly 1 million detected
1:32:24events per month exceeding the
1:32:27capabilities of law enforcement
1:32:30that number increased to over 21 million
1:32:32in 2020 and is on track to grow again
1:32:36this year unfortunately
1:32:38mrs frederick
1:32:40if tech company knows about a particular
1:32:43instance of child pornography on its
1:32:45platform
1:32:46but decides to ignore and permit its
1:32:49distribution would section 230 prevent
1:32:52the victim from suing the tech company
1:32:57i would say that given section 230's
1:33:01broad interpretations by the courts
1:33:04companies have historically avoided
1:33:06liability for hosting similar content
1:33:09okay
1:33:10as a follow-up if a brick and mortar
1:33:12store knowingly distributes child
1:33:15pornography can the victims sue that
1:33:18particular business in your opinion
1:33:20yes obviously
1:33:22thank you
1:33:23i don't see any reason why
1:33:25we should be giving special immunities
1:33:28mr chairman to online platforms that
1:33:30don't exist for other businesses when it
1:33:33comes to a business knowing exploiting
1:33:35our knowingly exploiting our children
1:33:38and facilitating child pornography it
1:33:41would be a discredit to us all to allow
1:33:44this to continue which is why i have a
1:33:46public bill
1:33:48a draft i think you can see
1:33:50that seeks to end this despicable
1:33:52protection so i i request bipartisan
1:33:55support in this matter i think we have
1:33:57agreement
1:33:58uh and and in general i believe we have
1:34:00agreement uh and this is a very very
1:34:03informative hearing mr chairman and
1:34:05thank you for calling it
1:34:07i yield back the balance of my time i
1:34:08know you'll like that and by the way the
1:34:11the pirates do have a bright future
1:34:13thank you
1:34:15i can only hope you're right about that
1:34:16gus uh let's see chair recognizes mr vc
1:34:20for five minutes
1:34:22uh mr chairman uh thank you very much
1:34:24for holding this very important hearing
1:34:26on 2 30 it's really
1:34:29timely and critical that we start
1:34:31talking about how we can move the needle
1:34:32uh on this issue and hold big tech
1:34:34accountable
1:34:35uh we know that recent reports
1:34:37demonstrate concerning trends that i
1:34:40should put every member of this
1:34:42committee uh and certainly every member
1:34:44of congress on alert about the
1:34:45shortcomings of big tech uh uh and their
1:34:48repeated promise to self-regulate
1:34:51i'm optimistic that we can get something
1:34:53done
1:34:54uh because i really do think that social
1:34:56media platforms are uh no question a a
1:34:59major source
1:35:01of uh a and a dominant source of news
1:35:04now in our lives uh whether it's
1:35:05entertainment uh personal connections
1:35:08uh news even local news uh advertising
1:35:11uh all of that happens in the uh social
1:35:14media world uh but we also continue to
1:35:17see social media platforms uh acting in
1:35:20a problematic way uh and some instances
1:35:22even endangering the lives of very young
1:35:24kids uh and today is no different uh
1:35:28social media platforms uh continue to
1:35:30behave without an honest
1:35:32solution-oriented approach to stop the
1:35:33spread of misinformation to manipulate
1:35:36public opinion
1:35:37uh and we know rampant disinformation
1:35:40about things like uh voter fraud uh is
1:35:43still uh present uh in our communities
1:35:46uh and as this new variant of covet 19
1:35:49uh looks around the corner uh congress
1:35:53really needs to act now so we can stop
1:35:55the missed spread of misinformation
1:35:57around covet 19 and this new variant
1:35:59that's about to come through it's very
1:36:02uh disconcerting to think about some of
1:36:04the things that we're about to hear
1:36:06about this new variant that's just a
1:36:08bunch of bs uh and while social media
1:36:11platforms
1:36:12continue to flourish uh and the number
1:36:15of users they are able to keep on their
1:36:16platform uh the number of reported harms
1:36:19associated with social media is just one
1:36:22of many consequences we are seeing uh as
1:36:24a result of big tech uh business
1:36:27practices uh for instance the uh the
1:36:29anti-defamation defamation league says
1:36:31about 41 percent of americans experience
1:36:33some form of online harassment uh next
1:36:36year so doing nothing uh is not an
1:36:39answer we have to do something uh and i
1:36:41think that we can do that and i wanted
1:36:42to ask uh the panel a question
1:36:45uh
1:36:46again there's no doubt uh that big tech
1:36:49tech companies have just been
1:36:50flat-footed when it comes to getting
1:36:52ahead of removing harmful content and
1:36:54disinformation
1:36:55on the most popular social media
1:36:58platforms
1:36:59uh miss uh
1:37:01miss francis uh hagan you mentioned
1:37:03numerous times during your interview in
1:37:0560 minutes that you wanted to show that
1:37:08facebook cares about profits more than
1:37:10public safety uh in november of this
1:37:13year uh facebook which has now rebranded
1:37:16itself as meta now said uh it is working
1:37:19with civil with the civil rights
1:37:20communities uh privacy experts and
1:37:23others to create a race data measurement
1:37:26given your experience and background in
1:37:28the field can you talk about how
1:37:29facebook incorporates such
1:37:31recommendations
1:37:32into these types of measuring uh tools
1:37:35and is there cry is there a criteria or
1:37:37a set of guidelines that facebook is
1:37:39considering when shaping the product
1:37:43while while i was there i was not uh
1:37:46aware of any actions um around
1:37:49analyzing whether or not there was a
1:37:50racial bias in things like ranking
1:37:53one of the things that could be
1:37:54disclosed by facebook but does not is
1:37:56the uh concentration of harm on the
1:37:59platform so for every single integrity
1:38:01harm type every safety harm type a small
1:38:04fraction of the users are hyper exposed
1:38:06to that harm it could be misinformation
1:38:08it could be hate speech and facebook has
1:38:10ways to report that data in a privacy
1:38:12conscious conscious way today that would
1:38:14allow you to know whether or not harms
1:38:16across the platform were equally born
1:38:19but they don't do it
1:38:22so with this new tool that they're
1:38:23talking about uh
1:38:25creating do you see any potential
1:38:27drawbacks uh to rate and such
1:38:29measurement which is supposedly one to
1:38:32increase fairness when it comes to race
1:38:34in the u.s on this platform
1:38:36is there anything that we should be on
1:38:38the lookout for
1:38:40um
1:38:41while when i was working on narrow cast
1:38:43misinformation we developed the system
1:38:45for segmenting the us population in a
1:38:47privacy conscious way we looked at the
1:38:49groups and pages that people interacted
1:38:51with and then clustered them in a
1:38:52non-labeled way so we're not assigning
1:38:55race to anyone we're not assigning any
1:38:56other characteristics but we're looking
1:38:58at when we look at consistent
1:39:00populations do they experience harms in
1:39:02an unequal way
1:39:03i don't believe there would be any harms
1:39:05for facebook reporting this data and i
1:39:07believe it is a responsibility of the
1:39:09company to disclose the unequal
1:39:11treatment on the platform because it's
1:39:13the only way if they're not held
1:39:14accountable there's not transparency
1:39:16they will not improve there's no
1:39:17business incentive for them to get this
1:39:19more equitable if it comes at a loss in
1:39:21profits
1:39:23thank you very much mr chairman i yield
1:39:25back
1:39:27gentlemen yields back chair now
1:39:29recognizes mr johnson for five minutes
1:39:31thank you mr chairman you know this
1:39:33topic we're discussing today is uh
1:39:36certainly not a new one this committee
1:39:37has told big tech that they cannot claim
1:39:41to be simply platforms for third-party
1:39:44information distribution while
1:39:46simultaneously acting as content
1:39:49providers and removing lawful content
1:39:51based on political or ideological
1:39:53preferences
1:39:55in other words big tech cannot be both
1:39:57tech platform and content provider while
1:40:01still receiving special protections
1:40:03under section 230.
1:40:05free speech involves not only being able
1:40:07to say what you believe but also
1:40:08protecting free speech for those with
1:40:11whom you strongly disagree
1:40:13that's fundamental in america
1:40:15and big tech should not be granted the
1:40:17right to choose when this right to free
1:40:20speech is allowed
1:40:22or when they should refer or prefer to
1:40:25hide edit or censor lawful speech on
1:40:28their platforms
1:40:30they are not the arbiters of the
1:40:33freedoms constitutionally provided
1:40:36to the american people
1:40:38this committee has brought in big tech
1:40:40ceos numerous times now so far
1:40:44they have chosen to arrogantly deflect
1:40:46our questions and ignore the issues
1:40:48we've presented to them
1:40:50it took a whistleblower whom we're
1:40:52fortunate to have with us today to
1:40:54expose the harm
1:40:56that facebook and other social media
1:40:58platforms are causing
1:40:59especially
1:41:01to children and teens at an
1:41:04impressionable age that harm
1:41:07concerns me
1:41:09i have a discussion draft that would
1:41:11require companies to disclose the mental
1:41:13health impact their products and
1:41:15services have on children perhaps such
1:41:18requirements would prevent the need for
1:41:21a whistleblower to expose highly
1:41:23concerning revelations including that
1:41:26executives knew the content of their
1:41:27social media platforms or toxic for
1:41:30teenage girls and perhaps it would
1:41:32incentivize these ex these executives to
1:41:35come back to us with solutions that
1:41:38enable a safer online experience for its
1:41:41users
1:41:42rather than attempting to debunk the
1:41:45evidence of their toxicity however we
1:41:47also must be careful
1:41:49when considering reforms to section 230
1:41:52as over-regulation could actually lead
1:41:54to additional suppression of free speech
1:41:58it is our intent to protect consumers
1:42:00while simultaneously enabling american
1:42:02innovation
1:42:04to grow and thrive without burdensome
1:42:06government regulation
1:42:08under the event of numerical password
1:42:11followed by
1:42:12pound hmm don't know who that was that
1:42:14wasn't me mr chairman
1:42:16that's not my that's not my accent as
1:42:18you can tell
1:42:21miss frederick
1:42:22um the chinese communist party has
1:42:25multiple agencies dedicated to
1:42:27propaganda
1:42:29from the ministry for information
1:42:31industry which regulates anyone
1:42:33providing information to the public via
1:42:35the internet to the central propaganda
1:42:38department which exercises censorship
1:42:40powers through licensing of publishers
1:42:44how do big tech's actions compare
1:42:47to those of the ccp the chinese when it
1:42:51comes to censoring content
1:42:55i'd say that a healthy republic depends
1:42:57on the genuine interrogation of ideas
1:43:00and having said that i am very troubled
1:43:03by what i see as an increasing symbiosis
1:43:06between the government and big tech
1:43:09companies i talked about saki's press
1:43:11conference but what i didn't say is in
1:43:13that july press conference again from
1:43:15the white house podium she said if one
1:43:18user is banned from one private company
1:43:20they should be banned from all private
1:43:22companies platforms that to me is
1:43:24harrowing what company is going to want
1:43:26to start up if 50 of their user base is
1:43:28automatically gone because the
1:43:29government says so so in in my mind that
1:43:32increasing symbiosis between the
1:43:34government and tech companies is very
1:43:36reminiscent of what the ccp does okay
1:43:39miss haugen in your testimony to the uk
1:43:41parliament you recommend that a federal
1:43:43regulator should have access to
1:43:45platforms internal processes and the
1:43:47ability to regulate their process for
1:43:49removing content just yesterday one of
1:43:51my democrat colleagues agreed with your
1:43:53recommendation for more government
1:43:56intervention i'm seriously troubled
1:43:58by my colleagues thinking that
1:44:00government involvement in private
1:44:01business operations to regulate content
1:44:03is even an option to put on the table
1:44:06bigger government means less innovation
1:44:08less production and less progress not to
1:44:10mention the very serious first amendment
1:44:13first amendment implications this is
1:44:15un-american
1:44:16mrs frederick quickly can you talk about
1:44:18the negative impacts this approach would
1:44:21cause
1:44:23it's authoritarianism
1:44:24okay
1:44:25mr chairman i yield back i was
1:44:27mischaracterized um the only thing i've
1:44:29advocated for is transparency and the
1:44:30government mandating that facebook must
1:44:33articulate what it's doing to solve
1:44:34problems because today they lie to us
1:44:37they give us false data when they rarely
1:44:39give any data and they always just say
1:44:41we're working on it they never actually
1:44:42give progress so i just want to clarify
1:44:44my my opinions gentlemen yield back i
1:44:46yield back mr chairman chair recognizes
1:44:49mr soto for five minutes
1:44:51thank you mr chair
1:44:53lies about the vaccines
1:44:55lies about the 2020 election
1:44:58lies about the january 6 insurrection
1:45:01all proliferate on social media to this
1:45:04day
1:45:06it seems like
1:45:08as we're working on key reforms like
1:45:10protecting civil rights accountability
1:45:13for social media companies protecting
1:45:15our kids
1:45:16the main opposition by republicans today
1:45:18the talking point of the day is they
1:45:21want a license to lie
1:45:23the right to lie without consequence
1:45:26even though deliberate lies are not free
1:45:28speech
1:45:29under new york times v sullivan
1:45:31according to our supreme court
1:45:33what was scenario number one
1:45:35tom cotton senator cotton referring to
1:45:38his woohound lab theory he literally
1:45:40said quote we don't have evidence that
1:45:42this disease originated there to the new
1:45:45york times yet radical right-wing media
1:45:48then goes on to say the virus is part of
1:45:50china's bio-warfare program that's a
1:45:52terrible example to use and then
1:45:55after president trump was impeached for
1:45:57collusion with ukraine you want to talk
1:45:59about a hunter biden laptop really
1:46:03i'm deeply concerned about how these
1:46:04things are already spreading in spanish
1:46:07language media as well i got to speak to
1:46:10mr zuckerberg in march
1:46:12about that and he said there's too much
1:46:14misinformation across all these media he
1:46:17mentioned deterministic products like
1:46:18whatsapp and they also said quote
1:46:21there were certainly some of this
1:46:23content on facebook and that's our
1:46:25responsibility to make sure that they're
1:46:27that we're building effective systems
1:46:29that can reduce the spread of that i
1:46:31think a lot of those systems performed
1:46:32well during this election cycle but it
1:46:35is
1:46:35but it's an iterative process and there
1:46:38are always going to be new things that
1:46:40we'll need to do to keep up with the
1:46:41different threats we face then i asked
1:46:44him
1:46:44to commit to boosting spanish language
1:46:47moderators and systems on facebook
1:46:49especially during election season to
1:46:51prevent this from happening again
1:46:53miss haugen you left facebook about two
1:46:56months after that hearing in may
1:46:58and uh has there been significant
1:47:01updates since that hearing on protecting
1:47:03spanish minister information in short as
1:47:06mark zuckerberg kept his word
1:47:09uh i do not know the progress of the
1:47:11company in since i left i do know before
1:47:14i left there was a significant asymmetry
1:47:17in the investment in safety systems we
1:47:19live in a very linguistically diverse
1:47:20country and yet facebook has
1:47:22overwhelmingly 87 percent of its budget
1:47:24for misinformation is spent exclusively
1:47:27on english all the rest of the world
1:47:29falls into that remaining 13
1:47:31uh
1:47:32when we live in a linguistically diverse
1:47:34society where there aren't safety
1:47:35systems for non-english speakers we open
1:47:38up the doors to dividing our country and
1:47:41being pulled apart because the most
1:47:43extreme content is getting the most
1:47:44distribution for those populations and
1:47:46you mentioned specifically in other
1:47:48hearings about ethiopia and the concern
1:47:50with there can you go into that a little
1:47:51more
1:47:52we are seeing a trend in many countries
1:47:55around the world where uh
1:47:58parties are rising based on uh
1:48:01implying that certain populations within
1:48:03their societies are are sub-human right
1:48:06one of the warning signs for ethnic
1:48:07violence is when leaders begin to
1:48:10refer to a minority as things like
1:48:11insects or or rodents right dehumanizing
1:48:15them
1:48:16at the same time because facebook's
1:48:17algorithms give the most reach the most
1:48:19extreme content uh facebook ends up
1:48:22fanning the flames of this extremism
1:48:24around the world and in the case of
1:48:25ethiopian myanmar that's resulted in
1:48:27people dying thank you miss huggin mr
1:48:29robinson
1:48:30we also see a lot of lies and misfortune
1:48:33related to the vaccines how has
1:48:36misinformation impacted communities of
1:48:38color taking the coven 19 vaccine
1:48:41well because of the ways in which
1:48:43facebook is not transparent about their
1:48:45algorithms transparent about how ads can
1:48:47be deployed we actually don't have a
1:48:49full understanding of of what we're
1:48:53dealing with because you know we are
1:48:55dealing with you know
1:48:57deep levels of deceptive and
1:48:59manipulative content i'm sort of um
1:49:02content that gets to travel and travels
1:49:05can travel far within subsets of
1:49:07communities but without any clarity of
1:49:10what's happening until it's sometimes
1:49:12far too late until you can't actually
1:49:14deal with it the ways in which um
1:49:17money can be put behind those for paid
1:49:19advertisement to sell people um things
1:49:22that are not um approved that haven't
1:49:26been tested
1:49:27in opening statements um we heard um
1:49:31about
1:49:31drugs um being sold online and being
1:49:34marketed through algorithms and that's
1:49:35exactly what we're seeing when it comes
1:49:38to black communities
1:49:40mr robinson sorry my time's limited
1:49:41would you say misinformation reduces
1:49:44vaccination rates among covet among
1:49:46communities of color with the it can
1:49:48both reduce vaccination rates and
1:49:50increase people going down rabbit holes
1:49:52of using all sorts of untested on drugs
1:49:55thank you my time's expired
1:49:57gentleman yields back chair now
1:49:58recognizes mr long for five minutes
1:50:00thank you mr chairman and thank you all
1:50:02for
1:50:03being here today
1:50:04uh miss halgen the third pillar of the
1:50:07big tech accountability platform is
1:50:10addressing big tech's relationship with
1:50:12china
1:50:14much of the information you brought
1:50:15forward discusses the challenges
1:50:16associated with facebook's business
1:50:18model and how it chooses content that
1:50:21users see on their platform which leads
1:50:23to many of the harms that the platform
1:50:24causes today
1:50:26we're looking at this issue all across
1:50:28big tech not just on facebook one of the
1:50:30platforms we're paying close attention
1:50:32to as you know is tick-tock
1:50:34reports suggest that tick-tock's parent
1:50:36company bite dance
1:50:38coordinates with the chinese communist
1:50:40party to facilitate abuses against
1:50:42uighur muslims and pressure united
1:50:44states-based employees to censor videos
1:50:48that the chinese communist party
1:50:50finds culturally problematic or critical
1:50:53of the chinese communist party how does
1:50:56tick-tock's platform business model make
1:50:58it ripe for being
1:50:59censored by china
1:51:02that is a wonderful question so i often
1:51:04get asked questions about the difference
1:51:06between personal social media which is
1:51:08what facebook is you know you're
1:51:09connecting with your family and friends
1:51:10and what i call broadcast social media
1:51:13where people create in order to get
1:51:14reach
1:51:15tick tock is specifically designed with
1:51:17no contract between the viewer and the
1:51:19content they receive you know you you
1:51:21get shown things you don't know exactly
1:51:23why you got shown them and the way
1:51:24facebook or tick tock works is they push
1:51:26people towards a very limited number of
1:51:28pieces of content you can probably run
1:51:3150 of everything that's viewed every day
1:51:33with a few thousand pieces of content
1:51:35per day that system was designed that
1:51:37way so that you could censor it like
1:51:39when it was in china they're
1:51:41intentionally set up so the humans can
1:51:43look at that high distribution content
1:51:45and choose what goes forward or not tick
1:51:47tock is designed to be censored
1:51:50okay thank you and uh question
1:51:53for you mr ms frederick
1:51:56your testimony makes clear that holding
1:51:58big tech accountable means increasing
1:52:00transparency into their practices you
1:52:03also have a background in national
1:52:05security we don't know how tick-tock
1:52:07monitors its platforms or censors its
1:52:10content
1:52:11they could easily be doing this be doing
1:52:13the bidding of the chinese communist
1:52:14party and we wouldn't know anything
1:52:17about it
1:52:18how do you uh
1:52:19or do you excuse me do you have
1:52:21recommendations on how we can increase
1:52:23big text transparency for example how do
1:52:25we know if the content viewed by
1:52:27americans on tick tock isn't spreading
1:52:30communist propaganda
1:52:32i would say incentivize transparency uh
1:52:35certain companies of their own volition
1:52:37right now they give quarterly reports on
1:52:39how they interact with law enforcement
1:52:41um you know how they employ their their
1:52:43community standards but other tech
1:52:45companies are not doing this so there
1:52:47has to be some teeth when you
1:52:49incentivize that transparency among tech
1:52:51companies and when it comes to tick tock
1:52:53in particular as you said parent company
1:52:55headquartered in beijing they you have
1:52:57to assume that they are beholden to the
1:52:59ccp in this instance the governance
1:53:02atmosphere of china the 2017 cyber
1:53:04security law the national security laws
1:53:06basically say that whatever private
1:53:08companies do whatever data they ingest
1:53:10however they interact all of it is
1:53:12subject to the ccp when it comes
1:53:14knocking so
1:53:15in my estimation i don't believe any
1:53:17american right now should be on tick
1:53:18tock and there are social contagion
1:53:20elements there as well
1:53:22the algorithm their secret sauce
1:53:24it is crazily um
1:53:27wants user engagement and nine to 11
1:53:30year olds uh parents were surveyed and
1:53:33of nine to 11 year old americans
1:53:36these parents said 30 of them are on
1:53:39tick tock this is more than instagram
1:53:41this is more than facebook this is more
1:53:42than snap so when we think about the
1:53:44formation of our young minds in this
1:53:46country we have to understand that bite
1:53:48dance that a beijing-based company has
1:53:51their hooks and our children and we need
1:53:53to act accordingly
1:53:54so you say that the parents are saying
1:53:57that 30
1:53:59of their children
1:54:00are on tick-tock 30 of parents say that
1:54:03their children are on tick-tock uh nine
1:54:05to eleven-year-olds in particular so i'd
1:54:07say that i'd say that there's probably
1:54:09another 30 percent that don't know what
1:54:11their kids are looking at i mean i think
1:54:12it's a lot higher number than 30 in my
1:54:15opinion
1:54:16uh tick tock
1:54:18hyper amplification algorithms also make
1:54:20it even more addictive than tick-tock
1:54:22because they can choose the absolute uh
1:54:24purest addictive content and spread it
1:54:27to the most audience so i agree with her
1:54:28this is a very dangerous thing and it's
1:54:30affecting very young children okay mr
1:54:33chairman thank you for holding this
1:54:35hearing today and thank you all for your
1:54:36participation here today i really really
1:54:38appreciate it it's a very very serious
1:54:40subject as we all
1:54:42all know and mr chairman i yield back
1:54:44gentleman yields back chair recognizes
1:54:46mr o'halloran for five minutes
1:54:52there we go thank you chairman doyle
1:54:54uh i uh
1:54:56you know there's no doubt uh that the
1:54:58about the positive and negative impacts
1:55:01of the technology platforms have in our
1:55:03society today we've been talking about
1:55:04it all day long
1:55:07as a father grandfather
1:55:09and like many americans i was outraged
1:55:11and am outraged to read about the inner
1:55:14workings of facebook brought to light by
1:55:17ms haugen
1:55:20facebook is
1:55:21recklessness disregard for the
1:55:24well-being of children and teenagers
1:55:26especially given their internal research
1:55:29this is completely unacceptable instead
1:55:32of using facebook and instagram to
1:55:34create positive and social experience
1:55:37for minors facebook is exploiting our
1:55:40children and grandchildren for clicks
1:55:42and ad revenue
1:55:44this is a particular problem for teenage
1:55:46girls
1:55:47facebook's own internal research found
1:55:50that using instagram made teenage girls
1:55:53feel worse about themselves leading to
1:55:56depression
1:55:57eating disorders
1:55:58and thoughts of suicide and yes even
1:56:01death
1:56:02i i don't know how they can come up with
1:56:04these decisions that they've come up
1:56:05with
1:56:06i'm a former homicide investigator as
1:56:09well as a father and grandfather
1:56:11i've seen a lot of suicide
1:56:13i've
1:56:14i've witnessed a lot of death in our
1:56:16country
1:56:17and i don't know how somebody can make
1:56:20these decisions knowing the information
1:56:22they knew and the impact it was going to
1:56:24have
1:56:25on the families and children within our
1:56:27society today
1:56:30facebook thinks it's okay
1:56:33i think it this is again an outrage this
1:56:36is clear evidence that something needs
1:56:38to change
1:56:40we need transparency for companies like
1:56:43facebook we need to know what they are
1:56:45showing our children and why
1:56:48and to identify what how these
1:56:50algorithms come together
1:56:52and what impact they will have
1:56:55on the rest of our society
1:56:57we can't have facebook and their
1:56:59algorithms taking advantage of our
1:57:02children
1:57:03our children and families are more than
1:57:06just cor out there for corporate greed
1:57:09tech corporations also have a moral
1:57:11responsibility
1:57:13to children and families in our country
1:57:16in general
1:57:17and the rest of the world
1:57:20miss hogan halogen
1:57:22can you tell us more about how instagram
1:57:24uses demographics and a user's
1:58:12you

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of LIVE: U.S. House Committee hearing with Facebook's ex-employee Frances Haugen by Reuters, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 19,639 words across 3,283 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.