Facebook whistleblower hearing: Frances Haugen testifies in Washington – live updates

After the hearing came to a close, more reactions to Haugen’s testimony have emerged. Key takeaways? The whistleblower’s intensive expertise and concrete suggestions to fix Facebook made this one of the most productive hearings we have seen on Big Tech.

One suggestion Haugen repeatedly returned to was abolishing the newsfeed, the potential impact of which cannot be understated.

Some disagree on the best way to address these issues, however, with internet freedom advocates warning against chipping away at Section 230.

The focus from Haugen on international implications of Facebook’s toxic algorithms was appreciated by a number of experts.

Meanwhile, others believe Facebook is irreparable, and that even the intensive measures proposed by Haugen cannot save it.

Blumenthal ended the hearing with an emotional statement. He read aloud a text he received from a constituent who said he was “in tears” listening to Haugen’s testimony. A full transcription of that poignant message below:

My 15-year-old daughter loved her body – and at 14 was on Instagram constantly, and maybe posting too much. Suddenly, she started hating her body. With her body dysmorphia, and now anorexia, she was in deep, deep trouble before we found treatment. I fear shall never be the same. I am broken hearted.

In her closing statements, Haugen underscored the lack of transparency from Big Tech and encouraged her fellow tech workers to speak with bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and Congress “in order to have technologies be human centric, not computer centric.”

“We live in a moment when whistleblowers are very important because these technological systems are walled off,” she said.

In questioning with Senator Amy Klobuchar, Haugen again condemns Facebook’s lack of transparency and suppression of research – both internally and by outside auditors.

She referenced Facebook’s decision in August to revoke NYU researchers’ access to platform data about the spread of vaccine misinformation. She said she “stands with” researchers who Facebook is “throwing under the bus” in its own interest.

“The fact that Facebook is so scared of even basic transparency, that it goes out of its way to block researchers who are asking awkward questions, shows the need for congressional oversight,” she said.

There is a lot of discussion about Section 230 reform and whether it could effectively address these issues.

Section 230 refers to a portion of the US internet regulation that exempts platforms from legal liability for content generated by its users.

Haugen says Facebook has claimed in the past it has “the right to mislead the court” because it has immunity under Section 230 “so why should they have to tell the truth?”

There has been significant discussion in recent years about whether the regulation should be modified or overturned, which some internet freedom advocates warn could have unintended effects.

Other bills, like Markey’s KIDS act, would regulate algorithms without taking away section 230 protections.

Senator Rick Scott of Florida asks Haugen why Facebook has not been more proactive about addressing the issues brought up in these hearings and recent Wall Street Journal reports. As many Senators have noted, Zuckerberg is sailing this week.

Haugen takes a softer view on this, saying “I have a huge amount of empathy for Facebook.”

“These are really, really hard questions and I think they feel a little trapped and isolated,” she said.

She added that most social media firms have a strong hold on the positive purposes of their platforms, but that Instagram is “distinctly worse” than others.

“TikTok is about doing fun things with your friends, Snapchat is about faces and augmented reality, Reddit is about ideas,” she said. “But Instagram is about bodies, and about comparing lifestyles.”

Now we have Senator Ted Cruz asking Haugen specifics about research she witnessed and what measures could be taken to enact meaningful change at Facebook. She suggests the following:

• Introducing friction to amplification – for example, a tool like Twitter has that requires users to click through a link before sharing it
• Change the Newsfeed to be chronological rather than ranking content through its opaque algorithm
• Convening a board in the public sector to regulate Facebook that is comprised of researchers, former tech workers who understand the algorithms, and legislators
• Requiring Facebook to publicly disclose its internal research

The session is coming back from a brief recess. Here are some key takeaways from the first part of today’s testimony:

• Facebook intentionally targets teens including children under the age of 13, Haugen says her documents show.
• Lack of transparency around how Facebook’s algorithms work make it impossible to regulate, Haugen says.
• Senators are repeatedly comparing Facebook to Big Tobacco, suggesting we may see similar regulation to the platform as we have seen of cigarettes in the past: “A first social media account designed to keep kids as users for life,” said Sen. Ed Markey.
• The platform does not dedicate equal amounts of research and resources to misinformation and hate speech to non-English content, Haugen says, fueling violence in places like Ethiopia.
• Haugen has stressed that Facebook tends to rely on artificial intelligence to automate moderation, even though it only catches about 10-20% of offending content, because it is cheaper.
• Haugen suggested a number of measures to be taken to regulate Facebook, including an independent government body staffed by former tech workers who understand how the algorithm works.

Now we are moving into questioning from Senator Ed Markey, who called Haugen a “21st century American hero” and said Americans owe “a huge debt of gratitude” to her for her courage.

He asked about whether Facebook purposely targets children, to which Haugen replies the company absolutely targets users under the age of 18.

“Facebook is like Big Tobacco, enticing young kids with that first cigarettes,” he said. “A first social media account designed to keep kids as users for life.”

Markey is promoting his KIDS act – an update to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act that would prevent companies from collecting certain data on children and to prohibit the use of algorithms that promote toxic posts.

“Here’s my message for Mark Zuckerberg: your time of invading our privacy, promoting toxic content in preying on children and teens is over,” Markey said. “Congress will be taking action. We will not allow your company to harm our children and our families and our democracy, any longer.”

Senator Mike Lee of Utah is talking about advertising targeted at young users, to which Haugen replies that it is “very, very difficult” to understand the algorithms used to regulate such posts.

Haugen is suggesting a regulatory agency within the federal government dedicated to policing Facebook, staffed with people who have expertise in algorithms to make meaningful change.

“Right now the only people in the world who are trained to analyze these experiments to understand what’s happening inside of Facebook are people who have spent time there,” she said.