The Senate Is Mad as Hell at FacebookAgain
Toward the end of Thursdayâs hearing on Facebook and teen mental health, Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) alluded to the Chinese governmentâs recent decision to impose strict limits on kidsâ video game time. âThey have told teenagers to take a real break,â he said, addressing Facebookâs head of global safety, Antigone Davis. âDo you think the United States government needs to look at doing something like that?â
The moment was revealing. A law like Chinaâs would be unthinkably draconian in the US. Yet Sullivan seemed almost wistful. Can you imagine? A country that actually regulates its technology sector?
You can see where Sullivan was coming from, because we sure donât live in that country. Congress has been hauling in Facebook executives to testify since early 2018, during the height of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In those three and a half years, it has passed precisely zero laws significantly regulating the conduct of social media platforms. Instead, with some notable exceptions, it tends to do what it spent most of the latest hearing doing: browbeating the companies into fixing things themselves.
Thursdayâs hearing was prompted by a series in The Wall Street Journal based on a trove of leaked internal research, and one story in particular: âFacebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show.â The hearing was styled as a cross between Watergateâ"what did Facebook know, and when did it know it?â"and the corporate exposés of yesteryear. In his opening remarks, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut ) accused the company of hiding its own research and lying about what it knows. âFacebook,â he declared, âhas taken Big Tobaccoâs playbook.â
In fact, the research about teen mental health was hardly revelatory. Facebook sits on a massive trove of data about its recommendation algorithms, policy enforcement, and user behavior that is inaccessible to outside researchers. Some of the documents leaked to the Journal appear to contain just that sort of data. One article in the series revealed that millions of people around the world are subject to white-glove enforcement through Facebookâs âXCheck system,â leading to high-profile users getting away with flagrant and shocking violations of the platformâs policies. Another article described researchersâ findings that certain changes to the NewsFeed algorithm had inadvertently rewarded âmisinformation, toxicity, and violent content,â and that Mark Zuckerberg had resisted fixing the problem. Yet another provided horrifying detail about Facebookâs underinvestment in platform safety outside the USâ"a choice that potentially affects 90 percent of the companyâs 3 billion users.
Thatâs the kind of internal research that provides fresh insights into Facebookâs effect on the world. The teen mental health research, not so much. The documents, which the Journal made public the night before the hearing, arenât based on data that only Facebook has access to. The company simply surveyed teens on their views of how its product affects them. Thatâs something anyone can do, and which indeed has been done too many times to count. Itâs also not very revealing. While the Journalâs headline stems from troubling statisticsâ"most notably, one-third of teen girls who struggle with body image issues said Instagram makes those issues worseâ"the top-line finding of one document is that most teens say Instagram improves their mental health. Either way, peopleâs subjective accounts of their experiences are unreliable, and many of the teens surveyed were surely aware of the argument that Instagram is bad for them, which might have affected their answers. As Robbie Gonzalez noted for WIRED in 2018, even big-picture correlations between social media use and mental health outcomes donât prove anything about causality.
Itâs genuinely unclear whether the senators at Thursdayâs hearing understand how pedestrian Facebookâs data on teen mental health is. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico) repeatedly pressed Davis on whether Facebook would release âthe data set, minus any personally identifiable information,â on which the research was based, as if Facebook had been studying individual users rather than conducting polls and focus groups.
Why did the Senate choose to focus on a subset of the leaked Facebook documents that add little to what we already know and that the members didnât seem to understand particularly well? Perhaps because âThink of the childrenâ is a tried-and-true way to get both legislators and the American public to pay attentionâ"whereas, say, human trafficking in Arab countries, tragically, is not.
Itâs also clear enough why Thursdayâs hearing focused so heavily on what Facebook has done, is doing, and will do, and so little on what Congress itself could do to protect kids online. This is a legislative body that, thanks to Republican intransigence, cannot reach an agreement to prevent the country from defaulting on its debts. It needed an emergency agreement just to avoid a government shutdown. Legislating is not the legislatureâs strong suit.
And browbeating tech companies does work, at least to a point. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have all made extensive changes in response to sustained criticism about their treatment of misinformation and abuse on their platforms. Earlier this week, after the uproar over the Wall Street Journal series, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri announced that the company would pause the rollout of its much derided Instagram Kids product.
As some of the nationâs most perspicacious observers have noted, self-regulation is a crucial component of fixing whatâs wrong with social media. But itâs no excuse for Congress failing to wield its own power. Some Facebook critics have accused the company, perhaps hyperbolically, of behaving as if it were a nation-state. Save some criticism for the real nation-state. If Congress wonât govern, Big Tech will.
More Great WIRED Stories
0 Response to "The Senate Is Mad as Hell at FacebookAgain"
Post a Comment