WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. lawmakers have been furious on Facebook for years. Since 2011, they have been warning about Facebook failure to protect user privacy, its problems with counterfeit information on its platforms, and affect the health of the users. But he did not issue new laws regarding these problems.
Now, some senior advisers say they have a tool they may need to make real changes: whistleblower and former Facebook employee Frances Haugen.
Haugen, a former sales manager for the company, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security on Tuesday on what lawmakers describe as a call to action to establish Facebook. This whirlwind caused many people to search on Facebook after sharing thousands with Wall Street Journal, the SEC, and Congress show that Facebook is aware of the underlying causes but has reduced this to lawmakers and the public. The evidence, which has not been missed in the interview so far, reveals how Facebook conducted a study that found that its content could lead to health problems, allow violence to escalate, and improve performance – and then ignore the research.
“I came because I realized a terrible truth: Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what is going on inside Facebook,” Haugen said in his first testimony Tuesday.
In a statement in response to Tuesday’s incident, Facebook chief Lena Pietsch wrote that Haugen had “worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, had not attended a meeting with C– officials and testified more than six times that do not do the work. ”
“We do not agree with his views on much of the evidence,” Pietsch wrote. “Even so, we agree on one thing; It’s time to dump her and move on. It has been 25 years since internet law was changed, and instead of expecting companies to make legal decisions, it is time for Congress to take action. ”
In the past, legislative meetings about Facebook have had a regularity came down with political victory, while lawmakers did not mention their issues and complained about the company. Some Republicans encouraged production reasons without evidence that the media company has a bias against it. In some cases, legislators made gaffes that appeared to appear to have no knowledge – such as the question posed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) retired how Facebook makes money, or Sen. Richard Blumenthal a recent question about “Finsta” during Senate executive committee Last Thursday.
By this time, traffic lawmakers were all very careful and well-trained on the issues – and visuals – that were around. He also asked Haugen questions about the challenges Facebook could pose, especially to young people and children, and how it could be addressed.
On his return, Haugen was a speaker. He wrote complex headlines like Facebook systematically comparing News feed in an accessible way. And he made it clear to Congress and the public about the problem with Facebook and how it can be addressed.
Give Facebook real external monitoring
Haugen repeatedly called on lawmakers to set up an external regulatory body that could have the power to request information on Facebook, in particular on how its algorithms work and the type of recommendations it promotes in the TV industry.
“As long as Facebook is operating in the dark, no one can be held accountable,” Haugen said in his opening statement. Haugen said “at the very beginning the rules have to be made clear: to show all of the research that is not reported by Facebook.”
In his testimony before he listened, Haugen objected The existing Facebook is currently under review (who has no real legal power on Facebook) because he believes he “doesn’t know” how Facebook works.
“Currently, the only people in the world who have been trained to analyze this are people who grew up within Facebook or other TV companies,” Haugen said. “There’s got to be an office building where someone like me can go and work like this,” he said.
Stanford law professor Nate Persily, who has worked with Facebook on previous partnerships and acknowledged the shortcomings of the allies, recently called for them. rules which would force a platform like Facebook to share internal information with external researchers.
Systematic display is not a very interesting concept, nor is it an easy topic to master. But as Recode has already said, many leading professional journalists agree with Haugen that it is the first step to properly manage Facebook.
Open the black Facebook box
Facebook algorithms support how its platforms work and what everyone sees on their News Feeds. Haugen said these powerful methods should not be used in a black box that only monitors and understands Facebook, and that they should be monitored and evaluated.
Inside notes released by Haugen show how 2018 has changed Facebook News Benefits that bring a lot of interest to people – especially anger, because it encourages doing more than anything else. Haugen and members of Congress also talked about how Facebook algorithms can also force young people to take toxins, such as those that promote eating disorders.
“I’ve been spending most of my time on engagement costs,” said Haugen, who previously worked for Google and Pinterest. “We can do it with caution because we have AI. The wisdom of doing this can be to get the bad ones we know to be encouraging,” he said. he is producing “ideas and divisions” in human beings.
This, Haugen confirmed, is a major problem in many of Facebook’s problems, and needs to be monitored by Congress.
“I think [Haugen] has allowed us to be able to use Facebook, “says Sen Ed Edkey (D-MA).
Create privacy rules to protect Facebook users
Privacy was not one of Haugen’s main requirements for evidence, but several lawmakers, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Sen Ed Edkey (D-MA), raised the need to enforce privacy laws.
Protecting the privacy of people on platforms like Facebook and the area where Congress has enacted other laws so far, including reform 1998 Everything for Child Protection (COPPA), The KIDS Act, which would force leading companies to cut significantly adhere to the advertising of children 16 years or older, and the SAFE DATA Act, which may limit the right to use data appear in the open and ask for permission in processing complex data. The reason is clear why this could be an important part of their Facebook rating ideas.
“Government reform has been a long time coming. I set my first one in 2012 and I think it will be Congress and this committee that will lead,” said Blackburn.
Haugen acknowledged that the way Facebook handles user privacy is a very important factor for regulators to consider, but also said he did not believe privacy rules were the only solution to reduce Facebook’s social ills.
“Facebook wants to persuade you to think that privacy protection or a change of Section 230 alone will be enough,” Haugen said. “As important as it is, it will not get to the bottom of this issue, and that no one understands Facebook’s destructive traits except Facebook. We can do nothing more than monitor everything.”
Change Section 230 – but look at the algorithms
At the hearing, several counselors came forward Section 230 – a well-known online law that protects modern companies from being blamed for the many unethical things that users put on their platforms.
Changing Section 230 can be very difficult. Even some legal entities prefer it Computer Frontier Foundation and Strive for the Future, an in-depth study of modern companies, has argued that repealing the law could make it easier for technical giants to make it difficult for small media companies to operate without the need for low-cost lawsuits.
Haugen seems to understand some of these issues in his 230 negotiations. He asked the regulators to change Section 230 so that companies would be held accountable for their promotions rather than for the benefit of consumers.
“I recommend revising Section 230 decisions on algorithms. Changes around 230 – it’s very difficult because of what users are doing and what companies can’t control, “Haugen said.” They have 100% power over the trends.
Leaders of the Senate sub-committee that brought Haugen to testify on Tuesday said they would continue to feature Facebook and appear in the future (not to mention) Facebook and other professional companies.
“He’s impressed with Congress today and has made a lasting change in the way we use Big Tech,” Blumenthal said. “Without any exaggeration, we are now starting another season – I hope it will be different – in responding to Big Tech to answer the case.”
But Congress is still in talks. There aren’t many loans that have been leaked over the years – like a security bill Lots of lies on TV or a law prohibiting protection big modern companies from selling the lines of the things they drive – is about to end. And this moment sounds different – and some movies, such as Ed Markey, have been making a comeback as a result of a new review – there is a battle ahead for lawmakers if they are ready to fight.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who chairs the committee that ruled Tuesday, declined to say whether he would give a verdict to Mark Zuckerberg or when the trial would take place. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who heads Blumenthal, said the change was coming “soon” and that Congress “is close to a family union.” But given the fact that Congress is still debating US government spending, efforts to improve Facebook will take time and collective bargaining.
But the videos that have come with the attention today show that even this flawed Congress can be ready for a merger – when it comes to establishing Facebook.