Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Facebook Social Networks

US Lawmakers Demand Facebook Probes; Whistleblower Says Children Harmed (reuters.com) 100

U.S. lawmakers pounded Facebook on Tuesday, accusing CEO Mark Zuckerberg of pushing for higher profits while being cavalier about user safety and they demanded regulators investigate whistleblower accusations that the social media company harms children and stokes divisions. Reuters: Coming a day after Facebook and its units including Instagram suffered a major outage, whistleblower Frances Haugen testified in a congressional hearing that "for more than five hours Facebook wasn't used to deepen divides, destabilize democracies and make young girls and women feel bad about their bodies." In an era when bipartisanship is rare on Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties excoriated the nearly $1 trillion company in a hearing that exemplified the rising anger in Congress with Facebook amid numerous demands for legislative reforms.

As lawmakers criticized Facebook and Zuckerberg, the company's spokespeople fought back on Twitter, arguing Haugen did not work directly on some of the issues she was being questioned on. Senate Commerce subcommittee chair Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, said Facebook knew that its products were addictive, like cigarettes. "Tech now faces that big tobacco jawdropping moment of truth," he said. He called for Zuckerberg to testify before the committee, and for the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Trade Commission to investigate the company. "Our children are the ones who are victims. Teens today looking in the mirror feel doubt and insecurity. Mark Zuckerberg ought to be looking at himself in the mirror," Blumenthal said, adding that Zuckerberg instead was going sailing.

Haugen, a former product manager on Facebook's civic misinformation team who has turned whistleblower, said Facebook has sought to keep its operations confidential. "Today, no regulator has a menu of solutions for how to fix Facebook, because Facebook didn't want them to know enough about what's causing the problems. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been need for a whistleblower," she said. The top Republican on the subcommittee, Marsha Blackburn, said that Facebook turned a blind eye to children below age 13 on its sites. "It is clear that Facebook prioritizes profit over the well-being of children and all users."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Lawmakers Demand Facebook Probes; Whistleblower Says Children Harmed

Comments Filter:
  • Most parents I know don't let their children on Facebook/Instagram for a variety of reasons, but no child should be subject to various state actor propaganda.

    Making it a problem that 'congress' must solve just makes it so the biggest pocket wins, and Facebook has BIG pockets and donated massively to the current party in power: https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]

    • by klipclop ( 6724090 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @11:48AM (#61863411)
      That's like asking why parents can't be responsible for their kids smoking or drinking when it's easy to get.
      • Weird, because I never smoked or did drugs. Living in Europe, I drank, legally and me and friends occasionally went overboard and then our collective parents made sure we enjoyed the consequences

    • Not an excuse (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @11:57AM (#61863453)

      Most parents I know don't let their children on Facebook/Instagram for a variety of reasons, but no child should be subject to various state actor propaganda.

      Most parents I know don't let their children smoke. That doesn't mean big tobacco shouldn't be prevented from selling and advertising cigarettes to children, or that schools shouldn't teach the dangers of smoking. Or is that too much "state actor propaganda" for you? How dare the big bad government interfere with free enterprise.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @12:19PM (#61863527)

      You mean the parents who are suppose to be both over protective and watch everything their child does, however be lax enough for the child to learn their own way of doing things.

      Look your parent is too strict, they are a helicopter parent. Look your parent is too lax, they are raising feral children.

      Back in the old days where the kids use to go out all day and play, also had neighbors who were willing and able to discipline the other children who may have crossed the line, the community was raising the children.

      This doesn't happen so much any more. Because for 1 the child playground is on the internet, 2 neighbors are afraid to discipline someone else's child, 3 any parent cannot watch their child all the time.

      The old way just doesn't work. So we need to make sure that the online playground for children are more safe, because they may not be anyone watching them.

      • by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @04:17PM (#61864497)

        ... Look your parent is too strict, they are a helicopter parent. Look your parent is too lax, they are raising feral children.

        I watched a British parenting/nanny show where every mother on it said either "my parents were really strict and I'm not doing that" or "my parents were really liberal and I'm not doing that".

        Children mostly raise themselves and become a product of the choices adults give them. That's why it's important to describe alternative outcomes for children. But it's not that easy because children don't understand consequences so "have chocolate now or have healthy teeth in 20 years" is not a choice, in their mind.

      • Weird, it works around here. If I go to the playground and a child is being a bully, and their parents donâ(TM)t intervene, someone else does. You donâ(TM)t need to spank, children react to adult authority.

        Just because youâ(TM)re too afraid, doesnâ(TM)t mean everyone is.

      • The old way just doesn't work. So we need to make sure that the online playground for children are more safe, because they may not be anyone watching them.

        The old way works just fine.

        I'm 48 with 3 kids. Wen I was 7 or so, I used to go over to my neighour to watch WWF as my folks didn't have Sky.
        And when their Mother was away, Texas Chainsaw masacre dvd/beta max went on.

        1) the playground is what kids make it, internet or no.
        2) No sir, as a Beaver Leader (6-8 year old scouts) I discipline other kids just fine. Smacking no, but discipline can be verbal and demonstrative too.
        It's rare they cross the line a second time.
        3) So? We aren't the 24/7 state police.

        We don

    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      to a degree. both state and private companies love uneducated people as there's much to gain from them and they're easier to herd. however, state definitely can not shy away from regulating issues like these once evidence of harm to society becomes public and so obvious, this is actually their job.

      (otoh, careful what you wish for: any educated individual on slashdot capable of a modicum of critical thinking would immediately recognize the nonsensical use of the controversial "state actor propaganda" term in

    • by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @01:17PM (#61863769)

      I let my kids go to gorcery store to get a candy. Does it mean, the store is allowed to sell cigarette and liquor to them too? So even if I let my kid on Instagram or FB because there are other useful information for kids, does it mean, I have given blanket rights to FB to expose them to anything they like? If they can't control it then they should not allow entry to kids at all (with or without parental consent).

      There are casinos where you can eat pizza but they don't allow children (with or without parental consent). So either they should control what children get exposed to (grocery store model) or they should ban them outright (casino model).

      They can't open up a store selling candy and let kids come with parental consent, and once inside, sell them liquor and cigarettes.

      • There is zero useful interaction on FB and IG for children. As for information, there are a million other sources for that. How about you teach them how to use a library.

      • by bjwest ( 14070 )

        ... if I let my kid on Instagram or FB because there are other useful information for kids, does it mean, I have given blanket rights to FB to expose them to anything they like? If they can't control it then they should not allow entry to kids at all (with or without parental consent).

        Have you read the user agreement you clicked on when you set up their account? Wait, you let your children on the internet unsupervised, don't you? Doing so implies you agree to every TOS they click through when they sign up for these accounts because YOU are responsible for everything they do as minors.

        • Have you read the user agreement you clicked on when you set up their account? Wait, you let your children on the internet unsupervised, don't you? Doing so implies you agree to every TOS they click through when they sign up for these accounts because YOU are responsible for everything they do as minors.

          A minor can neither agree to nor be bound by a contract without direct and explicit parental involvement on the minor's behalf. "...on the Internet!" does not alter this.

      • In Europe, we used to get crates of beer and cigarettes for other parents all the time. The parent would call ahead and the grocer knew damn well if a 16yo comes in all dodgy looking for beer. Itâ(TM)s called personal responsibility, and yes, we did things we thought our parents didnâ(TM)t know, and snuck a couple of pints into the movie theater, thatâ(TM)s part of growing up. Why should the state be involved in raising children?

  • by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @11:47AM (#61863405)

    I'm hard pressed to think of a large US tech business that DOESN'T put profits before any other consideration. Apple talks a good game, but their actions don't quite match their words. Google has been evil for years, and every business that's sold their corporate souls for the Chinese market is guilty. Only difference between them and facebook is that FB was able to qualify their own harm.

    • If you want to stop this kind of thing, you need to fix the system that rewards companies that put profits above everything else, not just pick a scapegoat to put the blame on. Its not just tech either, oil, smoking, pharma, real estate, banking every industry puts profits first, the ones that don't are eventually outdone by companies that are willing to sell their souls for profit.

      I think we can start by defining what exactly is rich enough.

      • If you want to stop this kind of thing, you need to fix the system that rewards companies that put profits above everything else

        Should be simple enough. Start your own company, set "quality" to be the most important thing, even above profits, and you've solved the problem, eh?

      • These companies becoming behemoths that steamroll users / partakers / customers in the name of profits all have one thing in common though. Us. I mean, when it comes to Facebook I can't include me in 'us' at the moment as I haven't touched it in forever and a day. But the bottom line is, people line up in droves for the service because of something missing for them without it. And you can argue all day about what it is, but I want to at least add mental health to the conversation. If people weren't nee

      • Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)

        by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @12:44PM (#61863639) Homepage

        Its not just tech either, oil, smoking, pharma, real estate, banking every industry puts profits first,.

        Every single one of those has been regulated.

        Why shouldn't Facebook have to follow rules, too?

      • You cannot fix greed. Nor can you fix corruption. The combination of the two will always foil whatever complex laws you try to put in place that limits the expression of either.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bmimatt ( 1021295 )

          I'll bite...

          You cannot fix greed.

          You can, if you allow people to realize there are more important things than the amount/volume of $whatever they cannot get enough of.

          Nor can you fix corruption.

          You can, if you can mix in a healthy dose of transparency and accountability.

          The combination of the two will always foil whatever complex laws you try to put in place that limits the expression of either.

          Perhaps, but complex problem solving involves breaking it down into subcomponents and addressing those.

      • Companies without customers tend to die, Facebook and Twitter isnâ(TM)t dying, ergo, people donâ(TM)t care about their practices and the current outrage is overblown.

    • Honestly as terrible as Facebook is Monsanto makes them look like saints. That's before we talk about companies like Nestle that are currently monopolizing water and whose CEO made it very clear that water is not a right. And we haven't even discussed things like the Bhopal chemical disaster. Or the fact that we spent 20 years using drones to drop bombs on Afghanistan civilians so that a handful of defense contractors could pretend to do nation building while lining their own pockets.
    • Excellent point!
  • Death to Facebook! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @11:54AM (#61863435) Journal
    Zuck for Convict 2022!
  • by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @11:54AM (#61863437)
    Letting kidz on the net unmonitored is like, sending them into the city streets. The net is ruthless. And this part is a parents problem. Not the governments job.

    But I do agree with penalties. Just like no more advertisements for tobacco that appeal to children, facebook needs to be corralled.
    • But the safety of the City Streets is the Government job.

      They have police who monitor the streets, they are rules and regulations for property owners to keep their public area safe and clean.

      Granted having your kids play on the city streets may not be ideal, but the government has a hand in their safety.

      The same thing with Online Activities. The government may not be able to keep your kid fully safe, however they can put in some safeguards to have a general degree of safety.

      • They do though. All the things that are illegal to do with kids in real life are also illegal online. And all the laws about safety in the streets are just the ones applied to adults; there's no special rules about sidewalk maintenance for kids. The government doesn't step in to stop teenage girls from shaming each other's bodies when they're together in real life, or regulate when trash talk on the basketball court becomes too harmful. They don't censor magazines aimed at teens for promoting unrealistic st
    • facebook needs to be corralled

      If you mean made obsolete by Adobe shitware, then yes that sounds good, because I am equally outside the market for both.

  • Reuters said: Frances Haugen testified in a congressional hearing that "for more than five hours Facebook wasn't used to deepen divides, destabilize democracies and make young girls and women feel bad about their bodies."

    IOW, Facebook *wasn't* used to perpetrate all sorts of bad things. The way that sentence is written it says Facebook is innocent.

    Did they really mess up the writing that bad or was she really defending Facebook? The context from the rest of the article (and headline) seems to indicate the

    • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Perhaps it wasn't "used" to do any of those things in terms of intent but never the less had those effects?

    • Re-read that quote. "For more than five hours" implies the more than five hours it was down yesterday so "wasn't used to . . ." makes perfect sense in context. They're saying that when the site is up and available it *IS* being used for all of those things.

      • Just remember that person gets to vote and cannot even deconstruct a rather simple English sentence, even when the meaning is rather implied via the article.

      • GP is attempting to float the idea that "deepen divides, destabilize democracies and make young girls and women feel bad about their bodies" was happening anyway, without Facebook having gone missing for 5 hours. Which perhaps those things were happening. But the meaning of the quote was obvious to anyone not trying to nitpick.
  • 1) Facebook is aggressive parasitic actor that actively seeks create divisiveness for monetary gain. They gather massive amounts of personal information even on non users, which they repeatedly disclosed mostly though not being hacked but rather plainly irresponsible design choices. When faced with issues of their platform being used for serious criminal actions - ranging from harassment to human trafficking their response has been to take only proforma actions had hide behind CDA-230.

    Facebook and its leads

    • and the sudden political willingness of the establishment wing of the Democratic party to 'do something about facebook' when they had previously laughed off right-leaning claims of censorship etc is curious

      Why?

      Understanding that Facebook is not the government, and thus has a First Amendment right to ban people for ToS violations, doesn't mean Facebook can never do any wrong.

  • Just kids? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CubicleZombie ( 2590497 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @12:24PM (#61863551)

    The marriage killer.

    As an adult, you get to compare the best highlights of your friends lives to your own shitty existence. Nobody posts their bad vacation photos. You don't see their messy house or hear about the argument with their spouse or see their kids fighting. It's all better than your life. And it's all fake.

    But maybe you made a wrong turn somewhere... Hey, look at that! A friend request from your old college flame! He/She's looking pretty good nowadays. Maybe you should meet up sometime.

  • by atrimtab ( 247656 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @12:32PM (#61863585)

    Face is not a "town square."

    https://www.thebulwark.com/fac... [thebulwark.com]

    It is not a "safe space." It is really is a twisty funhouse mirror world of algorithm selected content to produce the most engagement of continuously profiled users created mostly by actors unknown to your users.

    What's mind boggling is that there are humans that believe and alter their lives by what they see there.

  • by djp2204 ( 713741 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @12:34PM (#61863589)

    Lots of screaming and demands for change, but no actual action will ever be taken, for the simple reason that action might generate results and results negate the needs for screaming politicians.

  • The express outrage when they absolutely knew Facebook had a sketchy side and yet they bought ads on the service, which contributed to problem.
  • The "regular" media has been doing the same thing for over 20 years. FauxNoise started it, proved that playing and creating rage in a demographic is profitable now they all do it and news is just a happenstance.
  • is a scandal. If it's spun as a scandal, there is no defense. Media has the political narrative power, and congress members go along for the populist popularity boost.

    That's how it is these days.

    Ok, so a company had some internal reports on some stuff related to its product. And it didn't share them outside the company.
    (The company may also be taking complex action on the problems, but that is not part of the STORY, so shut up.)
    When has that EVER happened in the corporate business world.

    Every other company
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Chas ( 5144 )

      It's all a distraction anyhow.
      There's a real whistleblower investigation going on at Project Veritas.
      This is meant to muddle the issue and distract from the real problems.
      All in an attempt to throw more power to the government that currently agrees with them.

  • Oh won't someone PLEASE think of the children!? I guess Zuckerberg must be doing a slightly worse job of bribing our lawmakers than his fellow social-media magnates.
  • I think post is more about promoting more politically motivated censorship rather than protecting children. I'd love to see most social media companies burn but this reeks of politics rather than whistle blowing.
  • In the 1950's Congress held hearings on the dangers of comic books. Learned psychiatrists testified that reading comics promoted crime and violent behaviors in children. When will they ever learn?
  • It's a product that is known to cause harm to minors therefore ought to be regulated.
  • Oh, for the sake of the children we must censor everything that we don't agree with.

  • The only reason Facebook wants government regulation is to limit its legal liability. Once regulations exist and Facebook is compliant with those regulations, your ability to sue Facebook will essentially disappear. Facebook is afraid they will soon lose the protections they have a platform and be treated as a publisher. With regulations, they can create an even muddier third class, regulated platform.
  • Congress should immediately work to alter Section 230 or the courts should find that if algorithms are used to sift user generated content differently for different receiving users, Section 230 offers no shield to Internet services.

    Why?

    Algorithms have NO FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. They are not human. Outlawing their use or simply clarifying Section 230 does not apply to algorithm selected content is a start in reining in Facebook and Social Media.

    Why do this?

    Because Facebook does NOT PROVIDE FREE SPEECH. It ampli

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Working...