    [Senate Hearing 117-719]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-719

      PROTECTING KIDS ONLINE: FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, AND MENTAL HEALTH HARM

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND DATA SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    53-125 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
    GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                         RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                         CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                        David Strickland, Staff Director
                     Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
           George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                     John Keast, Republican Staff Director
                Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                          Steven Wall, General Counsel
                                     ------

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY,
                               AND DATA SECURITY

    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut,     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee,
        Chair                                Ranking
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE LEE, Utah
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            TODD YOUNG, Indiana

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on September 30, 2021...............................     1
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................     1
    Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................     3
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     5
    Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     6
    Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    16
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    18
    Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    21
    Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    23
    Statement of Senator Lummis......................................    29
    Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    31
    Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    34
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    38

                                   Witnesses

    Antigone Davis, Global Head of Safety, Facebook..................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted to Antigone Davis by:
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    43
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    49
        Hon. John Thune..............................................    51
        Hon. Mike Lee................................................    52
        Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................    57

      PROTECTING KIDS ONLINE: FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, AND MENTAL HEALTH HARM

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2021

                                   U.S. Senate,
          Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product
                             Safety, and Data Security,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard
    Blumenthal, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Blumenthal [presiding], Cantwell,
    Klobuchar, Markey, Lujan, Blackburn, Wicker, Thune, Cruz,
    Sullivan, Lee, and Lummis.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNETICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
    Consumer Protection of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation will come to order. I thank the
    Ranking Member, Senator Blackburn, for being here and
    especially wanted to express my gratitude to the Chairman of
    the Committee, Senator Cantwell, who has encouraged and
    supported this effort and to the Ranking Member, Senator
    Wicker, who is also with us and who has helped to lead.
        This effort has been very, very bipartisan. I think the
    ongoing series of hearings that we will have similarly will be
    bipartisan in its objective and its conduct. I want to welcome
    our witness, Ms. Davis, who is appearing on behalf of Facebook.
    Thank you for being with us. This hearing is the third in the
    series intended to help us draft legislation, but not just
    educate, not just legislate, but also to prompt action by
    Facebook itself. And that action has to address the harms that
    children and teens face on social media.
        I want to make clear that our interests are not limited to
    Facebook and Instagram. Our subcommittee has secured
    commitments from several social media companies to appear in
    the coming weeks. We will hold them to those promises. We are
    here today because Facebook has shown us once again that it is
    incapable of holding itself accountable. This month, a
    whistleblower approached my office to provide information about
    Facebook and Instagram. Thanks to documents provided by that
    whistleblower, as well as extensive public reporting by the
    Wall Street Journal and others, we now have deep insight into
    Facebook's relentless campaign to recruit and exploit young
    users.
        We now know while Facebook publicly denies that Instagram
    is deeply harmful for teens, privately Facebook researchers and
    experts have been ringing the alarm for years. We now know that
    Facebook routinely puts profits ahead of kids' online safety.
    We know it chooses the growth of its products over the well-
    being of our children. And we now know that it is indefensibly
    delinquent in acting to protect them. It is failing to hold
    itself accountable. And the question that haunts me is, how can
    we or parents or anyone trust Facebook? Facebook last night
    disclosed two reports.
        We have those two reports among the documents that the
    whistleblower has provided. There are numerous other extensive
    and sophisticated reports that Facebook has not disclosed. Why?
    That will be a question that I think will resonate throughout
    this hearing, because the fact of the matter is Facebook has
    concealed research studies experts that show the harm that has
    been caused to children on its site, how it knew about that
    harm, and how it concealed it continually.
        In August, ahead of this hearing, Senator Blackburn and I
    wrote to Mark Zuckerberg, and we asked, as you can see from
    this poster board, ``has Facebook research ever found that its
    platforms and products can have a negative effect on childrens'
    and teens' mental health or well-being, such as increased
    suicidal thoughts, heightened anxiety, unhealthy usage
    patterns, negative self-image, or other indications of lower
    well-being?'' Facebook's response was, ``we are not aware.''
        ``We are not aware of a consensus among studies or experts
    about how much screen time is too much.'' That response was
    simply untrue. Facebook knows. It knows the evidence of harm to
    teens is substantial, and specific to Instagram. In new
    previously undisclosed documents provided by the whistleblower,
    making them available now through these quotes, we know that
    its own comprehensive internal review indicated that Facebook
    employees found, ``substantial evidence suggests that
    experiences on Instagram and Facebook make body dissatisfaction
    worse, particularly viewing attractive images of others,
    viewing filtered images, posting selfies, and viewing content
    with certain hashtags.''
        I am going to repeat that quote, ``substantial evidence
    suggests that experiences on Instagram and Facebook make body
    dissatisfaction worse, particularly viewing attractive images
    of others, viewing filtered images, posting selfies, and
    viewing content with certain hashtags.'' That finding was not
    some disgruntled Facebook employee making a complaint. It was
    Facebook's own employees making a formal finding based on their
    research. And it was available at the highest levels of
    Facebook's management. In our August letter, we also asked,
    ``has Facebook ever found that child or teenage users engage in
    usage patterns that would indicate addictive or unhealthy usage
    of its platforms or products?''
        Facebook didn't even bother to respond directly and pointed
    us to a previous evasion. And there was a reason it responded
    in that way because Facebook knows, they know that children
    struggle with addiction on Instagram, and they didn't want to
    admit it. Facebook researchers have concluded that teens,
    ``have an addict's narrative about their use,'' ``have an
    addict's narrative about their use.'' Another survey, also not
    disclosed publicly, found that ``over one-third of teens felt
    they have ``only `a little control' or `no control at all' over
    how Instagram makes them feel.''
        Again, this conclusion is not solely one report, one
    Facebook employee's perspective, it is a pattern of findings
    repeated across sophisticated and extensive studies that
    Facebook itself conducted over the past 4 years. Not displeased
    or disgruntled employees. Facebook's formal findings and
    conclusion. Facebook knows the destructive consequences that
    Instagram's design and algorithms are having on our young
    people and our society, but it has routinely prioritized its
    own rapid growth over basic safety for our children. There is a
    teenage mental health crisis in America. After years of
    decline, starting in 2007, the suicide rate for young people
    has begun to skyrocket.
        The suicide rate for 10 to 14 year olds has doubled. For
    young girls, it has quadrupled. Instagram didn't create this
    crisis, but from the documents provided by the whistleblower,
    clearly Facebook's own researchers described Instagram itself
    as a ``perfect storm.'' That, and I quote again, ``exacerbates
    downward spirals.'' Facebook knew it was a perfect storm
    through Instagram that exacerbates downward spirals.
        My office did its own research. We created an Instagram
    account identified as a 13 year old girl and followed a few
    easily findable accounts associated with extreme dieting and
    eating disorders. Within a day, its recommendations were
    exclusively filled with accounts that promote self-injury and
    eating disorders. That is the perfect storm that Instagram has
    fostered and created. So Facebook has asked us to trust it. But
    after these evasions and these revelations, why should we? It
    is clear that Facebook has done nothing to earn that trust, not
    from us, not from parents, not from the public.
        In truth, Facebook has taken big tobacco's playbook. It has
    hidden its own research on addiction and the toxic effects of
    its products. It has attempted to deceive the public and us in
    Congress about what it knows, and it has weaponized childhood
    vulnerabilities against children themselves. It has chosen
    growth over children's mental health and well-being, greed over
    preventing the suffering of children. These internal Facebook
    studies are filled with recommendations--recommendations from
    Facebook's own employees. And yet there is no evidence, none,
    that Facebook has done anything other than a few small, minor
    marginal changes. We all know that Facebook treated protecting
    kids with disregard.
        If it had protected kids like it did drive up revenue or
    growth, it would have done a whole lot more. Instead, Facebook
    has evaded, misled, and deceived. I hope that this hearing
    provides real transparency and marks the start of a change from
    Facebook. Parents deserve the truth. Thank you to everyone for
    being here this morning. I will turn to the Ranking Member and
    then if the Chair or the Ranking Member have remarks, I would
    be happy to call on them.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    say thank you to you and your staff for working in partnership
    with us on this hearing, and I wish that Senator Markey was
    still here. He and I have been on this issue since we were each
    in the House and working on privacy, big tech accountability.
    So this is the type hearing that has been a long time coming.
    And this is truly an important conversation for us to be having
    to continue and to be bringing our findings forward so that the
    public is aware.
        There are a lot of moms, security moms I call them, that
    are very concerned about what they see happening in the virtual
    space. 2019, CDC released some data. And adding to what you
    were talking about, I think this is important. In 2019, the CDC
    data showed that 20 percent, 20 percent of our American high
    school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 40
    percent reported experiencing sadness, hopelessness.
        Now, our children who have lived through COVID, school
    closings, and more upheaval in their lives than ever before
    deserve better than this, yet where are the findings about the
    social interaction and relationship that they so desperately
    need? Where they are finding this is on social media, onsites
    like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and now we know that at least
    one of these sites, Facebook, knows that its services are
    actively harming young children. They know this. How did they
    know this? Because they did their own research as Chairman
    Blumenthal just said. In 2019 and 2020, Facebook's in-house
    analysts performed a series of deep dives into teen use of
    Instagram. And it revealed, and I am quoting from the report,
    ``aspects of Instagram exacerbate each other to create a
    perfect storm. And that perfect storm manifests itself in the
    minds of teenagers in the form of intense social pressure,
    addiction, body image issues, and eating disorders, anxiety,
    depression, and suicidal thoughts.''
        But it gets even worse than this because Facebook, despite
    touting their compliance with COPPA, was scheming to bring even
    younger users into their field. Instagram announced this week
    that it is temporarily shelving their plans for Instagram Kids.
    But until this week, they were moving forward with this, trying
    to bring younger children onto their platforms. Yet at the same
    time that we are learning this, The Wall Street Journal
    reported how Facebook tried to use play dates, that is, right
    play dates to attract more children to its messenger kids
    service.
        In fact, Facebook is fully aware that underage children are
    using their platforms. Not only that, but they encourage older
    teen siblings to recruit their younger siblings and are
    actually devising marketing plans to help kids and teens, get
    this, create secondary or anonymous accounts that they can hide
    from their parents. And they perform market research on kids as
    young as 8 years old so they can learn how to recruit them to
    their sites. Facebook is also aware of other types of harmful
    content on their site.
        In fact, a report shows how Facebook knew about content
    devoted to coercing women into domestic servitude. Yet they
    chose to do nothing to stop it until Apple threatened to pull
    Facebook from the App Store. That is correct. It took Apple
    standing up to get them to stop this. In fact, this seems to be
    a recurring theme with this company, do everything and anything
    to mold the world into your own image for your own profit
    without any regard for any harm that is going to be done
    because your focus is on your pocketbook. Adam Mosseri, CEO of
    Instagram, continues to double down on youth marketing.
        He said on The Today Show earlier this week when asked
    about Instagram Kids, and I am quoting him, ``I firmly believe
    it is a good idea as a father. The most important thing to me
    is the safety of my children.'' Well, Mr. Mosseri, I am a
    mother, and I am a grandmother, and I really beg to differ with
    you. In fact, I would imagine that most of the chief mamas in
    charge at their own households would disagree with you. I think
    they would vehemently disagree with you. They don't want their
    kids going on platforms like Instagram, even if you assure us
    that it will be safe for tweens. As the Chairman said, ``You
    have lost the trust and we do not trust you with influencing
    our children, with reading in to their minds.''
        They also don't want Facebook collecting data on their
    children because call them whatever you want, tweens, teens,
    young adults, the bottom line is these are children. They are
    children. And you and Mr. Zuckerberg, both of you being
    parents, should understand that Facebook has both a legal and a
    moral obligation to forgo collecting and using children's data.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity that we
    have this hearing today to continue to investigate, continue to
    expose what is happening in the virtual space. And I am certain
    that we will be holding Facebook to account as other tech
    platforms will be held to account.
        Ms. Davis, I do thank you for appearing before us today.
    And I hope that we can have a very frank and candid
    conversation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Blackburn. I call on
    Senator Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and
    Ranking Member Blackburn for this hearing today and for your
    longstanding work on this very important public policy area. I
    think it is very important to understand that our committee
    would like to move forward on stronger privacy legislation. And
    yesterday's hearing clearly crystallized that we need to update
    the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and this hearing,
    I am sure will put even more focus to the fact that we need to
    do that. I want to thank Senator Markey for his questioning
    yesterday.
        This month, The Wall Street Journal published a series of
    articles about Facebook and Instagram showing the management
    knew in great detail about the impacts of these products, the
    harm to children, the harm to teenagers, and in spite,
    continued to bury that knowledge. So as our colleague just
    said, data collection of children is something that should have
    more aggressive attention.
        They should not have the products and services track and
    follow these young children and updating COPPA will be
    essential. As we said yesterday, the Committee talked about
    also, first time, privacy and data security violations.
        There was unanimous support for that. So it is very
    important that we continue to take steps on this issue. I agree
    that the safeguards in place are not enough and we need to do
    more. So I look forward to hearing from the witness today.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Senator
    Wicker, do you have any opening?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Yes. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I
    will--I will be brief, because we need to get to our witness.
    Facebook is one of a handful of big tech companies wielding
    immense power over our Internet experiences. Using its market
    dominance, Facebook maintains unprecedented control over the
    vast flow of news information and speech on the Internet. To
    maintain a free, open, safe, and secure Internet, many of us on
    this committee have long called for more transparency and
    accountability from Facebook and other social media platforms.
        Today, the content moderation and data collection practices
    of big tech remain largely hidden to consumers. Too often,
    Americans are left wondering why their online posts have been
    deleted, demoted, demonetized, or outright censored without a
    full explanation. Users also remain in the dark about what data
    is being collected about them, how it is being used, and to
    whom it is being sold, and for what purpose. Recent reports
    from the Wall Street Journal may have shed new light on why
    Facebook's platform management practices have been kept from
    public view.
        This month, the Journal revealed that Facebook's so-called
    Crosschecked Program purportedly exempts certain public figures
    from its terms of service and community standards. The Journal
    also disclosed Facebook's own internal research documenting the
    harmful mental effects of the platform and its photo sharing
    site effects on children and teens. Both of these reports are
    deeply troubling and only amplify concerns about Facebook's
    inconsistent enforcement of its content moderation policies and
    its disregard and well-being for children and teens. This
    morning, I hope Facebook will be forthcoming about its platform
    management practices and take this opportunity to address the
    Wall Street Journal's report.
        I also hope Facebook will outline what it is doing to
    increase transparency and begin protecting users of all ages on
    its platforms. Following yesterday's data privacy hearing, what
    remains clear to me is that Congress must act to address big
    tech's continued reign to censor contact--content, censor
    content, suppress certain viewpoints, prioritize favored
    political speech, stockpile consumer data, and act in other
    unfair and anti-competitive ways. The time to act is now. And I
    am the fourth member of this committee this morning to say
    that.
        Addressing these issues is essential to preserving a free
    and open Internet and a thriving digital economy for
    generations to come. We are serious about taking action. Thank
    you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Wicker. We will now
    turn to our witness, Ms. Antigone Davis, who is the Global Head
    of Safety at Facebook. She spearheads Facebook's Safety
    Advisory Board efforts, and she earned her J.D. from the
    University of Chicago Law School and her B.A. from Columbia
    University. Ms. Davis, the floor is yours.

      STATEMENT OF ANTIGONE DAVIS, GLOBAL HEAD OF SAFETY, FACEBOOK

        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member
    Blackburn, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is
    Antigone Davis. I am a parent, a former teacher and the Global
    Head of Safety at Facebook. Like you, I care deeply about the
    safety and well-being of young people online, and I have
    dedicated the better part of my adult life to these issues.
        In my current role, I work with internal teams and external
    stakeholders to ensure that Facebook remains a leader in online
    safety, including issues of bullying and combating child
    exploitation. This is some of the most important work that I
    have done in my career, and I am proud of the work that my team
    does every day.
        At Facebook, we take the privacy, safety, and well-being of
    all those who use our platform very seriously, especially the
    youngest people on our services. We work tirelessly to put in
    place the right policies, products, and precautions so they
    have a safe and positive experience. We have dedicated teams
    focused on youth safety and we invest significant resources in
    protecting teens online. We also know that we can't do this
    work alone. We work closely with experts and parents to inform
    the features we develop. We require everyone to be at least 13
    years of age on Facebook and Instagram.
        When we learn that an underage user has created an account,
    we remove them from our platform. When it comes to those
    between 13 and 17, we consult with experts to ensure that our
    policies properly account for their presence, for example, by
    age-gating content. We work constantly to improve safety and
    privacy protections for young people. For example, earlier this
    year we announced that all users under 16 in the U.S. will now
    be defaulted into a private account when they join Instagram.
        We also think it is critical to give parents and guardians
    the information, resources, and tools they need to set
    parameters for their children and help them develop healthy and
    safe online habits. That is why we publish a variety of guides
    and portals intended to foster important conversations around
    online safety. And we are fortunate to do all this work with
    the help of industry experts, including our youth advisors, a
    group of experts in privacy, youth development, psychology,
    parenting, and youth media.
        We understand that recent reporting has raised a lot of
    questions about our internal research, including research we do
    to better understand young people's experiences on Instagram.
    We strongly disagree with how this reporting characterized our
    work, so we want to be clear about what the research shows and
    what it does not show. The research showed that many teens said
    that Instagram is helping them with hard issues that are so
    common to being a teen.
        In fact, one of the main slides referenced in the article
    includes a survey of 12 difficult and serious issues like
    loneliness, anxiety, sadness, and eating disorders. We asked
    teens who told us that they were struggling with these issues
    whether Instagram was making things better, worse, or having no
    effect. On 11 of the 12 issues, teen girls who said they
    struggled with those issues were more likely to say that
    Instagram was affirmatively helping them, not making it worse.
    That was true for teen boys on 12 of 12 issues.
        I want to be clear, I am not diminishing the importance of
    these issues or suggesting that we will ever be satisfied with
    anyone struggling on our apps. That is why we conduct this
    research, to make our platform better, to minimize the bad and
    maximize the good, and to proactively identify where we can
    improve. And the most important thing about our research is
    what we have done with it. We have built AI to identify suicide
    content on our platform and rapidly respond with resources. We
    have launched tools to help control time spent on our apps.
        We have built a dedicated reporting flow for eating
    disorder related content, and we offer resources when people
    try to search for it. We have a long track record of using our
    internal research, external research, and close collaboration
    with experts to improve our apps and provide resources for
    people who use them. And our work to respond to this research
    is ongoing. One idea we think has promise is finding
    opportunities to jump in if we see people dwelling on certain
    types of content and point them to content that inspires and
    uplifts them. Finally, I want to talk--speak to our work on
    Instagram experience for those under 13.
        As every parent knows when it comes to kids and tweens,
    they are already online. We believe it is better for parents to
    have the option to give tweens access to a version of Instagram
    that is designed for them, where parents can supervise and
    manage their experience than to have them lie about their age
    to access a platform that wasn't built for them, or rely on an
    app's ability to verify the age of kids who are too young to
    have an ID.
        That is why we have been working on delivering age-
    appropriate parent-supervised experiences, something YouTube
    and TikTok already do. But we recognize how important it is to
    get this right. And we have heard your concerns, which is why
    we announced that we are pausing the project to take more time.
    We will keep listening to parents, keep talking with policies--
    policymakers and regulators like yourself, keep taking guidance
    from experts, and we will revisit this project at a later date.
    There is an important part of what we have been developing for
    Instagram Kids that we won't be pausing, supervisory tools for
    parents.
        We will continue our work to allow parents to oversee their
    children's accounts by offering these tools to teen accounts on
    Instagram. These new features, which parents and teens can opt
    into, will give parents tools to meaningfully shape their
    teen's experience. As a parent, this development means a lot to
    me. I know I would have truly appreciated more insight and
    tools to help me support my daughter and manage her online
    experience as she learned how to navigate social media.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these
    important issues with you today and answer your questions.
    Youth safety and well-being are areas where we are investing
    heavily, and we welcome productive collaboration with lawmakers
    and elected officials. Thank you and I look forward to our
    discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Antigone Davis, Global Head of Safety, Facebook
    I. Introduction
        Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Blackburn, and distinguished
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today. My name is Antigone Davis, and I have served as the
    Global Head of Safety at Facebook for the past seven years.
        I have dedicated the better part of my adult life to protecting the
    safety and well-being of young people. Before coming to Facebook, I
    worked as a middle school teacher and spent a decade working for the
    Office of the Maryland Attorney General, helping to establish the
    office's first online privacy and safety unit. I serve on the boards of
    the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the
    Technology Coalition, two organizations dedicated to fighting child
    sexual exploitation. I previously served on the boards of the National
    Cybersecurity Alliance, the Family Online Safety Institute, the
    National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Center for the
    Victims of Crime, and the International Advisory Board for WePROTECT, a
    global alliance working to protect children from sexual exploitation
    and abuse online.
        In my role at Facebook, I lead the global team responsible for
    ensuring that Facebook remains a leader in online safety. This work is
    core to our mission of designing and building products that bring
    people together. We want our platforms to be a place for meaningful
    interactions with friends and family, and we cannot achieve that goal
    if people do not feel safe. My team works tirelessly with our
    colleagues across the company to put in place the right policies,
    products, and precautions so that the people who use our services have
    a safe and positive experience. We also know that Facebook can't do
    this work alone. As part of my role, I coordinate the efforts of
    Facebook's Safety Advisory Board, a team of leading safety
    organizations from around the world who provide Facebook with cutting-
    edge research and advice on best practices, particularly relating to
    young people and other vulnerable groups. I also lead our work with our
    Youth Advisors, our advisory group on suicide prevention, and a global
    safety network of more than 850 organizations around the world.
        The work that I do at Facebook is some of the most important of my
    career, and I am incredibly proud of the work that my team does every
    day to protect the safety of the people who use our platforms.
    II. Protecting and Supporting Young People On Our Platforms
        In my role, I am especially focused on the safety and well-being of
    the youngest people who use our services. This work includes keeping
    underage users off our platform, as well as ensuring that we are taking
    a comprehensive approach to protecting the youngest people allowed on
    our services. This work also includes partnering with product teams to
    address serious issues like child exploitation, suicide and self-harm,
    and bullying; developing programs and resources to support parents,
    children, and educators; and working with researchers and other experts
    to help us understand how social media impacts people so we can use
    that research to improve our products.
    A. Keeping People Under 13 Off Our Platforms
        If a child is under the age of 13, they are not allowed on Facebook
    or Instagram and should not be using those services. When we learn an
    underage user has created an account, we remove them from the platform.
    From June to August of this year, in part due to some of the
    investments described below, we removed over 600,000 accounts on
    Instagram alone that were unable to meet our minimum age requirement.
        Understanding people's age on the Internet is a complex and
    industry-wide challenge, but we are doing extensive work to understand
    if people are old enough to use our apps and to create more age-
    appropriate experiences and safety measures for young people. In
    addition to asking for people's date of birth when they register and
    allowing anyone to report a suspected underage account, we have
    developed technology that allows us to estimate people's ages, for
    example, whether someone is younger or older than 18, and we're
    building similar technology to find and remove accounts belonging to
    people under the age of 13. We train the technology using multiple
    signals. We look at things like people wishing a user a happy birthday
    and the age written in those messages--for example, ``Happy 21st
    Bday!'' or ``Happy Quinceanera.'' This technology isn't perfect, and
    we're always working to improve it, but that's why it's important that
    we use it alongside many other signals to understand people's ages.
        While not allowed on Facebook and Instagram, children under 13 are
    allowed on Messenger Kids, a product that we introduced in 2017. We
    built Messenger Kids because we heard from parents that there was need
    for a messaging app that let kids connect while ensuring that parents
    and guardians had control over the experience. And we designed
    Messenger Kids with input from thousands of parents and experts, and
    with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act in mind.
    B. Product Safety Enhancements for Teens
        We are also dedicated to protecting the youngest people on our
    services. We have put in place multiple protections to create safe and
    age-appropriate experiences for people between the ages of 13 and 17.
        Whenever we can, we want to prevent young people from interacting
    with adults they don't know or don't want to engage with. We believe
    private accounts are the best way to do this, and we recently announced
    that all users under the age of 16 in the U.S. will now be defaulted
    into a private account when they join Instagram. For young people who
    already have a public account on Instagram, we are sharing a
    notification highlighting the benefits of a private account and
    explaining how to change their privacy settings. On Facebook, we
    encourage young people to make their accounts private by defaulting
    their posting audience to ``friends'' and by providing education before
    allowing them to post publicly. We've developed these unique education
    moments in consultation with experts.
        In addition to our work on moving teenagers towards private
    accounts, we have taken additional steps to protect their safety.
    Earlier this year, we changed Instagram's direct messaging feature to
    prevent adults from sending messages to people under 18 who don't
    follow them. We have also begun using prompts, or safety notices, to
    encourage teens to be cautious in conversations with adults they're
    already connected to. Safety notices in direct messages will notify
    young people when an adult who has been exhibiting potentially
    suspicious behavior is trying to interact with them. On Facebook, we
    remove certain information when young people appear in a search (such
    as their school), and we do not allow them to appear in `People You May
    Know' for adults who have been exhibiting potentially suspicious
    behavior. On Instagram, we prevent adults who have exhibited
    potentially suspicious behavior from interacting with young people's
    accounts. We won't show young people's accounts in Explore, Reels, or
    `Accounts Suggested for You' to these adults. If they find young
    people's accounts by searching for their usernames, they won't be able
    to follow them. They also won't be able to see comments from young
    people on other people's posts, nor will they be able to leave comments
    on young people's posts.
        We also work to create age-appropriate experiences for teenagers on
    Facebook and Instagram. This includes age-gating certain content,
    prohibiting certain types of ads from being served to minors, and
    limiting options for serving any ads to these users. For example, we
    have long restricted what kinds of ads can be served to minors, and we
    recently limited options for serving any ads to people under 18. Now,
    people under 18 can only have ads served to them based on age, gender,
    and location, but not interests or activity.
        We've also introduced new ways to support people on Instagram who
    may be affected by negative body image or an eating disorder, including
    surfacing more expert-backed resources when people search for eating
    disorder-related content, expanding our work with experts to help
    inform our policies, and collaborating with community leaders to help
    them create and share positive, inspiring body image content.
    C. Parental Resources and Controls
        We think it is important to help provide parents and guardians the
    information, resources, and tools they need to set parameters for their
    teenagers' use of online technologies and to help them develop healthy
    and safe online habits. We have been working on parental resources for
    many years, and this week we announced a significant step forward by
    bringing parental supervision for teens to Instagram in the coming
    months. This feature, which parents and teens can opt into, will give
    parents additional tools to help shape their teens' experience.
        This latest announcement builds on years of work to provide parents
    with resources to help them navigate conversations with their
    teenagers. As part of our Safety Center, we have a Parent Portal
    (https://www.facebook.com/safety/parents), a Youth Portal (https://
    www.facebook.com/safety/youth), and a Child Safety Hub (https://
    www.facebook.com/safety/childsafety), all of which are focused on
    fostering conversations around online safety, security, and well-being.
    These portals give parents and young people access to the information
    and resources they need to make informed decisions about their online
    technology use. We also worked with The Child Mind Institute and
    ConnectSafely to publish a new Parents Guide (https://
    about.instagram.com/community/parents) with the latest safety tools and
    privacy settings and a list of tips and conversation starters to help
    parents and guardians navigate discussions with their teens about their
    online presence. We also worked with the Digital Wellness Lab team on a
    Family Digital Wellness Guide to help families learn about the media-
    related health issues that are top of mind for parents today; it
    includes tips that are practical, easy, and based in science.
        And we don't just focus on our own apps. We've also developed a
    free digital literacy program called Get Digital. It has research-based
    lessons and resources that will help young people develop the skills
    they need to become empowered and discerning digital citizens. Get
    Digital provides educators, parents, and caregivers with lesson plans
    and activities designed to help build the core competencies and skills
    young people need to navigate the digital world in safe ways.
    III. Using Research to Improve People's Experience
        We understand that recent reporting has raised a lot of questions
    about our internal research, including research we do to better
    understand young people's experiences on Instagram. We strongly
    disagree with how this reporting characterized our work, so we want to
    be clear about what that research shows, and what it does not show.
        In addition to putting specific findings in context, it is also
    critical to make the nature of this research clear. We undertook this
    work to inform internal conversations about teens' most negative
    perceptions of Instagram. It did not measure causal relationships
    between Instagram and real-world issues. The reporting also implied
    that the results were surprising and that we hid this research. That is
    also not true. We have talked about the strengths and weaknesses of
    social media and well-being publicly for more than a decade, and
    external researchers have, too. For example, a survey and interviews
    from Harvard found that teens viewed social media ``predominantly''
    positively, though they reported both positive and negative impacts on
    their relationships and self-expression. And a Pew Internet survey
    reported the majority of teens credit social media for positive
    outcomes--81 percent said it helps them connect--while some also
    pointed to its negative impacts--43 percent said they felt pressure to
    post things that make them ``look good.''
        Our research showed that many teens who are struggling say that
    Instagram helps them deal with many of the hard issues that are so
    common to being a teen. In fact, one of the main presentations
    referenced by the Wall Street Journal included a survey of twelve
    issues--difficult and serious issues like loneliness, anxiety, sadness,
    and eating disorders. If a teenager shared that they were struggling
    with an issue, we asked whether Instagram was making things better,
    worse, or having no effect. For eleven of the twelve issues, teen girls
    who were struggling were more likely to say that Instagram was
    affirmatively helping them than making things worse. That was true for
    teen boys on twelve out of twelve issues.
        I'd like to highlight a few other details from the research that
    the Wall Street Journal failed to include:

       Among those teenage girls who said they had felt sadness in
            the past month, 57 percent said Instagram made things better,
            and 34 percent said Instagram had no impact. 9 percent said
            Instagram made it worse.

       Among those teenage girls who said they had experienced
            loneliness in the past month, 51 percent said Instagram made
            things better, and 36 percent said Instagram had no impact. 13
            percent said Instagram made it worse.

       Among those teenage girls who said they had experienced
            anxiety in the past month, 40 percent said Instagram made
            things better, and 48 percent said it made no difference. 12
            percent said Instagram made things worse.

       38 percent of teenage girls who said they struggled with
            suicidal thoughts and self-harm said Instagram made these
            issues better for them, and 49 percent said it has no impact.

        I want to be clear that we are not diminishing the importance of
    these issues or suggesting that we will ever be satisfied if anyone is
    struggling on our product. It's why we conduct this research: to make
    our platforms better, to minimize the bad and maximize the good, and to
    proactively identify where we can improve. And the most important thing
    about our research is what we've done with it. We have a long track
    record of using our research--as well as external research and close
    collaboration with our Safety Advisory Board, Youth Advisors, and
    additional experts and organizations--to inform changes to our apps and
    provide resources for the people who use them. We've built AI to
    identify suicide-related content on our platform and rapidly respond
    with resources. We've launched tools to help control time spent on our
    apps. We've built a dedicated reporting option for eating disorder-
    related content, and we pop up resources when people try to search for
    it. And our work to respond to this research is ongoing. We are looking
    into ways to encourage users to consider different content if they are
    consuming content that correlates with negative appearance comparison.
    Another idea we are exploring is ``take a break,'' a feature that
    allows you to set a session time limit to take a moment away from
    scrolling.
        We'll continue to look for ways to be more transparent while
    respecting the privacy and confidentiality of participants and giving
    our researchers space to do their work. We will also be looking for
    more opportunities to work with more partners to publish independent
    studies while also working through how we can allow external
    researchers more access to our data in a way that respects people's
    privacy.
    IV. Stepping Back from Instagram for Tweens and Announcing Parental
            Supervision
        Finally, I want to speak to our work on an Instagram experience for
    tweens. As every parent knows, the reality is that kids and tweens are
    already online. They're getting phones younger and younger,
    misrepresenting their age, and downloading apps that are meant for
    those 13 or older.
        We believe that it is better for parents to have the option to give
    tweens access to a version of Instagram that is designed for them--
    where parents can supervise and control their experience--than to have
    them lie about their age to access a platform that wasn't built for
    them.
        That's why we have been working on delivering experiences like
    Instagram for tweens that are age-appropriate and give parents and
    guardians visibility and control over what their tweens are doing
    online. Other companies also have recognized these types of issues and
    built experiences for kids. YouTube and TikTok both have versions of
    their app for those under 13. The principle is the same: it's much
    better for kids to use a safer, more age-appropriate version of social
    media apps than the alternative.
        That said, we recognize how important it is to get this right. We
    have heard your concerns, and that is why we announced that we are
    pausing the project to take more time. We'll keep listening to parents,
    keep talking with policymakers and regulators, keep taking guidance
    from experts and researchers, and we'll revisit this project at a later
    date. Critics of this project will inevitably see this as an
    acknowledgement that the project is a bad idea. That's not the case.
    The reality is that kids are already online, and we believe that
    developing age-appropriate experiences designed specifically for them
    is far better for parents than where we are today.
    V. Conclusion
        Facebook is committed to building better products for young people,
    and to doing everything we can to protect their privacy, safety, and
    well-being on our platforms. That is why we work to stop people under
    13 from accessing platforms that are not built for them, develop
    features to protect young people on our platforms, build resources and
    tools for young people and parents, and conduct research and consult
    with external experts to help ensure that our users have a positive
    experience. Our goal, through all of these efforts, is to promote
    meaningful interactions, so that people can use our products to connect
    and share with the people they care about.
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important issues with
    you today. This is an area where we are investing heavily, and we
    welcome productive collaboration with lawmakers and elected officials.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Ms. Davis. You know, we both
    know--all of us know as parents how vulnerable teens are at
    this age. How they can succumb to eating disorders, even the
    suicidal tendencies, and how susceptible they are. So the
    effects known to Facebook of its site in condoning and even
    encouraging those tendencies are so deeply repugnant. Facebook
    knows from its own report disclosed--undisclosed previously
    that if found in December 2020, a survey of over 50,000
    Facebook users that, ``teens, women of all ages and people in
    Western countries experience higher levels of both body image
    concerns and problems with appearance comparison on
    Instagram.''
        In an April 2021 report, which also has not been disclosed,
    it found a quarter of teen girls felt discouraged about their
    own life and worse about themselves often or very often after
    using Instagram. Another undisclosed report, March 2020 found,
    ``social comparison is worse on Instagram,'' in part because
    its recommendations, ``enable never ending rabbit holes'' and
    because it, ``perceived as real life.'' I don't understand, Ms.
    Davis, how you can deny that Instagram isn't exploiting young
    users for its own profits.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator, for your question. I would
    like to speak specifically to this as an experienced mom of a
    teenage daughter, as someone who was a teenage girl herself,
    and as someone who has taught middle school and teenage girls.
    I have seen firsthand the troubling intersection between the
    pressure to be perfect, between body image and finding your
    identity at that age. And I think what has been lost in this
    report is that, in fact, with this research, we found that more
    teen girls actually find Instagram helpful, teen girls who are
    suffering from these issues, find Instagram helpful than not.
    Now, that doesn't mean that the ones that aren't, aren't
    important to us. In fact, that is why we do this research.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, if I may interrupt you, Ms.
    Davis, these are your own reports. These findings are from your
    own studies and your own experts. You can speak from your own
    experience, but will you disclose all of the reports, all the
    findings? Will you commit to full disclosure?
        Ms. Davis. Well, I know that we have--Senator, thank you. I
    know that we have released a number of the reports and we are
    looking to find ways to release more of this research. I want
    to be clear that this research is not a bombshell. It is not
    causal research. It is in fact just directional research that
    we use for our product----
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I beg to differ with you, Ms.
    Davis. This research is a bombshell. It is powerful, gripping,
    riveting evidence that Facebook knows of the harmful effects of
    its site on children and that it has concealed those facts and
    findings.
        So I ask you to commit that you will make full disclosure
    all of the thousands of pages of documents that the
    whistleblower has and more that can be made available. I want
    to switch to a separate topic, because I think that you have
    indicated that you are not willing at this point to make a
    commitment that you will fully disclose everything, unless I am
    mistaken. I will give you a chance to respond.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. We are looking for ways to
    release more research. There are privacy considerations that we
    need to take into place. But I think more importantly, we are
    actually also looking for ways to give external researchers
    access to data so that they can do independent research as
    well.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I think that is a very important
    point. You haven't provided that access to researchers. You
    have refused to make it available to independent experts and
    researchers. And I will ask you as well for a commitment to do
    so. And I recognize you are not going to answer this question
    here. But let me ask you separately, in your remarks, you say,
    ``we think it is important to help provide parents and
    guardians the information, resources, and tools they need.'' I
    want to talk about one major source of concern for parents.
    They are Finstas.
        Finstas, are fake Instagram accounts. Finstas are kids'
    secret second accounts. Finstas often are intended to avoid
    parents' oversight. Facebook depends on teens for growth.
    Facebook knows the teens often are the most tech savvy in the
    household. That they need or they would like to have critical
    ways, Facebook would like to have critical ways to acquire new
    older users.
        But Facebook also knows that nearly every teen in the
    United States has an Instagram account. It can only add more
    users as fast as there are new 13 year olds. So what Facebook
    has done is Finstas. In multiple documents, Facebook describes
    these secret accounts as, ``a unique value proposition.'' It is
    a growth strategy, a way to boost its monthly active user
    metric.
        And that active user metric is of great interest to your
    investors, to the markets, and it looks to me like it is
    another case of prioritizing growth over children's safety. So
    Facebook claims it is giving tools to parents to help their
    kids navigate social media and stay safe online, but behind the
    scenes, your marketers see teens with multiple accounts as
    ``unique value opportunity--propositions,'' ``unique value
    proposition.'' And we all know that means Finstas. You are
    monetizing kids' deceiving their parents. You make money when
    kids deceive their parents. You make money from these secret
    accounts. You make money from heightening the metrics that
    impressed the markets, your investors, raised the stock price.
    How can parents trust you?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator that is not how I would
    actually characterize the way we build a product. We build our
    products to provide the best experience for young people.
    Interestingly, when you mention Finstas, in my engagement with
    teens, Finstas are not something that we actually built, they
    built. They did it to actually provide them with themselves
    with a more private experience, which is one of the things that
    led us to think about offering them privacy, more privacy.
        So that that is actually where Finstas come from. Teens,
    not us. But I think more importantly, our announcement that we
    are going to be providing supervisory tools that give parents
    actual insight into what their children are doing on Instagram
    is exactly contrary to what you are suggesting.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, with all due respect, these are
    private, yes, they are secret, they are secreted from parents
    so that whatever the tools you may have, parents can't apply
    them, and they are part of the metrics, they are measured so
    that you can show growth. I will turn to the Ranking Member.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Davis,
    thank you for your testimony and for being with us today. We
    appreciate that. And I congratulate you on a perfectly curated
    background. It looks beautiful coming across the screen. I wish
    the message that you were giving us were equally as attractive.
    Let me go to Instagram's CEO, Adam Mosseri, recently saying,
    and I used his interview in my opening statements, that 13 year
    olds are not allowed on Instagram. Is that true? Yes or no?
        Ms. Davis. 13 year olds and above are allowed on Instagram.
    Under 13 year olds are not.
        Senator Blackburn. But we know that you are doing research
    on children as young as 8, and are marketing to 8 to 12 year
    olds, correct?
        Ms. Davis. We do not market to 8 to 12 year olds because
    they are not on Instagram. 13 year olds and above--if we find
    an account of someone who is under 13, we remove them. In fact,
    in the last 3 months we removed 600,000 accounts of under 13
    year olds.
        Senator Blackburn. OK. So talk to me about how you enforce
    the policy, that 13 year old--under 13 cannot be on Instagram?
        Ms. Davis. Yes, I appreciate that question. So there are a
    number of different things that we do. We have an age screen.
    When someone tries to join Instagram, if we see someone trying
    to repeatedly change the date to get past that, we actually
    will restrict their ability to access the app. We also allow
    people to report underage accounts, even if you are not on
    Facebook, and we will remove them. And we are investing and
    using AI and other signals to remove underage accounts.
        Senator Blackburn. OK, let me--not to interrupt, but I have
    got 5 minutes. Then talk to me about what the map is, because I
    know you have--your research, your research shows that you have
    looked into using the map for kids under 13. So why don't you
    explain that to us?
        Ms. Davis. Map is just a measure of how many people are
    using the site in the month. It is monthly active people.
        Senator Blackburn. OK, but you were going to apply that to
    children under 13. So therefore you were trying to quantify the
    number of children that were under 13 years of age that were
    using your site. Correct?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, that doesn't sound accurate to me.
    In fact, what we are trying to do----
        Senator Blackburn. OK. Well, then let's have you clarify
    that for the record, because your research shows that you were
    using the map on children under 13. I want to move on and talk
    to you about the information I have seen about the presence of
    content on Facebook and Instagram that is used to recruit women
    into domestic servitude. This is a kind of trafficking where
    people are forced to work against their will for little or no
    pay. Their passports are often taken away from them. They can
    be auctioned online and abused. And I have a poster that is
    behind me. I hope that you can see this.
        I have seen information suggesting that Facebook knew this
    content was on its website but did nothing to delete it until
    Apple threatened to drop Facebook from the Apple App Store. To
    quote from a Facebook internal report, ``was this issue known
    to Facebook before the BBC inquiry and Apple escalation? Yes.''
    But, quoting again, ``due to the underreporting of this
    information and absence of proactive detection, domestic
    servitude content remained on the platform.
        Removing our applications from Apple platforms would have
    had potentially severe consequences to the business.'' Ms.
    Davis, did Facebook know about content on its platform used to
    recruit women into forced slavery? And why did you not remove
    it until Apple threatened to drop Facebook from the App Store?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, I don't agree with that
    characterization of what occurred. In fact, we have policies
    against sex trafficking on our platform.
        Senator Blackburn. This is your reporting. Ms. Davis, this
    is your company's reporting. You knew this was there. You knew
    it was there. But you didn't do anything about it. Is it still
    there? Are you still allowing sex trafficking on Facebook? Is
    this something that girls as young as eight who are on your
    site are exposed to? Let's get a little bit more definition
    around this. One more question for you. One of the Wall Street
    Journal articles came out Monday and shared Facebook research
    about the product segments it would like to target in the
    future. It shows younger and younger kids. This is your poster.
    I mean, this is your graphic.
        I put it on a poster, where we have been and where we are
    going. In fact, documents I saw showed Facebook doing market
    research on 8 year olds. And I am quoting from you all now,
    ``tweens and younger teens are very similar in digital
    behaviors. Even kids as young as eight are interested in
    similar digital experiences.'' The documents show survey
    results into the digital interest of 8 to 10 year olds. So with
    this categorization in mind, does Facebook conduct market
    research on tweens, yes or no?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. I would first like to
    actually clarify that document that you have behind you. That
    document is actually from an age appropriate design code,
    something that Senator Markey and others have actually given to
    tech companies as a way for us to think about how we design for
    different ages. It is actually a direction on policy----
        Senator Blackburn. So you are admitting to me that you are
    designing for 8 to 12 year olds? I think that that is something
    that is very interesting because you know that is a violation
    of the Children's Online Privacy Act. And I guess what you are
    telling us then is that you also are doing market research on
    children and that you are continuing to collect data on
    children as you try to figure out what type of digital
    experience children, children ages 8 to 12 are interested in
    having. I am over time, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Blackburn. Senator
    Klobuchar.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Ms. Davis, we now
    know that Facebook's own research found that Instagram worsens
    body image issues for one in three teenage girls. Were you
    aware of those internal findings before the Wall Street Journal
    articles came out?
        Ms. Davis. Senator Klobuchar, I would just like to
    correctly characterize those findings. What those findings are
    actually of teen girls who already expressed having that issue.
    One--one is too many----
        Senator Klobuchar. OK, I have 5 minutes and I appreciate
    that, and we will put that on the record, but were you aware of
    the internal findings before the Wall Street Journal articles
    came out?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I and my team work
    on a weekly maybe----
        Senator Klobuchar. Could you just answer--I was actually
    asking a polite question. Were you aware? Could you answer yes
    or no?
        Ms. Davis. Yes, I was.
        Senator Klobuchar. And what specific steps did you then
    take in response to your own research and when?
        Ms. Davis. Senator Klobuchar, I don't know if I could give
    you exact dates, but what I can tell you is that this research
    has fueled numerous product changes. So, for example, in the
    context of eating disorders, we now have a dedicated reporting
    flow for eating disorder content. We also pop-up resources for
    individuals if they try to search for this content--numerous
    changes----
        Senator Klobuchar. OK, but could you--OK, well then what I
    will do is, in writing ask the questions so we can find out the
    dates from when the research came out and what you did. You
    were creating, Facebook was creating a version of Instagram
    that targeted kids under 13. You announced this week that you
    are pausing that program. What specific criteria will you use
    to determine whether to unpause the plan and who will make that
    decision?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I think what we
    intend to do at this point in time is to step back to talk with
    more parents, to engage with more policymakers like yourself,
    to engage with more experts. What I do know is that parents
    are--8 out of 10 parents, in fact, for kids under the age of 13
    are allowing their children onto sites between the ages of 8
    and 12----
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes, but I asked who is going to make
    the decision--I so appreciate if you were answering the
    question, I would let you go ahead but I was asking who will
    make the decision about whether to unpause the work on
    developing that program.
        Ms. Davis. Well, certainly it will be a collaborative team
    within the company, but it will be done with the guidance and
    expertise of our youth advisors, hearing from parents, hearing
    from policymaker----
        Senator Klobuchar. Aright, I know that is guidance, but I
    was asking the identity of the person who will make the
    decision. That is all. I will do that in writing again.
        Ms. Davis. I don't have a single person. I am sorry,
    Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. Last quarter, Facebook publicly
    reported that its advertising revenue per user in the U.S. and
    Canada, this is for a quarter, was $51 per quarter. Didn't even
    compare with any other industrialized nation or any other
    country.
        They are making so much money off of American users. I
    asked your colleague Steve Satterfield about that last week in
    a hearing in my Judiciary Antitrust subcommittee, the hearing
    we had on big data. In his response, he said he wasn't entirely
    sure whether the data included Instagram revenue. Does it
    include Instagram revenue, and specifically, does it include
    revenue from kids under 18?
        Ms. Davis. Senator Klobuchar, that is not something I work
    on, but it is sort of not how we build products, particularly
    in relation to young people. We actually have always limited
    ads for young people. And much more recently, we have reduced
    based on actually guidance from experts that we don't target
    young people----
        Senator Klobuchar. OK, but again, I appreciate that--we are
    good at filibustering in the Senate too, but I am really
    concerned about the answer because I think it is specific. And
    again, I will do this in writing. I will publish the answers.
    But I am just asking a fact. You guys published these quarterly
    revenues. We have them on different countries, right, how much
    money you make. We got that information. And so I am trying to
    figure out if it includes Instagram.
        I am trying to figure out if it includes kids, which I
    assume it does. And I will keep pursuing it another way. When
    you estimate the lifetime value of a user, you must do that
    because I know your profit model and how it works now, after
    years of taking on this monopoly dominant platform issue. What
    do you estimate the lifetime value of a user is for kids who
    start using Facebook products before age 13?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, that is not how we think
    about building products for our--for young people. We actually
    are quite focused on ensuring that parents have the kinds of
    supervisory tools that they need. That is just--it is just not
    the way we think about it, certainly not the way I and my team
    think about it.
        Senator Klobuchar. Ms. Davis, that may be true about your
    team, but are you saying that Facebook in developing products
    has never considered, and you are under oath, has never
    considered the profit value of developing products when they
    make their decisions of how those products look?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, we are a business. I am
    fully, fully aware of that, but what we are thinking about is
    how do we provide the best experience? If we have a very short
    sighted version of just--without focusing on providing a better
    experience for people or a good experience, that is just a
    terrible business model.
        Senator Klobuchar. Well, we will follow up in writing. I am
    out of time, I will try to come back if there is a second
    round. Thank you very much.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Klobuchar. I am hopeful
    we will have a second round. I don't know whether Senator Thune
    is available. If not Senator Moran, or Senator Lee. I will turn
    to Senator Markey in the absence of a Republican Senator
    wishing to ask questions. And I am going to vote so you are in
    charge, Senator Markey.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And
    we will recognize Republican members as they arrive. In April,
    Senator Blumenthal and I wrote to CEO Mark Zuckerberg ringing
    the alarm about Facebook's plan to launch a version of
    Instagram for kids 12 and under. I am pleased that Facebook
    responded to our concerns and is backing down, at least
    temporarily, from its plans. But a pause is insufficient. Let's
    be clear. The problem isn't that Instagram hasn't developed a
    safe product for kids.
        The problem is Instagram itself. According to Facebook's
    own research, teen users consistently blamed Instagram for
    increases in their anxiety and depression. In fact, 32 percent
    of teen girls said when they felt bad about their bodies,
    Instagram made them feel worse. And 6 percent of American teen
    users trace their desire to kill themselves to Instagram. For
    teens Instagram is worse than a popularity contest in a high
    school cafeteria because everyone can immediately see who is
    the most popular or who is the least popular. Instagram is that
    first childhood cigarette, meant to get teens hooked early,
    exploiting the peer pressure of popularity, and ultimately
    endangering their health.
        Facebook is just like big tobacco, pushing a product that
    they know is harmful to the health of young people, pushing it
    to them early, all so Facebook can make money. IG stands for
    Instagram, but it also stands for insta-greed. The last thing
    we should allow Facebook to do is push young kids to use
    Instagram. Ms. Davis, will you commit that Facebook will not
    launch any platforms targeting kids 12 and under that includes
    features such as like buttons and follow accounts that allow
    children to quantify popularity. Yes or no?
        Ms. Davis. Senator Markey, I would like to actually take a
    second to disagree with your comparison. Our products actually
    add value and offer--enrich teens' lives. They enable them to
    connect with their friends, with their family. And actually
    during COVID, during the pandemic----
        Senator Markey. I appreciate that. I appreciate that.
    Senators just have limited time in the question and answer
    period. I have a question to you. Will you stop launching, will
    you promise not to launch a site that includes features such as
    like buttons and follower accounts that allow children to
    quantify popularity? That is a yes or no.
        Ms. Davis. Senator Markey, those are the kinds of features
    that we will be talking about with our experts, trying to
    understand, in fact, what is most age appropriate and what
    isn't age appropriate? And we will discuss those features with
    them, of course.
        Senator Markey. Well, let me just say this. We are talking
    about 12 year olds. We are talking about 9 year olds. If you
    need to do more research on this, you should fire all the
    people who you are paid to do your research up until now,
    because this is pretty obvious and it is pretty obvious to
    every mother and father in our country, because all recent
    scientific studies by child development experts found that not
    getting enough likes on social media significantly reduces
    adolescents' feelings of self-worth. Here is another threat to
    young people on Instagram.
        The app is full of images and videos of popular influencers
    who peddle products while they flaunt their lavish lifestyles
    to users. Ms. Davis, will you commit that Facebook will not
    launch any platforms targeting kids that host influencer
    marketing, commercial content that children may be incapable of
    identifying as advertisements? Yes or no?
        Ms. Davis. Senator that is actually one of the questions
    that we will be working with, with our experts as well. I do
    think it is important to point out that our app Messenger Kids,
    a messaging app for young kids under 13 doesn't show ads at
    all. And that was based on the feedback that we got from
    parents and from our experts.
        Senator Markey. I will just say this, it is not acceptable
    that you don't have answers for these questions right now.
    These are the obvious problems that exist. In television, we
    don't allow the host of a program to hawk a product to a child.
    It is illegal. You know, I am the author of those laws, so I
    know it is illegal. And the same thing is true here.
        Why Facebook just can't say flat out, no, we won't allow
    influencers to be trying to push a child toward buying
    something because that child has now seen a video is just,
    again, completely and totally unacceptable, because we know the
    children lack the cognitive ability to decipher whether
    something is an advertisement and influencer marketing is
    inherently manipulative to kids. The same thing was true on
    television, it is true over here. We have to move the same
    values from television over to the Internet or else the same
    exploitative policies will be adopted by marketers.
        Research also finds that your algorithms send teen users
    into a spiral of harmful content, including misinformation
    about COVID and ads for diet pills and appetite suppressants.
    Ms. Davis, will you commit that Facebook will not launch any
    platforms targeting children that employ algorithms promoting
    this dangerous content?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator Markey. We actually don't
    allow weight loss ads to be shown to people under the age of 18
    already.
        Senator Markey. OK, well, that is reassuring because that
    content shouldn't exist anywhere on your platform. Your
    platforms, however, from my perspective, are actively promoting
    these materials and we can't let that happen to kids. So you
    seem to disagree with whether or not you are doing that. But my
    research says that you are. So that is also something that I
    think we should just codify. If Facebook has taught us
    anything, it is that self-regulation is not an option.
        We need rules, rules that are federally mandated, that have
    to be adhered to by companies. And that is why today I am
    reintroducing the Kids Internet Design and Safety Act, the KIDS
    Act, partnering with Senator Blumenthal, who I thank for
    working with me on this bill. Our legislation bans damaging
    website design features like follower counts, auto play, and
    push alerts that are harmful to kids, limits advertising and
    commercial content like product placement and influencer
    marketing to kids and prohibits amplification of harmful and
    violent content to kids.
        Ms. Davis, do you agree that Congress needs to pass this
    legislation and enact these critical safeguards for children
    online, yes, or no?
        Ms. Davis. Senator Markey, I think our company has made its
    position really well known, that we believe it is time for the
    update of Internet regulations and we would be happy to talk to
    you and work with you on that.
        Senator Markey. OK, well, do you support this legislation?
        Ms. Davis. I would be happy to follow up most certainly.
        Senator Markey. Well, your company has had this legislation
    in your possession for months and you are testifying here today
    before the Committee that we would have to pass this
    legislation. And again, I just feel that, you know, delay and
    obfuscation is the legislative strategy of Facebook, especially
    since Facebook has spent millions of dollars on a marketing
    campaign calling on Congress to pass Internet regulations. And
    Facebook purports to be committed to children's well-being.
        So it is simply wrong that you will not support this
    legislation to enact protections on kids--for kids online. That
    is the only conclusion I can reach since you have had it in
    preparation for this hearing for a long period of time. So we
    know that Facebook's top priority is its bottom line. Congress
    has to step in. We have an obligation to enact a bold agenda
    for young people online. And that means passing the KIDS Act to
    take on big tech's damaging and coercive tactics to hook kids.
        Two, updating the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, to
    finally give young people up to the age of 16 a privacy bill of
    rights for the 21st century, and passing my CAMRA Act to launch
    a major research project at the National Institutes of Health
    on the effects of tech on children. It is time for us to do
    this. We cannot wait. This is a crisis, and we must act. Let me
    now turn and recognize Senator Thune.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, along with many of
    my colleagues, are deeply concerned about the lack of consumer
    transparency and limited accountability of big tech companies.
    Consumers have become increasingly troubled about the way that
    their information is used by social media platforms and how
    these sites decide what news and information we see. Because of
    the secrecy with which platforms protect their algorithms and
    content moderation practices, which largely has been and
    continues to be a black box, consumers have little or no idea
    how the information they see has been shaped by the sites that
    they're visiting.
        I have introduced two bipartisan bills to address these
    issues, platform accountability and consumer transparency with
    a PACT Act, and the Filter Bubble Transparency Act. The PACT
    Act would increase transparency around the content moderation
    process and provide the consumers more due process when a
    platform like Facebook removes posts. And the Filter Bubble
    Transparency Act would give consumers the option to engage with
    Internet platforms without being manipulated by opaque
    algorithms. And I would like to, Ms. Davis, just very briefly
    discuss those with you today.
        The Wall Street Journal recently revealed that Facebook
    overhauled its algorithm in 2018 in an effort to boost,
    ``meaningful social interactions, or MSI, meant to strengthen
    bonds between friends and family.'' Instead, the overhauled
    algorithm rewarded outrage and sensationalism, making
    Facebook's platform an angrier place.
        Mr. Zuckerberg reportedly resisted proposed fixes because
    he was worried it would hurt Facebook's objective to make users
    engage more with Facebook. Ms. Davis, should consumers be able
    to use Facebook and Instagram without being manipulated by
    algorithms designed to keep them engaged on the platform?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, that is not how we think
    about--think about our news feed. In fact, our news feed is
    designed to connect people to people that they--that they have
    a meaningful connection to, so friends, family, things that
    they are interested in. That particular change actually reduced
    the amount of time that was spent on our platform by about 50
    million hours a day. The goal there was really to promote that
    more meaningful connection between friends--friends and family.
        That said, I do think we have instituted additional
    controls for people's news feed so people can actually have a
    news feed that is based on a chronological order as opposed to
    a ranking. And we have made numerous investments in
    transparency broadly. We have an annual transparency report.
        We actually submit to human rights impact assessment. We
    have an oversight board, all because we, too, like you, believe
    more transparency is important.
        Senator Thune. The PACT Act, which I referenced earlier, is
    a Section 230 legislation introduced with Senator Schatz, which
    among other things, required that large online platforms remove
    court determined illegal content and activity within 4 days or
    lose their Section 230 liability protection. Do you believe
    that Facebook and other large Internet platforms should remove
    content that has been found by a court to be illegal?
        Ms. Davis. Certainly, Senator, we have policies against
    illegal activity in our platform and illegal content.
        Senator Thune. There is a study published in the
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences way back in
    2014 that revealed that Facebook had conducted a massive
    experiment of 700,000 users on its platform. It found,
    ``emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional
    contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions
    without their awareness.'' Today, 7 years later, we are
    learning through media leaks that Facebook's internal studies
    continue to show the emotional contagion its services can
    produce among its users, most recently with teen users on
    Instagram.
        What do you think should be done to make users in the
    public more aware of the emotional contagion that occurs on
    Facebook and Instagram, and what can be done to counterprogram
    against emotional contagion on Facebook and Instagram?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. I really appreciate that
    very thoughtful question. In fact, the research that we did
    wasn't exactly about emotional contagion. Nonetheless, the
    recent research really identified areas where we could actually
    improve our products. So, for example, we saw that young people
    indicated that when they saw uplifting content or inspiring
    content that could move them away from some other issues that
    they are struggling with. And so one of the things that we are
    looking at is something called nudges, where we would actually
    nudge somebody who we saw maybe potentially--rabbit-holing down
    content toward more uplifting or inspiring content to break
    that, what you are referring to as sort of contagion.
        Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. But let
    me just close by saying that I think it is time for us to look
    at some of these reforms. I have got a couple of bills, as I
    mentioned, and I just think that users need to know they need
    more transparency. These algorithms are opaque. And I think in
    many cases at least, users ought to have an option to be able
    to see content that hasn't been moderated by the platform. So I
    hope that we can make some headway on that, and I hope we do it
    soon. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Thune. I call on
    Senator Lujan.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Lujan. Thank you much so much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
    Davis, we have heard from you today and from others that
    Facebook contests The Wall Street Journal's reporting on
    internal research. Rather than argue details, I have a simple
    question. Yes or no, does Facebook have internal research
    indicating that Instagram harms teens, particularly harming
    perceptions of body image which disproportionately affects
    girls?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, we have released the two studies in
    relation to this. What our research showed was that for people
    who are struggling with these issues, that actually more of
    them found their engagement on Instagram helpful than harmful.
    In fact, of the 12 issues that we looked at, 11 of those were
    the case for young girls and 12 of 12 for teen boys.
        Senator Lujan. So one of the challenges that I am facing
    here, Ms. Davis, is that there is two sides to this story. The
    problem is Facebook is telling both sides, you are saying your
    own internal research is misleading and taken out of context.
    So please help us get to the bottom of this. Yes or no, will
    Facebook release the basis of the research, the data set minus
    any personally identifiable information to allow for
    independent analysis?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, we have already released two of the
    primary pieces of research. We are actually looking to release
    additional research and to create greater transparency. We are
    also quite invested in giving external researchers an
    opportunity to look at--to access data in a way that is
    privacy--privacy protected. In addition, we fund and research
    external independent research through grants, and we would
    happy to----
        Senator Lujan. Ms. Davis, I apologize. I don't have a lot
    of time. If you could please give me a yes or no to this
    question, and it is either yes or no. Will Facebook release the
    basis of the research, the dataset, minus any personally
    identifiable information to allow for independent analysis?
        Ms. Davis. We are looking to release more of that research.
        Senator Lujan. That sounds like a yes. Am I incorrect?
        Ms. Davis. [inaudible]--to do. We have privacy obligations,
    but we are looking to provide greater transparency----
        Senator Lujan. Again, that is why I am trying to be clear
    here, Ms. Davis. You can--I am asking for you to release the
    data minus any personally identifiable information. And if I am
    incorrect with your answer being interpreted as yes, please
    correct me.
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, I want to be really
    clear----
        Senator Lujan. That sounds like a no. There is no reason--I
    am just--yes or no. And if the answer is not yes, then it is a
    no. On April 11, 2018, I asked Mr. Zuckerberg if Facebook
    creates shadow profiles for nonusers that utilize the site
    without logging on or officially creating an account. Despite
    ongoing and public reporting on this issue, in response, Mr.
    Zuckerberg claimed that he had never heard the term, quote,
    shadow profile. Ms. Davis, now, in the context of today's
    discussion, I will ask a slightly different question. Yes or
    no? Does Facebook or Instagram collect personally identifiable
    information specific to individual children under the age of 13
    without the consent of those children's parents or guardians?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, children under the age of 13 are not
    allowed on Instagram or Facebook.
        Senator Lujan. Does Facebook or Instagram collect
    personally identifiable information specific to individual
    children under the age of 13? Is your answer, no?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, we do not allow children
    under the age of 13----
        Senator Lujan. That is not the question that I am asking.
    The question I am asking, in the same way that I asked Mr.
    Zuckerberg on April 11th about the collection of this
    information, does Facebook or Instagram collect personally
    identifiable information specific to individual children under
    the age of 13 without the consent of those parents or
    guardians. If the answer is no that is sufficient.
        Ms. Davis. Senator, it would be my understanding that we
    don't since we don't allow them on our apps.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I understand that the
    algorithms underpinning content moderation and recommendations
    on Facebook and Instagram change on a regular basis. Ms. Davis,
    yes or no, in preparation of changes to existing algorithms,
    has Facebook ever first tested potential impacts of those
    changes before they are rolled out broadly?
        Ms. Davis. So this is not my area of expertise. I know that
    we do do testing to understand the impact of changes, but I
    can't speak specifically to this one.
        Senator Lujan. Publicly, Facebook has said they do that.
    Yes or no, has Facebook ever tested whether a change in its
    platform will later increase growth in users or growth in
    revenue?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, would you repeat the question? Your
    voice sped up weirdly.
        Senator Lujan. Has Facebook ever tested whether a change to
    its platform would later increase growth in users or growth in
    revenue?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, this is not my--not my
    particular area of expertise. I can certainly take the question
    back to the team, but I am sure that we think about business
    issues of this kind.
        Senator Lujan. Facebook has said publicly they do. Yes or
    no, has Facebook ever tested whether a change to its platform
    increases an individual or a group of users' propensity to post
    violent or hateful language?
        Ms. Davis. Again, Senator, this is not my area of
    expertise. But I would be happy to take your questions back to
    the right team and get you answers.
        Senator Lujan. And, Mr. Chairman, I think with that last
    question, we might get more responses to that one next week.
    Yes or no, has Facebook ever tested whether a change to its
    platform makes an individual or a group of users more likely to
    consider self-harm?
        Ms. Davis. Actually, the research that has been released
    and has been reported on looks at whether a young person thinks
    that they--that their first thoughts of suicide occurred on our
    platform. And, you know, while the numbers there show about 0.5
    percent, about a half a percent do, that is one too many.
        As someone who had a brother who died by suicide as well as
    a very close college friend, if there is one person on our
    platform who attributes their suicidal ideation to our
    platform, that is one too many and we care deeply about it. And
    we have built product changes to address that. So we have a
    suicide prevention reporting flow where you can actually
    connect with a crisis counselor right from that point,
    reporting flow. Family members who report something can
    actually connect with the person immediately, because our
    experts have told us that when they connect with that person
    that is one of the best ways to prevent suicide.
        We take this issue very seriously and we are the industry
    leader when it comes to preventing--addressing suicide on our
    platform.
        Senator Lujan. And my final question, Mr. Chairman. Yes or
    no, has Facebook ever found a change to its platform would
    potentially inflict harm on users, but moved forward because
    the change would also grow users or increase revenue?
        Ms. Davis. That has not been my experience at all at
    Facebook. We care deeply about the safety and security of the
    people on our platform. We have invested $12 billion in it. We
    have thousands and thousands of people working on this issue.
    That is just not how we would approach it.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the answer to the
    very first question that I asked will be a profound, yes. The
    one area that Facebook can make structural changes here is by
    simply making research public by default, allow real
    independent oversight, and I look forward to that information
    being given to the Committee. If not, I look forward to
    requesting it formally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Lujan. And I think you
    are absolutely right. In that regard, let me just ask Ms.
    Davis. You have refused to commit that these research and
    findings will be made public. Who will make that decision at
    Facebook?
        Ms. Davis. I don't know that there is any, Senator, that
    there is any one person who will make that decision. I do know
    that there are many people looking----
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me--let me just ask you this.
    Isn't it a fact that Mark Zuckerberg is the one who will make
    that decision?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, this is the kind of
    decision that would involve many people in the company. We need
    to look at our privacy obligations and we are looking to be--to
    provide more transparency.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, with all due respect to you, the
    word transparency is easy to use, it is hard to do, and so far
    there is nothing that you have said to indicate that disclosure
    of these findings, conclusions, recommendations, facts known to
    Facebook about the harmful effects of its products will be made
    available. And, in fact, that a decision will be made by any
    specific time or by any particular individual. Can you tell us
    more?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, I think that our
    commitment to transparency in the last few years should be a
    very good indication of our commitment. We have launched a
    transparency report regularly. We have set up an oversight
    board. We have human rights impact assessments. We are doing a
    tremendous amount to ensure transparency around our platform.
    And we are looking for ways to give independent researchers
    access to data so that they can do independent studies as well.
        Senator Blumenthal. You know, that is perhaps one of the
    most discouraging parts of your testimony that you are relying
    on your past record of transparency for what you will do in the
    future. The fact of the matter is, there are thousands of
    documents that we have only because a whistleblower has come
    forward, documents that show your own findings. That is
    directly the opposite of transparency, Ms. Davis.
        I realize that you are testifying here about the efforts of
    Facebook to counter those documents, but the only way to
    counter facts is with real transparency. Let me ask you, while
    we are waiting for other Senators to arrive, I know that some
    are on their way.
        For years, Instagram did nothing about eating disorders. It
    began to take some small steps, only when a 14 year old girl,
    her name is Molly Russell, took her own life. She was getting
    trapped in that perfect storm that Facebook researchers
    described. Your own researchers called it a perfect storm. Our
    research has shown that right now in real time, Instagram's
    recommendations will still latch onto a person's insecurities,
    a young woman's vulnerabilities about their bodies and drag
    them into dark places that glorify eating disorders and self-
    harm. That is what Instagram does.
        In fact, according to documents provided to me as recently
    as April 2021, that is this year, a Facebook engineer raised
    concerns that, ``no one has decided to dial into eating
    disorders.'' They documented the problems we have verified. So,
    you knew. You knew. How long should it take to fix these
    problems? What are you going to do to address what we have
    found just within the past week or so?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, we have been working with suicide
    prevention experts since 2006. We also work with eating
    disorder experts. We don't allow the promotion of either kind
    of content on our platform. We do allow individuals to talk
    about their journeys to recovery because our experts have told
    us that that is really important and helpful to them. We have a
    dedicated reporting flow when it comes to eating disorder
    content, and we actually offer resources of support. That is
    all work that has been generated out of both this research and
    working with our experts.
        Senator Blumenthal. So let me--Ms. Davis, because our time
    is--our time is limited. And in your answer, in response to my
    question, what are you going to do to fix the problem? You are
    essentially saying there is no problem. Is that right?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, no, in fact, that is not
    what I am saying. As long as there is one person dealing with
    the issue on our platform, we consider it a problem. And
    actually there are additional product changes that we are
    looking at. So, for example, I think I mentioned earlier that
    we are looking at nudges toward uplifting content. One of the
    things that has--teens themselves has identified as helpful to
    them when they are dealing with certain issues that they are
    struggling with like eating disorders.
        We are also looking at something called take a break, where
    we would encourage somebody to take a break when we think they
    may be rabbit holing down certain kinds of content or on the
    app too long.
        Senator Blumenthal. So you are not committing to any
    specific steps by any specific time, but you do acknowledge
    there is a problem with eating disorders, with suicidal
    tendencies that may be fostered or promoted?
        Ms. Davis. Sure. Certainly, Senator, I think we actually
    have issues in relation to teens and suicide and eating
    disorders within our society. And to the extent that those
    things play out on our platform, we take them extraordinarily
    seriously. And while you have asked--you mentioned a time
    commitment and I can't give you a time commitment, but I can
    tell you that we are working on it. And I can tell you that in
    addition to all the things that we already do, we would be
    happy to follow up with you and share with you our progress in
    that direction. We take the issues very seriously.
        Senator Blumenthal. I know you take it seriously. At least
    that is what you are telling us. But all you are doing is
    looking at these possible steps. And with all due respect,
    these steps are baby steps, not even baby steps, in the
    direction of trying to improve Instagram and meet the very
    serious problems that have been disclosed. Let me come right to
    the point. Instagram for kids has been paused. How long will it
    be paused?
        Ms. Davis. I don't have a specific date, but I do have a
    commitment from all of us at Facebook that we will be speaking
    to parents. We will be talking to policymakers like yourselves.
    We will be talking to experts. We want to get this right. We
    also know that young people are online under the age of 12 on
    apps that aren't designed for them, that we want to get their
    parents the supervisory tools and insights that they need so
    that they can manage the amount of time that their child is
    spending, so they can determine what their child should be
    seeing or should not be seeing, actually fundamentally to allow
    them to parent their children.
        Senator Blumenthal. Who will make the decision about how
    long Instagram for Kids is paused? Mark Zuckerberg, right?
        Ms. Davis. There is no one person who makes a decision like
    that. We think about that collaboratively, but quite honestly,
    we will be working with experts to understand and get to feel
    that people are in a comfortable place before doing so.
        Senator Blumenthal. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Davis let's
    go back to this issue of all the data that you all are
    collecting on kids through your program where you are tracking
    them, you are doing the digital experience surveys. What do you
    do with that data and how long do you keep it? And do you have
    the parents' permission to do that research?
        Ms. Davis. Whenever we do research, we use the most
    stringent privacy protections. And whenever we do research with
    minors, we certainly get parental consent.
        Senator Blackburn. You get parental consent. Why don't you
    submit to us for the record a screenshot of what you use as a
    parental consent form? Will you do that?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, I would be happy to take your request
    back to the teams that do the research.
        Senator Blackburn. No, we want a copy of the form. If you
    get parental consent, there has to be some kind of form that is
    signed. So even if it is a digital signature. So why don't you
    submit that to the record? Will you submit the form for the
    record?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, I will go back to the teams and bring
    that request to them.
        Senator Blackburn. OK. The Wall Street Journal articles
    have had a big impact and have helped to bring some sunlight to
    your practices. And I am sure that Mr. Zuckerberg was not
    pleased with this. And in some of the documents we have seen
    that there is a real lack of governance. It is kind of his way
    or the highway at Facebook. So how long have you worked at
    Facebook?
        Ms. Davis. I have worked there for 7 years.
        Senator Blackburn. Seven years, OK. And have you all
    deleted any documents since you learned about the whistleblower
    in The Wall Street Journal reporting?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, we would not do anything in violation
    of any law. I really--there are 60,000 employees. I have no
    idea if any--I would never suggest that I know what e-mails one
    of our 60,000 employees have deleted.
        Senator Blackburn. OK, well, how are you restricting access
    to data internally? Have your policies changed since The Wall
    Street Journal articles?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, not that I am aware of, certainly.
        Senator Blackburn. OK, so you don't know if there is a
    parental consent form, even though you say you have people sign
    one if you are going to do research on their children. I would
    be interested to see if it is similar to a medical release form
    that parents have to sign. And you don't know if you have
    changed any practices about data handled internally or if you
    have eliminated data? OK, let me ask you this, will you commit
    that Facebook will not take revenge, retribution, or
    retaliation against the whistleblower?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, we would never take--retaliate against
    someone coming to speak for speaking to Congress. That is just
    not who we are.
        Senator Blackburn. OK, but you are not going to say about
    the actions? I wasn't asking about speaking in Congress, I was
    asking about the actions. But we will leave that where it is.
    Are you aware of Facebook enabling tracking on the Uyghur
    Muslims in Xinjiang province in China when they would download
    Messenger? Are you aware that they have put tracking spyware in
    Messenger in China?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, in fact, we did not put that tracking
    spyware, we found that tracking spyware. We removed it. We have
    briefed the Senate on it.
        Senator Blackburn. OK. Why did Senator Blumenthal's office
    so easily access Instagram and set up this account for a 13
    year old and then immediately they began to receive information
    about eating disorders and self-harm content? What kind of
    artificial intelligence are you using that would direct them
    that way?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, we do not direct people toward content
    that promotes eating disorders. That actually violates our
    policies, and we remove that content when we become aware of
    it. We actually use AI to find content like that and to remove
    it.
        Senator Blackburn. OK, so what you are saying is the
    experience that Senator Blumenthal's office had is an outlier
    or an anomaly. Is that correct?
        Ms. Davis. Senator Blackburn, I haven't seen the particular
    things. I would take a look, but I can tell you that our
    policy----
        Senator Blackburn. I am sure he can send you the digital
    copy of the poster that he had here. So thank you. And Mr.
    Chairman, I yield my time.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. And we
    can make available to you, Ms. Davis, all of the information
    about how easily and readily we put this profile of a 13 year
    old young woman on and the reactions on eating disorders. I am
    sure you already have the findings and evidence that supports
    our conclusions. Senator Lummis is on remotely.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like many members
    of this committee, I am alarmed by the revelations of the Wall
    Street Journal article demonstrating the disturbing conclusions
    of Facebook's own research, conclusions which merit repeating.
    Just under one in three teen girls reported the Instagram app
    made them feel worse about their body image. Another
    significant portion of users also reported increased feelings
    of anxiety, suicidal thoughts, depression, and eating disorders
    as a result of the app's use.
        Unfortunately, this research did nothing more than confirm
    many of our earlier intuitions and suspicions, social media can
    be dangerous to your mental health. I look forward to more
    studies on the impact of social media on mental health.
    However, I am concerned by the consistent lack of transparency
    from Facebook. The fact is that this committee would not be
    here without the brave whistleblower who stepped forward to
    shed light on this issue, an issue that many of us had
    previously sought answers to before and that we now seek
    answers to today. We must remember that despite apps that
    purport to be free for us to use, there is a very real cost,
    one that often comes at the price of our youth's mental health.
        I was fortunate to grow up without the pressures of social
    media, but for the first time in today's generation, the
    children struggle with how to grow up managing a virtual
    version of themselves, all while the billion dollar industries
    compete for their time, information, money, and attention.
        So I firmly believe that more must be done. I recently
    signed on to a bill that would update the Children's Online
    Privacy Protection Act by placing strict restrictions on
    behavioral advertising directed at children. So my question for
    you, Ms. Davis, has Facebook conducted research into how
    children are more easily manipulated by highly personalized
    advertising?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, I would not be familiar with that
    research. What I can tell you is that we have very limited
    advertising to young people. You can only actually now target a
    young person based on their gender, age, or location. For
    messenger kids for under 13, we actually don't allow ads at
    all. And I think we would want to know how we can safely
    provide an experience for young people on our apps in relation
    to advertising. And that is why we have our rules in place.
        Senator Lummis. Has Facebook withheld any other relevant
    information relating to its service's impact on mental health
    scares. Here is why I ask. When asked during a Congressional
    hearing in March of earlier this year about the impact of
    social media on children's mental health, Mr. Zuckerberg
    responded, ``the research that we have seen is that using
    social apps to connect with other people can have positive
    mental health benefits.'' That is only one side of the coin.
        This answer clearly only told part of the story. These
    documents reveal Facebook knew that. How can Congress or
    Facebook users have confidence in the credibility and safety of
    Facebook moving forward, and is Facebook withholding
    information about studies they have done on negative mental
    health consequences?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you. Thank you for your question, Senator.
    Actually, I would say that the one sided and misleading reports
    actually were in The Wall Street Journal, which didn't provide
    the full context. In fact, the research showed that many more
    people, actually more teens found the Instagram use helpful
    when they were struggling with these particular issues. Our
    research is not bombshell research.
        It is research that is--currently there is similar research
    out of Harvard, out of Pew, out of Berkeley. That doesn't mean
    we don't take it seriously. We do this research to improve our
    product, to make our products better for young people, to
    provide them with a positive experience. Right now, young
    people tell us--8 out of 10 tell us that they have a neutral,
    positive experience on our app. We want that to be 10 out of
    10. If there is someone struggling on our platforms, we want to
    build product changes to improve their experience and help
    support them.
        Senator Lummis. So do you have information that from the 2
    out of 10 who have not had neutral or positive experiences, so
    you know how to adapt the presentation of your product to
    consider the fact that some children seem harmed or negatively
    impacted by what they are seeing?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. I really, really appreciate
    that thoughtful question. Actually, some of the research that
    we did was to actually find out from those teens what they
    thought could be particularly helpful to them. And one of the
    things that they identified is inspiring content or content
    that talks about people overcoming these particular issues,
    uplifting content. And so we are actually looking at some
    product changes to find ways to nudge that content to
    individuals who are struggling.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Ms. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator. I am going to do
    the second vote and yield to Senator Cruz for his questions,
    and I will be back shortly.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Davis, where are
    you right now?
        Ms. Davis. Washington, D.C., in a conference room.
        Senator Cruz. So you are in Washington, D.C. Why aren't you
    in this hearing room right now?
        Ms. Davis. This is where I was told the come with COVID
    protocols, for the safety and security of my family.
        Senator Cruz. Facebook is in the process of hiding.
    Facebook is in the process of trying to avoid accountability.
    You are not physically here, even though you are blocks away
    from us. So you are sitting in a conference room, but you don't
    want to actually face Senators and answer questions. Last week,
    a colleague of yours, I guess, didn't have the instincts of
    hiding that you did.
        Mr. Satterfield actually came physically and was here for a
    hearing. And by the way, we have hearings every week, even with
    COVID. So it is witnesses that want to hide and avoid us that
    that are not physically here and choose to do it over video as
    well. But your colleague, Mr. Satterfield, played the Sergeant
    Schultz game. If you remember the old TV show Hogan's Heroes.
    His testimony was essentially, I hear nothing, I see nothing.
        And so when it came to Facebook's research concerning the
    incredible harm that Instagram is inflicting on young girls,
    your colleague Mr. Satterfield said, he didn't know anything
    about it. That he didn't cover those issues, he didn't know
    anything about it. So I would assume, Ms. Davis, as global head
    of safety, you are familiar with these issues?
        Ms. Davis. Certainly.
        Senator Cruz. So you are not going to plead ignorance, as
    Mr. Satterfield did, is that right?
        Ms. Davis. I will answer questions about--in my area of
    expertise, of course.
        Senator Cruz. OK, one of the things The Wall Street Journal
    reported was that Mark Zuckerberg was personally and directly
    aware of that research. Is that correct?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, Mark pays attention to a lot of the
    impact research that we do, and I would--I don't know whether
    he was aware of the specific piece of research, but I know that
    he is looking at the research as we all are. I work with the
    research teams on a weekly basis, a daily basis, actually, in
    relation to the safety and security of the people on our
    platform.
        Senator Cruz. Alright. So you said you weren't going to
    plead ignorance. Your very next question is, I don't know. It
    was reported Mark Zuckerberg was personally aware. Have you
    ever discussed this research with Mark Zuckerberg, yes or no?
        Ms. Davis. This particular research, I don't remember
    discussing that with him, no.
        Senator Cruz. OK. A minute ago, you said that this research
    was, and I wrote it down because the phrase really jumped out
    at me--you said, ``this is not bombshell research.'' I found
    that a pretty remarkable statement. The Wall Street Journal
    reported that your Facebook research concluded that 13 percent
    of British users and 6 percent of American users trace their
    desire to kill themselves to Instagram. Is that right? Is that
    a conclusion of your research?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, actually, what the
    research shows, if you look at it more carefully, is that about
    0.5 percent of teens indicate a connection of suicidal ideation
    to their Instagram use, and these are just teens who have that
    ideation. That is 0.5 percent too many, and we have invested
    incredibly heavily in suicide prevention on our platform. For
    example, we have reporting flows specifically dedicated----
        Senator Cruz. So you just suggested a moment ago--you just
    suggested a moment ago that I look at the research more
    carefully. How would you propose I do that? Have you released
    the research?
        Ms. Davis. We have released two of the primary pieces of
    research that are part of that story, and we are looking to
    release additional research.
        Senator Cruz. So was The Wall Street Journal not telling
    the truth when it said, ``13 percent of British users and 6
    percent of American users trace their desire to kill themselves
    to Instagram.'' That is from The Wall Street Journal. Was that
    true or false?
        Ms. Davis. It is a misunderstanding of the research. But I
    would point you to the blog posts that our Vice President of
    Research wrote that goes through--and explains the research.
        Senator Cruz. And has the full research been released or
    not?
        Ms. Davis. Actually, Senator, we have released two of the
    specific studies and we are looking to release more research--
    --
        Senator Cruz. So what is the research you haven't released?
    What are you keeping secret? Because you are telling us if only
    you knew the full research and then at the same time, you are
    not releasing the research. So which is it?
        Ms. Davis. I am not sure I understand your question.
        Senator Cruz. Do you want us to examine the full research
    or not?
        Ms. Davis. Released two primary sources. We are trying to
    release others. I believe you have----
        Senator Cruz. So you have cherry picked the ones you want
    us to see. Have you released the research--I haven't seen this
    research, so if you have released it, I will happily take a
    look at it? Have you released the research that The Wall Street
    Journal said concluded, and this is your own researcher
    concluding, 13 percent of British users and 6 percent of
    American users trace their desire to kill themselves to
    Instagram? Have you released the underlying, the entire
    underlying research behind that?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, again, I disagree with the
    characterization of the research in the Wall Street Journal----
        Senator Cruz. Have you released the entire research behind
    it? Have you released the research behind it? The entire
    research?
        Ms. Davis. We have released the two studies as I have
    said----
        Senator Cruz. So you have cherry picked part of the
    research that you think helps your spin right now. So let me
    ask you, if 6 percent of American users trace their desire to
    kill themselves to Instagram, you just said that's not
    bombshell research. Tell me what would be bombshell research if
    6 percent is not, what would be?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator that is again, a
    mischaracterization of the research. And maybe more
    importantly, what the research shows is that in the small
    instances, in that 0.5 percent, there is actually an
    opportunity for us to help. That teens do find that we can be
    helpful in these instances.
        Senator Cruz. So has Facebook changed your policies after
    you had a report that said teenagers using your product were
    significantly more likely to kill themselves? Did you change
    your policies in any regard to prevent that?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, we have a set of suicide
    prevention experts that we work with on a regular basis, and we
    are constantly updating our policies----
        Senator Cruz. Did you change your policies as a result of
    this research informing you that your products were making
    teenage girls significantly more likely to kill themselves?
        Ms. Davis. We update our policies on an ongoing basis----
        Senator Cruz. You are not answering my question. Did you
    change your policies in response to this research? That is a
    yes or no.
        Ms. Davis. We change--we change our policies based on
    expert guidance, not based on----
        Senator Cruz. So you are not going to answer that question.
    I am just going to ask one final question. Which is your
    company conducted, paid for research that informed you that
    your products were making teenage girls more likely to kill
    themselves. I have a two part question, number one, have you
    quantified how many children have taken their own lives because
    of your products? And number two, as the global head of safety
    for Facebook, what would you say to a mother? What would you
    say to a father who lost a child because of Facebook's
    products?
        Ms. Davis. First of all, Senator Cruz, the research that
    you are referring to is, in fact not causal research. So that
    is important to understand. Second of all, as someone who has
    had a brother die by suicide as well as a close college friend
    who has died by suicide, I would offer any family who has ever
    lost a child, regardless of whether it has to do with Facebook
    or not, in relation to suicide, the utmost of empathy.
        Senator Cruz. So you didn't answer the question if you have
    done any effort to quantify how many children have taken their
    own lives because of Facebook's products. Have you done any,
    has the company done any effort to quantify or put a number to
    it?
        Ms. Davis. Causal research of that kind, Senator, requires
    an extraordinarily long period of time. In fact, we have made
    significant investments to understand----
        Senator Cruz. Is that a no?
        Ms. Davis. Cause and effect----
        Senator Cruz. Is that a no?
        Ms. Davis. This is not causal research, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. So it is a no, you have done no research to
    determine how many children have taken their own lives because
    of Facebook's products.
        Ms. Davis. That is not research that we can do easily. That
    is a long term set of research. That is just--it is not, but--
    --
        Senator Cruz. Well, I am sorry, it is not easy. Let me
    suggest that when you have children taking their own lives, it
    is worth doing. Your characterization that this is not
    bombshell research is inaccurate. And for the parents who are
    losing their children, it is a bombshell in their lives. And I
    understand Facebook needs to make a buck. And so if the
    research isn't easy, apparently you guys aren't doing it. But
    there is a reason people across the country are horrified at
    this behavior.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Senator Lee, you
    are recognized.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Davis, I have long
    been concerned about the targeting of adult-themed ads to
    minors, because adult content or sexually suggestive content
    has unique psychological effects on minors. I think it should
    be addressed when we are talking about teen mental health. And
    so my first question to you is, does Facebook, and by Facebook
    here, I mean Facebook and Instagram, allow these businesses to
    target their advertisements to children using your platform,
    children who are between the ages of 13 and 17? I just need a
    yes or no answer on that. Do you allow businesses to target
    those kinds of advertisements to kids between 13 and 17?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. If you will allow me to
    explain how we do advertising for our app, that would be
    helpful to answer your question----
        Senator Lee. Yes, but I would like a yes or no. If you need
    a sentence to add to that, that is fine. But I would like a yes
    or no, and you can take a sentence or so to do it. But I have
    got a lot of content I want to cover.
        Ms. Davis. So when we do ads to young people, there are
    only three things that advertisers can target around age,
    gender, and location. We also prohibit certain ads to young
    people, including weight loss ads. And one of the reasons that
    we are so invested in looking at things like Instagram youth is
    to try to create more age appropriate experiences.
        Senator Lee. OK----
        Ms. Davis.--give parents' control----
        Senator Lee.--so you do allow some businesses to target
    their advertisements to young children. I get that. I would
    like a ``yes or no'' on this one also. And I really just need
    you to work with me on this, because when you get through
    material--I am not trying to play gotcha. Just need you to give
    me a yes or no. If you need a sentence to explain, that's fine.
    Does Facebook collect data--do either Facebook or Instagram
    collect data or assign interest of adult related material to
    the profiles of children using your platform? By adult related
    material, I mean, you know, things not limited to sexually
    suggestive content, but also things like, I don't know,
    cigarettes, alcohol, or other things that are--that would be
    considered more appropriately themed to adults?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, thank you for your question. We don't
    allow--let me answer certain parts of this as directly as I can
    here. We don't allow tobacco ads to--at all. We don't allow
    them to children either. We don't allow alcohol ads to minors.
    We also have policies against some of the content, the kind of
    content that you are referring to. So, for example, we don't
    allow----
        Senator Lee. Yes. Keep in mind this question--you are
    answering you are answering a different question than the one I
    asked, but we have got to move on because I have got limited
    time. Does Facebook and does Instagram allow businesses to
    target children on your platforms with advertisements that are
    sexually suggestive, sexually explicit, or that contain other
    adult themes or products?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, I would have to understand more what
    you mean, but we don't allow young people to see certain types
    of content and we have age-gating around certain types of
    content. I would have to see specifically what you are talking
    about. And I would be happy to follow up with you for sure.
        Senator Lee. So what is the process then for determining
    what advertisements are age appropriate and permitted by
    Facebook to be targeted at children?
        Ms. Davis. There are category of ads--categories of ads
    that we don't allow for young people. So I have mentioned a few
    of them, tobacco, alcohol, weight loss products. I would be
    happy to get you for the full list.
        Senator Lee. I would very much like to see that. I think
    that would be important to happen, and I also hope that in our
    follow up that you can also let us know what data you are
    collecting about the interests that your users have in those
    age groups. Now, I hear countless stories about how platforms,
    including Instagram, but by no means limited to Instagram, can
    facilitate child exploitation as well as easy access to
    pornography. Each of these platforms have an app that is
    available through the Apple App Store and the Google Play App
    Store, which have an age rating guide to guide consumers to
    what is considered age appropriate content. For example, for
    Apple on Apple's App Store, Instagram and Facebook are rated
    for children 12 and up, and on Google Play, Instagram and
    Facebook are both rated T for teen. Is that 12 plus rating from
    Apple and the teen rating from Google, is the recommendation
    that Facebook made to Apple and Google for suggesting the
    operating--in other words, did those age ratings come from
    Facebook? I can't hear you. I think you are on mute. Can you
    unmute? I need you to get her unmute.
        Ms. Davis. Sorry about that, Senator. This is not
    necessarily my area of expertise, but I will answer to the best
    of my understanding. We don't submit the age and say this is
    the age of our app. We actually submit a form that we fill out,
    and then an app rating is assigned to our app.
        Senator Lee. Assigned by whom? By the app stores?
        Ms. Davis. Again, this is not exactly my area of expertise,
    and I am probably not the best person to answer you, but I am
    happy to get more information. I think it is an interesting
    line of questioning and I don't mean to not be able to answer
    for you.
        Senator Lee. OK. You know, a lot of these questions that I
    am asking relate to the fact that due to the allegations that
    we are hearing about today, about problematic content,
    including content that is sexually explicit or suggestive or in
    some cases adult themed, if not sexually explicit or
    suggestive.
        In light of the fact that that content does exist, why is
    there such a disparity between the app's rating on the one
    hand, and the content that is available on the platform on the
    other? And what are you doing to promote appropriate age
    ratings and transparency about the content that is on your
    platforms, taking into account that you have got a whole lot of
    teenage and child users, and that not all of that content is
    appropriate for them?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, I am glad you are asking this question,
    because as a parent, this is one of the things that I thought
    about quite a bit in relation to raising my teenage daughter in
    terms of access, particularly to sexually suggestive content,
    as well as content that I thought could--across media and
    social media and broadly impact her sense of her own body image
    and well-being.
        And one of the things that we committed to when we paused
    Instagram youth, was actually giving parents supervisory tools
    in relation to their teen that is on Instagram, in part for
    exactly what you are talking about, which is to give them the
    ability to better manage their child's experience, to have
    visibility into it, to actually potentially control portions
    and meaningfully control their child's experience, and
    certainly to give them the visibility to make--to set
    boundaries.
        Senator Lee. Right. But on the existing apps, the existing
    apps have an age rating. And so I really would like to know
    whether you recommended those age ratings, and regardless of
    whether you recommended them, whether you think those are
    appropriate, given the availability of content that is not
    suitable for children?
        Ms. Davis. We do not recommend those ratings and we are
    very focused on building age appropriate experiences. It is why
    we are investing in AI, and it is why we are looking at
    Instagram youth. And it is actually why we have put these
    supervisory tools, are going to be launching the supervisory
    tools on Instagram, because like you, we care very much that
    parents can help determine what their child should see and not
    see.
        Senator Lee. OK, I am out of time, but I want to just leave
    you with a parting question. Are those are those ratings
    appropriate? Let's say Apple's rating, 12 on up. Are they
    appropriate for Facebook or Instagram or any other platform
    like them, or not really another platform like them, but if
    there were, a platform that like Facebook and Instagram does
    allow for minors to access, in some cases, be targeted using
    material that is not appropriate for children? So are those age
    ratings appropriate?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, I would really love for you to invite
    Apple to answer those questions. And I would love to hear from
    Apple----
        Senator Lee. Oh, believe me, I have asked Apple this
    question many times. I have had many conversations with Apple,
    and I will continue to have conversations with Apple. But I am
    asking your opinion as a Facebook executive?
        Ms. Davis. I don't have visibility into their--into the
    decisions, the decisions that they make, but what we do have
    control over is building age appropriate experiences and that
    is what we are trying to do. So we are trying to actually
    develop experiences where parents have supervisory control,
    where under the age of 13 we can actually ensure age
    appropriate content. We are putting in policies in place on our
    apps who are 13 over to ensure that kids don't have access to
    inappropriate content. This is all part of our ongoing work and
    our commitment to families.
        Senator Lee. The term attractive nuisance, the term used in
    the common law keeps coming to mind. I wish we could talk more
    about attractive nuisances, but my time has expired. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Lee. And we will be
    inviting other tech companies to testify. And I hope that they
    will respond to the kinds of questions that you have raised
    here, Senator Lee. Just a few final questions. You were asked
    about possible retaliatory action. And you said, I think that
    it is not who we are, there would be no retaliation against a
    whistleblower. Will you commit there will be no legal action,
    based on the disclosure of the whistleblower's documents?
        Ms. Davis. I am aware that there are rules in terms of the
    Senate, and we will comply with those rules.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am asking you whether there will be
    any legal action based on the disclosure of the documents,
    either from the whistleblower or anyone else publicly?
        Ms. Davis. We have committed to not retaliating for them
    coming to the Senate.
        Senator Blumenthal. So that is a yes, there will be no
    legal action based on the disclosure of documents, Facebook
    documents, that is a yes? Correct?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, we have committed to not retaliating
    for this individual coming--speaking to the Senate.
        Senator Blumenthal. Can you tell me, Ms. Davis, following
    up on Senator Blackburn's question. Regarding these documents
    that have been disclosed publicly, all thousands of them, not
    just the two that Facebook disclosed last night, have you
    locked down these documents, shutting out other Facebook
    employees?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, it is not my understanding that we have
    done it, but I--no, it is not my understanding that we have
    done that.
        Senator Blumenthal. You have not. That is your testimony?
        Ms. Davis. I just am not the person, the right person to
    ask, and I can certainly follow up and get an answer for you,
    but it is not my understanding of anything like that.
        Senator Blumenthal. I would like you to confirm, if you
    would, that those documents, the research, the findings and
    recommendations are available to others at Facebook. And I am
    just going to ask you finally, you have declined to commit that
    any more of those documents will be made available. Who in the
    company will get back to us in response to that question?
        Ms. Davis. We will be sure to follow up with your office. I
    will take it back to the team to work with your office and come
    back to you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit to ending Finsta?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, again, let me explain, we don't
    actually--we don't actually do Finsta. What Finsta refers to is
    young people setting up accounts where they may want to have
    more privacy. You refer to it as privacy from their parents.
    What--in my interaction with teens, what I found is that they
    sometimes like to have an account where they can interact just
    with their--with a smaller group of friends.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, Finsta is one of your products or
    services. We are not talking about Google or Apple. It is
    Facebook, correct?
        Ms. Davis. Finsta is slang for a type of account. It is
    not----
        Senator Blumenthal. OK, will you end that type of account?
        Ms. Davis. We--I am not sure I understand exactly what you
    are asking. What I can say is that based on what we have seen
    in terms of teens using those kinds of accounts, we have
    actually given them additional privacy options to address those
    kinds of issues, where they want more privacy so they can have
    more privacy.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I don't think that is an answer
    to my question. I think we have reached the end of our hearing.
    We have another vote. I don't think any of my colleagues have
    any other questions. So sorry, Senator Sullivan.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am so glad you are here. I am glad I
    ran into you on the floor.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes. Thank you for holding this hearing.
    And I think it is a really important hearing. And I know you
    care a lot about it. I care a lot about it. So, Ms. Davis, it
    is probably--well, I want to ask you, but I have three
    daughters, and when I read the--when I read the Wall Street
    Journal story, I was shocked, but, you know, in some ways, not
    surprised because I think we have seen a lot of this. So when
    you are looking at your applications, your services, do you
    balance the mental health needs of Americans versus the
    addictive nature of the products that you sell?
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. I think you were going to
    ask me whether if I have children. I do. I have a 23 year old
    daughter. First of all, I don't agree with the characterization
    of our product, but in fact, we do think quite seriously and--
    --
        Senator Sullivan. What don't you--sorry, I am going to
    interrupt here. What don't you agree with I just said?
    Addictive nature? I said addictive nature versus mental health.
    What two phrases did you not agree with?
        Ms. Davis. So I disagree with calling our product
    addictive. I also think that is not how we build products. But
    to your question----
        Senator Sullivan. No, I mean--sorry, I am going to drill
    down on that. You don't think you are--you don't think your
    products are addictive in terms of teenagers constantly wanting
    to be engaged in social media?
        Ms. Davis. Senator, as a parent and as someone who talks to
    parents quite a bit, it is--certainly parents, all parents, I
    haven't met a parent who doesn't think about the time that
    their child spends on their phone. And one of the things
    actually that we have done to actually to try to address that
    is to make people aware of how much time they are spending.
    There is a dashboard where they can see it. They can actually
    set a reminder to let them know that they have been on so they
    will get off.
        In addition, we are looking at something called take a
    break, which would prompt somebody when they have been on to
    take a break. So that, I think gets at your questions, but I
    want to----
        Senator Sullivan. So is you--let me--I want to--well, I
    will let you get to mental health, but I want to drill down on
    this addictive element. But isn't part of your business model
    to have more eyeballs for a longer amount of time engaged using
    your services?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator that is not actually how
    we build our products. In fact, we made changes to our news
    feed to allow for more meaningful interactions, knowing that
    that would impact the time spent. In fact, it did impact the
    time spent by about 50 million hours per day. But we did it
    anyway because we were trying to build a positive, more
    positive experience.
        Senator Sullivan. So can you address the issue of mental
    health? Were you aware of these mental health challenges for
    teenage girls? I am sure you have seen the statistics more
    broadly about suicides for teenage American females. What are
    you doing to address that? And were you aware of these
    challenges, according to The Wall Street Journal that was in
    that study?
        Ms. Davis. Certainly, Senator. I am very aware of the
    issues that teens face. I used to be a middle school and high
    school teacher and had a teenage daughter and was a teen
    myself. And being a teen comes with some--comes with
    challenges. And that is reflected sometimes in our platform.
    And what we have done, and why we did this research was to
    identify where those challenges may be on our platform and how
    we could potentially change our product to help.
        What we saw with that research was that in out of 12
    issues, really challenging issues, issues like anxiety,
    depression, loneliness, sadness, that out of 11 out of 12
    teens, more teens said that they thought that their experience
    on the platform was helpful than harmful. Now, the teens where
    they found it harmful----
        Senator Sullivan. But do you believe that? I don't----
        Ms. Davis. We actually want to make those changes. We want
    to make changes to actually provide them with a better
    experience----
        Senator Sullivan. You--sorry, I am going to interrupt. My
    time is getting shorter. Do you have evidence that those
    issues, isolation, mental health, do you have evidence that
    those challenges and mental health challenges are actually
    helped by using, for example, Instagram, more or less. Are you
    telling me that the use of your products, actually limits those
    challenges? I think it is almost obvious that they increase
    those challenges. So what is your testimony today? I thought
    you said that it actually reduces that, is that what you just
    said? Because I find that quite remarkable.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. Actually, there is a blog
    post that our Vice President of Research has released on this.
    I want to be really careful that this research is not causal
    research, it is what teens said about their experiences on our
    platform. And the numbers that you are talking to speak
    specifically to teens who identified as suffering from these
    particular issues. I think what is really important here,
    though, is that this research actually is being used to make
    product changes, to identify places where we can be more
    supportive of teens.
        So, for example, take a break is something I mentioned
    earlier in some of the questioning. This is something that
    would surface to a teen who may be online for a long period of
    time and give them an opportunity to take a break so they don't
    rabbit hole down a direction that may be not positive. But we
    are also looking at something called nudging, where we would
    nudge them toward uplifting or inspiring content because they
    told us that that content can be helpful.
        Our goal here is to really--right now, the research shows
    that 8 out of 10 teens say that they have a positive to neutral
    experience. Our goal is for that to actually be 10 out of 10
    and for it to be positive. We want to provide a better
    experience for teens.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, let me--let me end here. I am going
    over my time, but I don't see any other Senators waiting for
    questions, and I know the Chairman is going to come back to
    wrap this up, but look, I think the issues of mental health, of
    depression, of isolation, I think the social media engagement,
    particularly for teenagers, enhances these challenges, and I
    think we are going to see this more and more studies.
        And you mentioned take a break. I am not a big fan of the
    Chinese Communist Party. As a matter of fact, most things they
    do, I instinctively disagree with. But you may have seen
    recently that they have--way they do things, it wasn't a law, I
    guess it was an edict from on high from the party and Xi
    Jinping, but they have told Chinese teenagers to take a real
    break and to limit the amount of time that a teenager in China
    can spend on social media or gaming or things like this.
        Do you think the U.S. Government needs to look at doing
    something like that, an edict, if you guys won't? I personally
    believe that we are going to look back like 20 years from now
    and see the massive social mental health challenges that were
    created by this era when teenagers had phones in their faces
    starting in seventh and eighth grade and continue to have them,
    and we are going to look back and we are going to go, what in
    the hell were we thinking?
        Maybe it might be the one time where we say, why didn't we,
    like the Chinese Communist Party, say take a break. What do you
    think about the Chinese new edict on taking a break for over a
    billion people, and should the U.S. Government think about
    doing something like that? Not relying on you guys, because I
    do think your business model in part is eyeballs and time spent
    online with your services.
        I mean, I think that is pretty obvious. If you have less
    viewers and less time, you are going to get more--you are going
    to get less revenue. So, can you really on your own help people
    take a break or do we, the U.S. Government have to help people
    take a break like the Chinese are doing right now?
        Ms. Davis. Respectfully, Senator, I think that there is
    some complexity here. So, for example, during COVID, young
    people used apps like ours to actually stay connected. It was a
    lifeline for them. They couldn't go to school. They couldn't go
    to their colleges. They couldn't do their graduations. Social
    apps actually provided them with a way to stay connected to
    their friends and their family. So I think it is a bit more
    complex than that.
        That said, I think I would certainly like for apps like
    ours to build experiences where parents can actually have some
    control over the time that their children are spending, similar
    to what we did in Messenger Kids. I think parents would far
    more welcome the ability to set time controls than to have an
    edict on high tell them how much, or how to parent their
    children.
        Senator Sullivan. So what do you think of the Chinese
    edict? I know you guys aren't allowed in China, but what do you
    think of it?
        Ms. Davis. As a parent, I would much prefer to be able to
    determine my child's time online than to have China tell me how
    to raise my child.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Fair enough. I am going to move to
    recess this hearing for a few minutes until the Chairman comes
    back. So, Ms. Davis, if you can just hold on for a few more
    minutes, the Chairman will be back in, I think, about just a
    couple of minutes. So for now, this hearing stands in recess
    until the arrival back of the Chairman.
        [Recess.]
        Senator Blumenthal. We are back from a brief recess. I am
    hopeful that our witness is still online and with us. I was
    going to offer her the opportunity, if she has anything to add
    in conclusion.
        Ms. Davis. Sorry, Senator, was that directed to me?
        Senator Blumenthal. Yes.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you. Really, the only thing that I would
    add is that I look forward to the hearings where TikTok and
    others will come. I think it is important for us to hear from
    companies that have already started providing these types of
    apps to young people under the age of 13. TikTok, I think does.
    YouTube, Google does. It would be good to understand what they
    are trying to solve for. As an industry, we face a real issue,
    and we are trying to figure out a way how to best serve young
    people in a way that actually meets the needs of their parents
    and families.
        Senator Blumenthal. I take your point, Ms. Davis, and
    TikTok, along with others, will be invited, have been invited
    and others will be here. At this point we are not specifying
    who. But I would emphasize that each company bears its own
    responsibility. The race to the bottom has to stop. Facebook,
    in effect, has let it. And if Facebook can't hold itself
    accountable, Congress must act. The record so far is Facebook
    can't be trusted to hold itself accountable. Nothing personal
    to you.
        And you have, in fact said that some amorphous team will
    make these decisions about disclosure, about Instagram for Kids
    on pause, about potential legal action. These kinds of
    decisions, ultimately, I am assuming, will be made by Mark
    Zuckerberg. But the point is right now, Facebook has failed to
    hold itself accountable, and Congress and the public must do
    so. So we are concluding this hearing and the record will be
    kept open for a week in case any of my colleagues have written
    questions.
        Thank you very much, Ms. Davis. We really appreciate your
    participating. And we look forward to your responses to the
    questions that you said that you would respond to. Thank you
    very much. This hearing is adjourned.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you for the opportunity.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                 Antigone Davis
        Instagram for Kids. Facebook was creating a version of Instagram
    that targeted kids under 13. The company announced recently that it is
    pausing that program for now. At the hearing, I asked how Facebook
    plans to determine when and how to ``unpause'' the program. Please
    respond to the following:

        Question 1. What specific criteria will Facebook use to determine
    whether to ``unpause'' this plan?
        Answer. We started our work to build an Instagram experience for
    tweens (aged 10-12) to address an important problem seen across our
    industry: kids are getting phones younger and younger, misrepresenting
    their age, and downloading apps that are meant for those 13 or older.
    We believe that it is better for parents to have the option to give
    tweens access to a version of Instagram that is designed for them--
    where parents can supervise and control their experience--than to have
    them lie about their age to access a platform that wasn't built for
    them.
        We were working on delivering experiences that are age-appropriate
    and give parents and guardians visibility and control over what their
    tweens are doing online, like an Instagram experience for tweens. Other
    companies also have recognized these types of issues and built
    experiences for kids. For example, YouTube and TikTok both have
    versions of their apps for those under 13. The principle is the same:
    it's much better for parents and guardians to have the option for their
    kids to use a safer, more age-appropriate version of social media apps
    than the alternative.
        To be clear, our intention was not for this version to be the same
    as Instagram today. It was never meant for younger kids, but for tweens
    (aged 10-12). It would have required parental permission to join, we
    would not have shown ads, and it would have had age-appropriate content
    and features. Parents would have been able to supervise the time their
    tweens spent on the app and oversee who could message them, who could
    follow them, and who they could follow.
        While we stand by the need to develop this experience, we recently
    announced that we are pausing this project. This will give us time to
    work with parents, experts, policymakers, and regulators to listen to
    their concerns and to demonstrate the value and importance of this
    project for tweens online today. Any decision to resume work on the
    project will be made in collaboration with various teams across the
    company and with the guidance and input of parents, experts,
    policymakers, and regulators.
        Finally, while we're pausing our development of an Instagram
    experience for tweens, we'll continue our work to allow parents to
    oversee their teens' accounts by expanding parental supervision tools
    to teen accounts (aged 13 and over) on Instagram. These new features,
    which parents and teens can opt into, will give parents the tools to
    meaningfully shape their teens' experience. We'll have more to share on
    this in the coming months.

        Question 2. Ms. Davis testified that a group of Facebook employees
    would be the decision makers as to whether to ``unpause'' the program
    for ``Instagram Kids.'' Please identify all members of that group.
        Answer. As discussed in the answer to your Question 1, any decision
    to resume work on the project will be made in collaboration with
    various teams across the company and with the guidance and input of
    parents, experts, policymakers, and regulators. As Head of Instagram,
    Adam Mosseri will ultimately make the decision to resume, in
    consultation with members of Meta's leadership team.

        Question 3. Ms. Davis also testified that Facebook is consulting
    with more outside experts, including parents, about ``Instagram Kids.''
    Please name all the groups and individuals that Facebook currently
    plans to reach out to for this purpose.
        Answer. Please see the response to your Question 1.

        Question 4. Will Facebook's Board of Directors have any role in
    making this decision to unpause ``Instagram Kids''? If so, describe
    what role the Board will have.
        Answer. Please see the response to your Question 1.

        Question 5. Please name the individual who has the final authority
    to ``unpause'' the ``Instagram Kids'' program.
        Answer. Please see the response to your Question 2.

        Profits. Last quarter, Facebook publicly reported that its
    advertising revenue per user in the United States and Canada was
    $51.58.

        Question 1. How much of the advertising revenue per user in the
    United States and Canada came from each of (a) Facebook, (b) Instagram,
    (c) Snapchat, and (d) all other Facebook services?
        Answer. We do not break out this information publicly in this way.
    We publicly report our Average Revenue per User (ARPU) on Facebook,
    both for advertising and other revenue, broken out by geographic
    region. In the U.S. and Canada, Facebook's ARPU from advertising
    (calculated by dividing Meta's advertising revenue by Facebook's
    monthly active users) was $51.58 in the second quarter of 2021 and
    $50.34 in the third quarter of 2021. We also report the Average Revenue
    per Person (ARPP) across Meta's family of apps, both for advertising
    and other revenue. Meta's ARPP from advertising across its family of
    apps was $8.21 in the second quarter of 2021 and $7.98 in the third
    quarter of 2021. For more information, please see our latest earnings
    presentation (https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_finan
    cials/2021/q3/FB-Earnings-Presentation-Q3-2021.pdf). Snapchat is not a
    Meta platform.

        Question 2. How much of the revenue per user came from users under
    18?

       Please provide a breakdown by (a) Facebook, (b) Instagram,
            (c) Snapchat, and (d) all other Facebook services.

       If precise figures are unavailable, explain why and provide
            estimates.

        Answer. We do not break out this information publicly.

        Value of Young Users. The Wall Street Journal reported on a
    document that quoted internal Facebook research, asking ``Why do we
    care about tweens?'' and answering its own question: ``They are a
    valuable but untapped audience.''

        Question 1. Why are children ages 10-12 so valuable to Facebook?
        Answer. We require a minimum age of 13 to use Facebook and
    Instagram in the U.S. It is common for social media companies to try to
    understand how teens and preteens use technology. Like all technology
    companies, we want to appeal to the next generation, but to be clear,
    we do not knowingly attempt to recruit people who aren't old enough to
    use our apps.
        We started our work to build an Instagram experience for tweens
    (aged 10-12) to address an important problem seen across our industry:
    kids are getting phones younger and younger, misrepresenting their age,
    and downloading apps that are meant for those 13 or older. We believe
    that it is better for parents to have the option to give tweens access
    to a version of Instagram that is designed for them--where parents can
    supervise and control their experience--than to have them lie about
    their age to access a platform that wasn't built for them.
        We were working on delivering experiences that are age-appropriate
    and give parents and guardians visibility and control over what their
    tweens are doing online, like an Instagram experience for tweens. Other
    companies also have recognized these types of issues and built
    experiences for kids. For example, YouTube and TikTok both have
    versions of their apps for those under 13. The principle is the same:
    it's much better for parents and guardians to have the option for their
    kids to use a safer, more age-appropriate version of social media apps
    than the alternative.

        Question 2. What is the lifetime value of a user for kids who start
    using Facebook products before age 13?
        Answer. Please see the response to your Question 1. We prohibit
    users under the age of 13 from using Facebook or Instagram. When we
    learn an underage user has created an account, we remove them from the
    platform. We do not calculate a lifetime value of Messenger Kids users.

        Question 3. Does Facebook have any analysis that examines the
    financial value of users to the Company?

       Describe all such analyses involving users in the United
            States, including but not limited to the expected revenue per
            user for those who start using its products before age 13.

       If any of those analyses have been presented to any officer
            or director at Facebook in the last 18 months, please identify
            to whom the analysis was presented and provide a copy of it.

        Answer. We publicly report our Average Revenue per User (ARPU) on
    Facebook, both for advertising and other revenue, broken out by
    geographic region. In the U.S. and Canada, Facebook's ARPU from
    advertising was $51.58 in the second quarter of 2021 and $50.34 in the
    third quarter of 2021. We also report the Average Revenue per Person
    (ARPP) across Meta's family of apps, both for advertising and other
    revenue. Meta's ARPP from advertising across its family of apps was
    $8.21 in the second quarter of 2021 and $7.98 in the third quarter of
    2021. For more information, please see our latest earnings presentation
    (https://s21.q4cdn.com/3996807
    38/files/doc<financials/2021/q3/FB-Earnings-Presentation-Q3-
    2021.pdf). We do not break out this information publicly by age.

        Underage Instagram Users. Ms. Davis testified that between June and
    August of this year, Facebook removed over 600,000 Instagram accounts
    of kids under 13.

        Question 1. In the same time period, how many Facebook accounts did
    the company remove for kids under 13?
        Answer. In the third quarter of 2021, Meta removed more than 2.6
    million accounts on Facebook and 850,000 accounts on Instagram because
    they were unable to meet our minimum age requirement.
        Understanding people's age on the Internet is a complex challenge
    across our industry, and we already have various methods of finding and
    removing accounts used by people who misrepresent their age. For
    example, anyone can report an underage account to us. Our content
    reviewers are also trained to flag reported accounts that appear to be
    used by people who are underage. If these people are unable to prove
    they meet our minimum age requirements, we delete their accounts.
        In addition, we've developed artificial intelligence technology
    that allows us to estimate people's ages, like if someone is below or
    above 18. We train the technology using multiple signals. We look at
    things like people wishing you a happy birthday and the age written in
    those messages--for example, ``Happy 21st Bday!'' or ``Happy
    Quinceanera.'' We're also building technology to find and remove
    accounts belonging to people under the age of 13. This technology isn't
    perfect, and we're always working to improve it, but that's why it's
    important we use it alongside many other signals to understand people's
    ages.
        We're also in discussions with the wider technology industry on how
    we can work together to share information in privacy-preserving ways
    that help apps establish whether people are over a specific age. One
    area that we believe has real promise is working with operating system
    (OS) providers, Internet browsers, and other providers so they can
    share information to help apps establish whether someone is of an
    appropriate age.
        This has the dual benefit of helping developers keep underage
    people off their apps, while removing the need for people to go through
    different and potentially cumbersome age verification processes across
    multiple apps and services. While it's ultimately up to individual apps
    and websites to enforce their age policies and comply with their legal
    obligations, collaboration with OS providers, Internet browsers, and
    others would be a helpful addition to those efforts.

        Question 2. Does Facebook have any internal estimates within the
    last 18 months of how many kids under 13 have accounts on any or all of
    its services, excluding Messenger Kids?

       If so, please provide those internal estimates, broken down
            by service if available, and identify who made the estimates.

        Answer. We have limited applicable information at our disposal to
    provide this estimate because, per our Terms of Service, people under
    13 are not allowed on our platforms. As discussed in the answer to your
    Question 1, when we learn that someone under 13 years old is on our
    platform, we remove them.

        Question 3. Please name the individual at Facebook who has ultimate
    responsibility for the company's policies and practices about removing
    accounts associated with kids under 13.
        Answer. As discussed in the answers to your previous questions,
    when we learn that someone under 13 years old is on Facebook or
    Instagram, we remove them. We develop our policies and products not
    only to comply with COPPA but also to meet and exceed the high
    standards of parents and families. Our policies are developed by our
    policy team in close consultation with our safety teams, compliance
    teams, community operations teams, and more--and we consult with
    external stakeholders and experts in fields like child safety, privacy,
    technology, public safety, and more.
        In terms of enforcement, we have over 40,000 people working on
    safety and security, including content reviewers. Our content reviewers
    are also trained to flag reported accounts that appear to be used by
    people under 13 years old, and anyone can report an underage account to
    us.

        Prevalence of Eating Disorder Content. Ms. Davis testified that
    Facebook tries to reduce the prevalence of content about disordered
    eating on its sites.

        Question 1. There have been reports that accounts registered as
    belonging to a 13 year old girl with an interest in weight loss and
    dieting had Instagram's algorithm promote content from accounts titled
    ``I have to be thin,'' ``Eternally starving,'' and ``I want to be
    perfect.'' Please explain how the algorithm generates these results.
        Answer. We prohibit content that promotes or encourages eating
    disorders, and we removed the accounts shared with us by the media for
    breaking these rules. We have also removed the violating accounts
    identified by Senator Blumenthal and his staff that we were made aware
    of. We use technology and reports from our community to find and remove
    this content as quickly as we can, and we're always working to improve.
    We'll continue to follow expert advice from academics and mental health
    organizations, like the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA), to
    strike the difficult balance between allowing people to share their
    mental health experiences and protecting them from potentially harmful
    content.
        To be clear, our policies prohibit any content that celebrates,
    encourages, or promotes self-injury, including eating disorders. In the
    third quarter of 2021, we removed about 12 million pieces of suicide
    and self-injury content from Facebook and Instagram; we detected over
    96 percent of that content before people reported it to us. Most of the
    content we remove is material that we find ourselves through automated
    systems. A significant portion of that is detected and removed when it
    is uploaded. In some cases, content requires human review to understand
    the context in which material was posted. We're constantly working,
    including with global experts, to improve in this important area. For
    example, on Instagram, we recently created a dedicated option to report
    eating disorder content to make it easier to report violating content
    and provide resources to those who may be struggling. While people have
    always been able to report content related to eating disorders, users
    will now see a separate dedicated option to do so.
        However, we do allow people to share their own experiences and
    journeys around self-image and body acceptance on our platforms because
    we know, and experts agree, that these stories can prompt important
    conversations and provide community support. But we also know such
    content can be triggering for some. To address this, when someone tries
    to search for or share self-harm related content on Facebook or
    Instagram, we blur potentially triggering images and point people to
    helpful resources. Additionally, if someone tries searching for terms
    related to eating disorders, we share dedicated resources, including
    contacts for local eating disorder hotlines in certain countries. In
    the United States, for example, we surface expert informed resources,
    including from NEDA. These resources will also be surfaced if someone
    tries sharing this content. Additionally, for those concerned that a
    person's post suggests they may need help with these issues, our Help
    Center provides information about eating disorders and guidance to help
    start a conversation with someone who may be struggling with eating
    disorders. We also provide a list of recommended Dos and Don'ts
    (developed with NEDA) for talking to someone about their eating
    disorder.
        We are also taking steps to protect vulnerable users on Instagram
    from being exposed to content that is permissible (but possibly
    triggering) by making it harder to find. We remove such posts from
    places where people discover new content, including in our Explore
    page, and we are not recommending accounts identified as posting such
    content. In addition, when someone starts typing a known hashtag or
    account related to suicide and self-harm into search, we are also
    working to restrict results. Additionally, our Help Center provides
    information about eating disorders and how to support someone who may
    be struggling with these issues.

        Question 2. What has Facebook done to remove accounts that promote
    eating disorders?
        Answer. As discussed in the response to your previous question, our
    policies prohibit any content that celebrates, encourages, or promotes
    self-injury, including eating disorders. In the third quarter of 2021,
    we removed about 12 million pieces of suicide and self-injury content
    from Facebook and Instagram; we detected over 96 percent of that
    content before people reported it to us. And we're constantly working,
    including with global experts, to improve in this important area. For
    example, on Instagram, we recently created a dedicated option to report
    eating disorder content to make it easier to report violating content
    and provide resources to those who may be struggling. While people have
    always been able to report content related to eating disorders, users
    will now see a separate dedicated option to do so.
        We enforce our policies using a combination of reports from our
    community, human review, and artificial intelligence. Most of the
    content we remove is material that we find ourselves through automated
    systems. A significant portion of that is detected and removed when it
    is uploaded. In some cases, content requires human review to understand
    the context in which material was posted. Today, we have 40,000 people
    working on safety and security and have invested more than $13 billion
    in teams and technology in this area since 2016. We have approximately
    15,000 reviewers globally who work every day to review content in line
    with our policies and keep Facebook a safe place for all our users.
    These reviewers go through training to ensure they understand our
    policies and can enforce those policies accurately and consistently at-
    scale. Our reviewers are audited to ensure quality enforcement.

        Question 3. Please name the individual at Facebook who has ultimate
    responsibility for reducing harmful conduct related to eating
    disorders.
        Answer. As discussed in the response to your previous question, we
    have 40,000 people working on safety and security. Decisions related to
    how to reduce this content are made in collaboration with various teams
    across the company and, as appropriate, with the guidance and input of
    parents and experts.
        While we already work in partnership with experts to understand how
    to support those affected by eating disorders, there's always more we
    can learn. That's why we're hosting feedback sessions with community
    leaders and experts globally to learn more about emerging issues in the
    eating disorders space and new approaches for offering support. We also
    worked with NEDA in 2021 to share programming during National Eating
    Disorders Awareness Week in the U.S. for the third year in a row.
    Throughout the week, community leaders shared Reels to encourage
    positive body image, push back against weight stigma and harmful
    stereotypes, and emphasize that all bodies are worthy and deserve to be
    celebrated.

        Question 4. Has Facebook taken any action in light of these recent
    news reports? If so, please describe what actions were taken, and
    please name the individual(s) who decided to take those actions.
        Answer. We have a long track record of using our internal
    research--as well as external research and close collaboration with our
    Safety Advisory Board, Youth Advisors and additional experts, and
    organizations--to inform changes to our apps and provide resources for
    the people who use them. Our research demonstrates our commitment to
    understanding complex and difficult issues young people may struggle
    with and informs the work we do to help those experiencing these
    issues. In fact, we invest in this research to proactively identify
    where we can improve. For example, on Instagram:

       We've introduced new resources to support those struggling
            with body image issues and created a dedicated reporting flow
            for eating disorder-related content.

       We worked with the JED Foundation to create expert and
            research-backed educational resources for teens on how to
            navigate experiences like social comparison on Instagram.

       We updated our policies to prohibit graphic content related
            to suicide and took steps to protect vulnerable people from
            being exposed to content related to suicide and self-injury
            more generally in places like Explore.

       We launched Restrict, which allows people to protect
            themselves from bullying without the fear of retaliation.

       To prevent bullying, we've created comment warnings when
            people try to post potentially offensive comments. So far,
            we've found that, about 50 percent of the time, people edited
            or deleted their comments based on these warnings.

       We launched Hidden Words, which allows people to
            automatically filter Direct Message (DM) requests that contain
            offensive words, phrases, and emojis into a Hidden Folder that
            they never have to open if they don't want to. This feature
            also filters DM requests that are likely to be spammy or low-
            quality.

        Research also informs our work on issues like negative body image,
    and in September 2021, we announced that we're exploring two new ideas
    on Instagram. First, from our research, we're starting to understand
    the types of content that might contribute to negative social
    comparison, and we're exploring ``nudges'' to prompt people to look at
    different topics if they're repeatedly looking at this type of content.
    We're cautiously optimistic that these nudges will help point people
    towards content that inspires and uplifts them. Second, we are
    launching a feature called ``Take a Break,'' which will enable people
    to put their account on pause and take a moment to consider whether the
    time they're spending on our platform is meaningful.
        We are committed to learning even more about these important
    issues, and we welcome the opportunity to work together with Congress
    and others in the industry to develop industry-wide standards.

        Awareness of Internal Research. Ms. Davis testified that she was
    aware of the internal research Facebook had done on body image and
    other mental health issues related to teens and Instagram. Please
    respond to the following:

        Question 1. Describe how Ms. Davis became aware of the research,
    including who made her aware and when. Include the date(s) she became
    aware of the studies, approximating if necessary.
        Answer. As Meta's Global Head of Safety, Ms. Davis and her team
    work closely with Meta's researchers on an ongoing basis to understand
    the issues affecting teens on our platforms and to improve their
    experiences, as do many other teams and company leaders.

        Question 2. What steps did she take when she became aware of the
    research?
        Answer. We take the issues of safety and well-being on our
    platforms very seriously, especially for the youngest people who use
    our services. We are committed to working with parents and families, as
    well as experts in child development, online safety, and children's
    health and media, to ensure we are building better products for
    families. That means building tools that promote meaningful
    interactions and helping people manage their time on our platform. It
    also means giving parents the information, resources, and tools they
    need to help their children develop healthy and safe online habits. And
    it means continued research in this area.
        We employ and work with researchers from backgrounds that include
    clinical psychology, child psychology, public health, education,
    anthropology, and communication, and we collaborate with top scholars
    to navigate various complex issues, including those related to well-
    being for users on Facebook and Instagram. Meta also awards grants to
    external researchers in order to help us better understand how
    experiences on Facebook and Instagram relate to the safety and health
    of our community, including teen communities. And because safety and
    well-being aren't just Meta issues, but societal issues, we work with
    experts in the field to look more broadly at the impact of mobile
    technology and social media on children and how to better support them
    as they transition through different stages of life.
        Like many other large companies and especially other technology
    companies, we do research to hold up a mirror to ourselves and ask
    difficult questions about how people interact with our platforms. That
    means our insights often shed light on problems, but they inspire new
    ideas and changes. Most importantly, we do research to make our
    products better. We evaluate possible solutions and work every day to
    make our platform a positive and safer experience for our community.
        For example, our research has informed a number of steps we've
    taken, including:

       We created a dedicated reporting flow for eating disorder-
            related content after learning some people were having
            difficulty reporting such content using our prior flow.

       We launched Hidden Words, which allows people to
            automatically filter Direct Message (DM) requests that contain
            offensive words, phrases, and emojis into a Hidden Folder that
            they never have to open if they don't want to. This feature
            also filters DM requests that are likely to be spammy or low-
            quality.

       To prevent bullying, we've created comment warnings when
            people try to post potentially offensive comments. So far,
            we've found that, about 50 percent of the time, people edited
            or deleted their comments based on these warnings.

       We rolled out Your Time on Facebook, which we launched in
            August of 2018, centralizing tools and options for people to
            manage their time. In April of 2020, we added Quiet Mode to
            this, which mutes most push notifications. If you try to open
            Facebook while in Quiet Mode, you'll be reminded that you set
            this time aside to limit your time using the app.

       We launched Control Your Notifications, which includes
            shortcuts to help you manage your notifications. It includes an
            option to mute all push notifications as well as manage the
            ``red dots'' in the shortcuts menu. Red dots can be removed
            from Marketplace, Groups, News, and the ``hamburger'' menu.

       We added See Your Time, which shows usage time per day,
            daytime/nighttime, and app visits. You can also get weekly
            usage updates and easy access to your activity log.

       We have also launched a series of tools and features on
            Instagram to help people control the time they spend on the
            app. This includes things like the ability to ``mute'' accounts
            to control what posts you see, a feature called ``You're All
            Caught Up'' that lets you know when you've seen all the recent
            content in your Feed, and time management tools where you can
            see your total time on the app each day and set a daily
            reminder that alerts you when you've reached a set amount of
            time on Instagram.

        These are just examples of the types of products and controls that
    we have launched publicly or are continuing to explore based on this
    research. And we're constantly working to improve. For example, we're
    exploring two new ideas: encouraging people to look at other topics if
    they're dwelling on content that might contribute to negative social
    comparison, and a feature called ``Take a Break,'' which allows people
    to put their account on pause and take a moment to consider whether the
    time they're spending is meaningful.

        Question 3. Did she make any recommendations about changing
    Facebook's products in response to the research?

       Please describe those recommendations in detail.

       Who helped her develop those recommendations? Please provide
            their names.

        Answer. Please see the response to your Question 2.

        Question 4. Did Facebook enact her recommendations?

       When?

       Who was responsible for enacting those changes?

       Did she recommend any actions that the company declined to
            take? If so, what were those actions?

       Did anyone at Facebook follow up on the changes it made to
            determine whether they were actually mitigating the problems
            identified in the research? If so, who did that, and what did
            the investigation show?

        Answer. Please see the response to your Question 2.

        Question 5. Did anyone else at Facebook make recommendations in
    response to the research?

       If so, who?

       What recommendations were made?

       Were they enacted, and if so, when?

       Did anyone at Facebook follow up on those changes to
            determine whether they were actually mitigating the problems
            identified in the research? If so, who did that, and what did
            the investigation show?

        Answer. Please see the response to your Question 2.

        Question 6. Ms. Davis testified that Facebook made changes about
    how eating disorder information is provided on Instagram in response to
    the research. To the extent not previously covered in responses to the
    previous questions, describe all product changes Facebook made as a
    result of her recommendations about these troubling research findings.
        Answer. Please see the response to your previous questions.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                 Antigone Davis
        Data Transparency. During her testimony, Ms. Frances Haugen stated
    that ``I believe, in collaboration with academics and other
    researchers, that we can develop privacy-conscious ways of exposing
    radically more data that is available today. It is important for our
    ability to understand how algorithms work, how Facebook shapes the
    information we get to see, that we have these data sets be publicly
    available for scrutiny.''
        We must have real transparency. Data should be made publicly
    available in a way that preserves user privacy and confidentiality by
    default. With that in mind, I will repeat a question from the hearing.

        Question. Will Facebook release the basis of its research revealed
    in reporting by the Wall Street Journal (the datasets minus any
    personally identifiable information) to allow for independent analysis?
        Answer. These are complex issues that we want people to be thinking
    about. We understand the responsibility that comes with operating a
    global tech platform, and we take it very seriously. We undertake
    research to ask ourselves hard questions--to spot any potential gaps in
    our systems and to identify any potential problems to fix. We evaluate
    possible solutions and work every day to make our platform a positive
    and safe experience for our community.
        One of the reasons we keep much of this work confidential is
    simple: we want to promote full and frank discussion. Research is a key
    part of how we make our products better, and it would be worrisome if
    we weren't doing it. Maintaining the privacy of our research and
    communications is intended to ensure that people at Meta, including
    researchers and research participants, feel comfortable engaging with
    nuanced, and sometimes very difficult, issues, and engaging in a candid
    discussion about how best to address those issues.
        That said, greater transparency and appropriate context are things
    we think about a lot. We know there is interest in the way our
    platforms operate and the steps we take to improve them. We don't shy
    away from that scrutiny, and we are working to find an appropriate path
    forward when it comes to communicating about our research in a way that
    allows us to continue to promote full and frank discussion while also
    respecting the privacy of our users. We will also continue to work to
    publish research externally and to engage and collaborate with experts.
    For example, we have ongoing relationships with groups like the Aspen
    Institute and the Humanity Center, and we are a founding sponsor of the
    Digital Wellness Lab run jointly by Harvard University and Boston
    Children's Hospital.
        We are also working to improve transparency and contribute to
    research in other areas. For example, in advance of the 2020 U.S.
    election, we announced a new research partnership with independent
    external academics to better understand the impact of Facebook and
    Instagram on key political attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 U.S.
    elections, building on the initiative we launched in 2018. It is
    examining the impact of how people interact with our products,
    including content shared in News Feed and across Instagram, and the
    role of features like content ranking systems.

        Detecting Underage Users. During questioning, you said that
    Facebook and Instagram do not allow users under the age of thirteen.
    Ms. Haugen insisted that it is ``vital'' that Facebook publish the
    methods by which they detect underage users because ``they are on the
    platform in far greater numbers than anyone is aware''.

        Question. Will Facebook publish the processes and algorithms it
    uses to detect the presence of underage users on its platform?
        Answer. Understanding people's age on the Internet is a complex
    challenge across our industry, and we already have various methods of
    finding and removing accounts used by people who misrepresent their
    age. For example, anyone can report an underage account to us. Our
    content reviewers are also trained to flag reported accounts that
    appear to be used by people who are underage. If these people are
    unable to prove they meet our minimum age requirements, we delete their
    accounts. In the third quarter of 2021, Meta removed more than 2.6
    million accounts on Facebook and 850,000 accounts on Instagram because
    they were unable to meet our minimum age requirement.
        In addition, we've developed artificial intelligence technology
    that allows us to estimate people's ages, like if someone is below or
    above 18. We train the technology using multiple signals. We look at
    things like people wishing you a happy birthday and the age written in
    those messages--for example, ``Happy 21st Bday!'' or ``Happy
    Quinceanera.'' We're also building technology to find and remove
    accounts belonging to people under the age of 13. This technology isn't
    perfect, and we're always working to improve it, but that's why it's
    important we use it alongside many other signals to understand people's
    ages.
        We do not share detailed descriptions of how our tools work in
    order to avoid providing a roadmap to people who are trying to evade
    detection.
        We're also in discussions with the wider technology industry on how
    we can work together to share information in privacy-preserving ways
    that help apps and websites establish whether people are over a
    specific age. One area that we believe has real promise is working with
    operating system (OS) providers, Internet browsers, and other providers
    so they can share information to help apps and websites establish
    whether someone is of an appropriate age.
        This has the dual benefit of helping developers keep underage
    people off their apps and websites, while also removing the need for
    people to go through different and potentially cumbersome age
    verification processes across multiple apps and services. While it's
    ultimately up to individual apps and websites to enforce their age
    policies and comply with their legal obligations, collaboration with OS
    providers, Internet browsers, and others would be a helpful addition to
    those efforts.

        Decision-making Priorities. In person, I asked whether Facebook
    ever found that a change to its platform would potentially inflict harm
    on its users, but moved forward because it would grow users or increase
    revenue. In your response, you claimed that this was not your
    ``experience at all at Facebook.''
        I would like to reassert the question for the record. In her
    testimony, Ms. Haugen stated that ``Facebook prioritized that content
    on the system, the reshares, over the impacts to misinformation, hate
    speech or violence incitement.''

        Question. Has Facebook ever made internal product decisions that
    prioritized engagement over the potential impact on misinformation,
    hate speech, or violence and incitement?
        Answer. As an initial matter, we prohibit terrorist content, hate
    speech, and other content that violates our Community Standards.
    Additionally, under our Community Standards, we remove misinformation
    that contributes to the risk of imminent violence or physical harm.
    When we find this content, we remove it.
        More broadly, we build our systems to prioritize meaningful
    content, rather than enraging or polarizing content. Our teams work
    hard to ensure that our systems help people less frequently see
    problematic content, like misinformation that is debunked by third-
    party fact-checkers and borderline policy-violating content.
        Facebook's mission is to bring communities closer together, and, to
    that end, we optimize for meaningful social interaction rather than for
    attention and time. In fact, back in 2018, we changed the way we
    approached News Feed rankings to focus not only on serving people the
    most relevant content, but also on helping them have more meaningful
    interactions--primarily by doing more to prioritize content from
    friends, family, and Groups they are part of. We recognized that this
    shift would lead to people spending less time on Facebook, because
    Pages--where media entities, sports teams, politicians, and
    celebrities, among others, tend to have a presence--generally post more
    engaging (though less personally meaningful) content than a user's
    personal friends or family. But we view this change as a success
    because we believe it improved the experience of our users, and we
    think building positive experiences is good for the business in the
    long term. The company's long-term growth will be best served if people
    continue to use and value its products for years to come. If we
    prioritized trying to keep users online for a few extra minutes, but in
    doing so made them unhappy or angry and less likely to return in the
    future, it would be self-defeating.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
                                 Antigone Davis
        Question 1. As you know, on October 14, 2020, Andy Stone, Policy
    Communications Director at Facebook, tweeted that Facebook would be
    ``reducing its distribution'' of a New York Post article dated that
    same day headlined ``Smoking-gun e-mail reveals how Hunter Biden
    introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.'' Stone further tweeted
    that ``this is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of
    misinformation.'' However, Ben Schreckinger, a reporter at Politico,
    has independently confirmed that this e-mail and others uncovered by
    the New York Post were in fact authentic.
        Does Facebook regret harming our democracy by suppressing true
    information about the corruption of a presidential candidate at the
    height of the 2020 presidential campaign?
        Answer. In 2019, we announced that, if we identify signals that a
    piece of content is false, we temporarily reduce its distribution in
    order to allow sufficient time for our independent third-party fact-
    checkers to review and determine whether to apply a rating. Quick
    action is critical in keeping a false claim from going viral, and so we
    take this step to provide an extra level of protection against
    potential misinformation. These temporary demotions expire after seven
    days if the content has not been rated false by an independent fact-
    checker.
        In the weeks leading up to the election, the Director of National
    Intelligence, the Head of the FBI, and the bipartisan leaders of the
    Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reminded Americans about the
    threat posed by foreign influence operations emanating from Russia and
    Iran. Along with their public warnings, and as part of the ongoing
    cooperation that tech companies established with government partners
    following the 2016 election, the FBI also privately warned tech
    companies to be on high alert for the potential of hack-and-leak
    operations carried out by foreign actors in the weeks leading up to
    November 3, 2020. We took these risks seriously.
        In the case of the October 14 New York Post story, we were not able
    to verify whether the content was part of a foreign influence
    operation. Given the concerns raised by the FBI and others, we took
    steps consistent with our policies to slow the spread of suspicious
    content and provide fact-checkers the opportunity to assess it.
    However, at no point did we take any action to block or remove the
    content from the platform. People could--and did--read and share the
    Post's reporting while we had this temporary demotion in place.
    Consistent with our policy, after seven days, we lifted the temporary
    demotion on this content because it was not rated false by an
    independent fact-checker.

        Question 2. The PACT Act would promote transparency by requiring
    Internet platforms like Facebook to disclose in detail their moderation
    and censorship practices, and to submit public reports identifying and
    explaining why Facebook posts have been removed or deemphasized.
        Do you believe this provision would help build trust with
    Facebook's users?
        Answer. The approach in the bill is thoughtful, and we support
    efforts aimed at greater transparency and external accountability. Any
    such approach should have clear requirements, so that platforms know
    what is expected of them. We look forward to engaging with your office
    further on this proposal.
                                     ______

          Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Lee to
                                 Antigone Davis
        Question 1. During your testimony, I asked if Facebook targets
    adult themed ads to underage children. You responded with the
    following:

            ``When we do ads to young people, there are only three things
            that an advertiser can target around--age, gender, location. We
            also prohibit certain ads to young people, including weight
            loss ads. . . . We don't allow tobacco ads at all. We don't
            allow them to children. We don't allow them to minors.''

        After our exchange, I was approached by an organization called the
    Technology Transparency Project (TTP), who told me that they conducted
    an experiment last month to run a series of ads that they targeted
    broadly to 13-17-year-old users in the United States. TTP thankfully
    stopped these ads from being distributed to users, but TTP has
    indicated that Facebook did approve them for an audience of up to 9.1
    million users--all of which are teens. These ads included alcohol,
    prescription drugs, vaping, eating disorder tips, and dating profile
    encouragement.
        Could you please explain TTP's findings and how Facebook approved
    these ads since, according to your testimony, Facebook's policy doesn't
    allow for these ads?
        How do you reconcile the TTP experiment with Facebook's current
    advertising policy?
        Answer. We are aware of the Tech Transparency Project's reporting.
    To be clear, these ads violated our policies, and we understand that
    they ultimately did not run. Our teams investigated this issue and are
    taking steps to improve our systems as well as to improve reviewer
    accuracy around ads that may be promoting violating content like eating
    disorders.
        Ads on Facebook are subject to Facebook's Community Standards (and
    ads on Instagram are subject to Instagram's Community Guidelines). Our
    Community Standards prohibit any content that celebrates, encourages,
    or promotes self-injury, including eating disorders. Further, our
    Advertising Policies place additional requirements on advertisers to
    help make our platforms a safe and positive place for people,
    organizations, and businesses. For example, these policies prohibit
    advertisements promoting certain content to any users, regardless of
    age, including ads that promote the sale or use of tobacco products and
    related paraphernalia or ads that promote electronic cigarettes,
    vaporizers, or any other products that simulate smoking. Ads also may
    not promote the sale of illicit or recreational drugs or other unsafe
    substances.
        Our Advertising Policies also restrict certain content based on
    age. Ads targeted to minors must not promote products, services, or
    content that are inappropriate, illegal, or unsafe, or that exploit,
    mislead, or exert undue pressure on the age groups targeted. Ads that
    promote or reference alcohol, for instance, must only be targeted to
    people 21 years or older in the U.S. Similarly, any ads marketing
    weight loss products and services, cosmetic procedures, gambling, or
    dating services, among other topics, must be targeted to people 18
    years or older at a minimum. If someone is under a certain age and
    attempts to view a Page or account with an age restriction, they will
    be blocked from viewing it.
        Moreover, we have several mechanisms for advertisers and Page
    admins to control the audience eligible to view the content they
    produce. When an advertiser decides to create an ad, we provide age and
    location targeting options during the ad creation process. The
    advertiser must comply with our Advertising Policies and any applicable
    local laws, and they can do so, for example, by specifying that their
    ads be shown only to users that meet a minimum age or are located in a
    specific country. Page admins can also use age restrictions to limit
    the audience of their Page.
        We already give people ways to tell us that they would rather not
    see ads based on their interests or on their activities on other
    websites and apps, such as through controls within our ad settings. But
    we also know that young people may not be well equipped to make these
    decisions on their own, which is why we're taking a more precautionary
    approach. Specifically, we announced changes this year that allow
    advertisers to target ads to people under 18 (or older in certain
    countries) based only on their age, gender, and location. This means
    that previously available targeting options for users under 18, like
    those based on interests or on their activity on other apps and
    websites, are no longer available to advertisers. These changes are
    global and apply to Instagram, Facebook, and Messenger. When young
    people become adults, we notify them about targeting options that
    advertisers can now use to reach them and the tools we provide to them
    to control their ad experience.

        Question 2. I shared the information about TTP's experiment with
    Frances Haugen during her hearing last week, and she provided the
    following testimony:

            ``It is very possible that none of those ads were seen by a
            human. And the reality is that we've seen from repeated
            documents within my disclosure, is that Facebook's AI systems
            only catch a very tiny minority of offending content.''

        Is this statement true?
        Could you please explain Facebook's current process for using AI to
    approve ads on its platform?
        What is Facebook currently doing to improve its process to ensure
    that these types of ads are not approved?
        Answer. Our advertising review system is designed to review all ads
    before they go live. This system relies primarily on automated
    technology to apply our Advertising Policies to the millions of ads
    that run across our apps. While our review is largely automated, we
    rely on our teams to build and train these systems, and in some cases,
    to manually review ads.
        While ad review is typically completed within 24 hours, it may take
    longer, and ads can be reviewed again, including after they're live.
    Based on the results of the review, an ad is either rejected or allowed
    to run. If an ad is rejected, an advertiser can create a new ad--either
    with new ad creative or by revising the rejected ad--or request another
    review if they believe their ad was incorrectly rejected. To process
    re-review requests from advertisers, we rely more heavily on teams of
    human reviewers, but we are continuously assessing ways to increase
    automation.
        We also have reporting, authenticity, and transparency features to
    encourage advertiser accountability. People can report ads they believe
    violate our policies by clicking the three dots in the upper right-hand
    corner of the ad. These reports are an important signal for our
    advertising review systems, and may prompt a re-review of the ad. This
    feedback also helps to improve our policies and enforcement.
        Ads remain subject to review and re-review at all times and may be
    rejected for violation of our policies at any time.
        However, our enforcement isn't perfect, and both machines and
    people make mistakes. When we launch a new policy, like the recently
    announced changes discussed in response to your Question 1, it can take
    time for the various parts of our enforcement system, both automated
    technology and trained global teams, to learn how to correctly and
    consistently enforce the new standard. As we gather new data and
    feedback, our machine learning models, our automated enforcement, and
    our manual review teams improve.
        We regularly assess and continue to make improvements to our review
    system to improve our detection of ads that violate our policies and to
    help protect young people from seeing inappropriate ads. We make
    changes based on trends in the ads ecosystem and adjust for new tactics
    that we find from people misusing the platform.

        Question 3. You testified that Facebook only targets ads to
    children based around--age, gender, and location--and does not target
    based on specific interest categories.
        Does Facebook collect interest category data on teens even if they
    aren't at this moment running ads to those interest categories?
        If yes, what is the purpose of collecting this data?
        Does Facebook collect ``interest'' data on children that is for
    adult products--tobacco, alcohol, drug related interests--or for
    sexually suggestive interests?
        Answer. As explained in our Data Policy, we collect three basic
    categories of data about people: (1) data about things people do and
    share (and who they connect with) on our services; (2) data about the
    devices people use to access our services; and (3) data we receive from
    partners, including the websites and apps that use our Business Tools.
    Our Business Tools Terms expressly prohibit our partners from sharing
    with us data they know or reasonably should know is from or about
    children under the age of 13.
        As far as the amount of data we collect about Facebook users (who
    are required to be at least 13 years old), the answer depends on the
    person. People who have only recently signed up for Facebook have
    usually shared only a few things--such as name, contact information,
    age, and gender. Over time, as people use our products and interact
    with our services, we receive more data from them, and this data helps
    us provide more relevant content and services. That data will fall into
    the categories noted above, but the specific data we receive will, in
    large part, depend on how the person chooses to use Facebook. For
    example, some people use Facebook to share photos, so we receive and
    store photos for those people. Some people enjoy watching videos on
    Facebook; when they do, we receive information about the video they
    watched, and we can use that information to help show other videos in
    their News Feeds. Other people seldom or never watch videos, so we do
    not receive the same kind of information from them, and their News
    Feeds are likely to feature fewer videos.
        We give people easy access to controls, like Ad Preferences, to
    manage the ads they see, learn more about how ads work, and hide ads
    from specific advertisers or topics. We know that young people may not
    be well equipped to make these decisions on their own, which is why
    we're taking a more precautionary approach. Specifically, and as you
    reference, we announced changes this year that allow advertisers to
    only target ads to people under 18 (or older in certain countries)
    based on their age, gender, and location. This means that previously
    available targeting options for users under 18, like those based on
    interests or on their activity on other apps and websites, are no
    longer available to advertisers. When young people become adults, we
    notify them about targeting options that advertisers can now use to
    reach them and the tools we provide to them to control their ad
    experience. And for all users, we do not sell this information to third
    parties.

        Question 4. The Wall Street Journal indicated that over the past
    year, Facebook hired an outside consultant to advise it on the risks of
    continued trafficking on its sites. The consultant recommended that if
    revenue came in from trafficking advertisements, Facebook should
    develop a policy to ensure it does not profit off of it.
        Has such a policy been adopted?
        If so, what are the details of this policy? Please share the
    specific policy. Does Facebook no longer reap profits from these
    advertisements, or does Facebook simply not contract with them in the
    first place?
        If not, what is the delay in creating this policy? Additionally, if
    Facebook can identify these advertisements, why can't they create a
    method to avoid contracts with trafficking advertisements in the first
    place?
        Answer. There is no place on Meta's platforms for human
    trafficking. We prohibit ads facilitating or coordinating such
    activities. We want our users to have a positive and safe experience
    and strongly oppose the abuse of our apps to facilitate human
    trafficking. Facebook and Instagram have long-standing policies and
    protocols to combat any such abuse. Our policies prohibit content or
    behaviors that may lead to human trafficking. Facebook has consolidated
    several existing exploitation policies that were previously housed in
    different sections of the Community Standards into one dedicated
    section that focuses on human exploitation and captures a broad range
    of harmful activities that may manifest on our platform.
        We remove content on Facebook and Instagram that facilitates or
    coordinates the exploitation of humans, including human trafficking. We
    define human trafficking in our Community Standards as the
    ``exploitation of humans in order to force them to engage in commercial
    sex, labor, or other activities against their will. It relies on
    deception, force and coercion, and degrades humans by depriving them of
    their freedom while economically or materially benefiting others.'' Our
    definition of Human Exploitation adapts the definitions of human
    trafficking and human smuggling from the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress
    and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Palermo Protocol) and Protocol
    Against the Smuggling of Migrants. Bad actors are continually evolving
    their tactics to evade enforcement, but we are committed to continuing
    to improve so that we can help keep people safe.
        Our practices and policies recognize human trafficking is a serious
    problem that requires a multifaceted approach across different teams at
    Facebook and Instagram. Human trafficking practices are global and
    societal issues that require knowledge of local market contexts. We
    employ local market experts to understand, identify, and surface
    trafficking trends on Facebook and Instagram and train our cross-
    functional teams to recognize them. We have members of teams across
    investigations, engineering, research, content policy, and business
    integrity who work on our anti-trafficking efforts.
        We work with law enforcement around the world to help keep our
    community safe, both on and offline. This sometimes means providing
    information (in accordance with applicable law and our terms of
    service) that will help them respond to emergencies, including those
    that involve the immediate risk of harm, such as those related to human
    exploitation. We also work with organizations around the world to
    provide resources and support for victims and survivors of human
    trafficking, and we direct people to expert organizations like Polaris
    and the National Human Trafficking Hotline.
        We use a variety of tools to disrupt criminal organizations,
    including designating them under our Dangerous Organizations policy,
    conducting human review, applying a wide range of artificial
    intelligence (AI), and disrupting networks. We look to enact
    countermeasures--both on our platforms and via our external
    partnerships--to stop bad actors and businesses from using our services
    to commit crimes, and in all stages of the trafficking lifecycle.
    However, this is an adversarial space, and although we have tools to
    combat recidivism, we do find these organizations try to return to our
    platforms. We continue to invest in AI to help us improve our
    enforcement against these organizations at scale.
        In addition, we support our ability to detect violating content
    related to human trafficking through major investments by our technical
    and operational teams. Those increasing investments are geared toward
    improving our ability to identify the illicit actors, networks,
    organizations, and businesses that perpetrate these activities and to
    disrupt them accordingly.
        Finally, Meta also supported SESTA/FOSTA, and we were very pleased
    to be able to work successfully with a bipartisan group of Senators on
    a bill that protects women and children from the harms of sex
    trafficking.
        We continue to work on improving these areas, including identifying
    and strengthening ways in which we can combat human trafficking, and we
    encourage anyone who encounters content on Meta's platforms that
    indicates someone is in immediate physical danger related to human
    trafficking to contact local law enforcement immediately and report
    this content to us.

        Question 5. In the WSJ ``Facebook Files,'' a list called ``XCheck''
    is detailed. This list allegedly suspends moderation practices from
    high profile figures.
        Considering other threats on the platform such as trafficking and
    drug cartels, why was this such a high priority of Facebook's?
        What efforts, if any, have been made to scale back this system in
    order to put its users on ``equal footing'' as Mr. Zuckerberg allegedly
    intends?
        How are individuals selected to be added to the list?
        Who is on this list and thus not subject to Facebook's moderation
    practices?
        Answer. The Cross-Check program was built to double-check our own
    enforcement in cases where, for example, a content review decision
    could require more understanding and there could be a higher risk from
    a mistake. For example, we apply some of our most important cross-
    checks to posts from vulnerable populations such as activists raising
    awareness of hate or violence or from journalists reporting from
    conflict zones. This is where context is really important. We aim to
    strike a balance between the time it takes to examine the broader
    context and ensuring that violating content does not remain on our
    platform.
        The Cross-Check program is not intended to be a program for anyone
    to be ``protected'' or ``exempt'' from the enforcement of our Community
    Standards, and it is not a process for interceding on behalf of a user
    to reverse a content decision. Rather, it is a tool in our toolbox for
    content enforcement broadly on the Facebook platform that helps to
    prevent false positives (i.e., taking down something that we shouldn't
    have).
        In addition to being an internal check, this system is also
    designed to help us focus our resources where they are needed the most.
    We have long said that we rely on a combination of human review and AI
    to enforce our Community Standards. Our Cross-Check program is simply a
    component of our human review process.
        As noted, our efforts to improve the Cross-Check program are
    ongoing, and we know that there is more work to be done. But we are
    committed to engaging with our stakeholders as we continue to implement
    further improvements to Meta systems. Just recently, we asked our
    Oversight Board for recommendations about how we can continue to
    improve our Cross-Check system. Specifically, we are asking the Board
    for guidance on the criteria we use to determine what is prioritized
    for a secondary review via Cross-Check, as well as how we manage the
    program. Over the coming weeks and months, we will continue to brief
    the Board on our Cross-Check system and engage with them to answer
    their questions. We welcome their recommendations and the independent
    oversight they provide.

        Question 6. Facebook has often worked with the ``National Center
    for Missing and Exploited Children'' (NCMEC) to refer child sexual
    exploitation (CSAM) material on its platform for follow up from law
    enforcement.
        How much material does Facebook refer to NCMEC annually?
        Is there reform that needs to take place in this process to ensure
    resources are available for robust follow up to the material that is
    report to NCMEC and the DOJ?
        Answer. Our work on child safety has spanned more than a decade.
    Across our family of apps, we take a comprehensive approach to child
    safety that includes zero-tolerance policies prohibiting child
    exploitation; cutting-edge technology to prevent, detect, remove, and
    report policy violations; and victim resources and support. More than
    40,000 people work on security and safety at Meta. We also collaborate
    with industry child safety experts and civil society around the world
    to fight the online exploitation of children because our commitment to
    safeguarding children extends beyond our apps to the broader internet.
        Our industry-leading efforts to combat child exploitation follow a
    three-pronged approach: prevent this abhorrent harm in the first place;
    detect, remove, and report exploitative activity that escapes these
    efforts; and work with experts and authorities to keep children safe.
    We apply this approach across both the public spaces of Facebook, like
    Pages, Groups, and Profiles, as well as on our private messaging
    services, like Messenger.
        We have specially trained teams with backgrounds in law
    enforcement, online safety, analytics, and forensic investigations
    review potentially violating content and report findings to the
    National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)--a U.S.-
    based nonprofit devoted to the prevention of and recovery from child
    victimization. The reports to NCMEC include content from around the
    world, and in turn, NCMEC works with U.S. federal, state, and local law
    enforcement, as well as law enforcement globally, to find and help
    victims.
        We have no tolerance for the sexual exploitation of children on our
    platforms. When we become aware of apparent child sexual exploitation,
    we report it to NCMEC. We also publish data related to this type of
    content quarterly in our Community Standards Enforcement Report. In the
    third quarter of 2021, we removed approximately over 22 million pieces
    of child sexual exploitation content, as well as over 2 million pieces
    of child nudity and physical abuse content from Facebook and Instagram.
    These numbers do not represent the number of individual victims or
    unique pieces of content, as the same or similar content may be shared
    and removed multiple times.
        To understand how and why people share child exploitative content
    on Facebook and Instagram, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the
    illegal child exploitative content we reported to NCMEC in October and
    November of 2020. We found that more than 90 percent of this content
    was the same as or visually similar to previously reported content. And
    copies of just six videos were responsible for more than half of the
    child exploitative content we reported in that time period. However,
    one victim of this horrible crime is one too many.
        In February of this year, we announced new tools we're testing to
    keep people from sharing content that victimizes children and
    improvements we've made to our detection and reporting tools. Based on
    the findings from our analysis discussed above, we are developing
    targeted solutions, including new tools and policies to reduce the
    sharing of this type of content. We've started by testing new tools
    including one aimed at the potentially malicious searching for this
    content: a pop-up that is shown to people who search for terms on our
    apps associated with child exploitation. The pop-up offers ways to get
    help from offender diversion organizations and shares information about
    the consequences of viewing illegal content. We've also expanded our
    work to detect and remove networks that violate our child exploitation
    policies, similar to our efforts against coordinated inauthentic
    behavior and dangerous organizations.
        After consultations with child safety experts and organizations,
    we've also made it easier to report content for violating our child
    exploitation policies. We added the option to choose ``involves a
    child'' under the ``Nudity & Sexual Activity'' category of reporting in
    more places on Facebook and Instagram. These reports will be
    prioritized for review. We also started using Google's Content Safety
    API to help us better prioritize content that may contain child
    exploitation for our content reviewers to assess.
        With respect to our cooperation with law enforcement, we have
    developed a streamlined online process through which we accept and
    review all legal requests from law enforcement. We expedite requests
    pertaining to child safety, and we have a team dedicated to engaging
    with the likes of NCMEC, International Centre for Missing & Exploited
    Children (ICMEC), Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command
    (CEOP), Interpol, the FBI, and numerous other local, federal, and
    international law enforcement organizations and departments to ensure
    that they have the information and training needed to make the best use
    of this process and that we are supporting efforts to improve these
    processes. If we have reason to believe that a child is in immediate or
    imminent danger, we may proactively refer a case to local law
    enforcement (as well as report it to NCMEC) to ensure that the child is
    immediately safeguarded.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
                                 Antigone Davis
        Question 1. I asked you during the hearing whether Facebook gets
    consent for research it does on kids and teens. You said they do.
        What is the process for Facebook and Instagram to get consent from
    parents when kids and teens participate in research studies?
        If you get parental consent via form, please provide a (blank) copy
    of that form.
        Answer. We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional context
    on these issues. Facebook's and Instagram's research teams work to
    observe industry best practices for conducting research, including
    ensuring research is done ethically and in compliance with applicable
    law.
        In the U.S., when conducting qualitative research (e.g., an
    interview or focus group) with a participant under the age of 18, we
    ask that both the research participant and their parent or legal
    guardian sign our Research Participation Agreement. In some cases, we
    hire third parties to conduct research, in which case the third party
    is the one interacting with and collecting information from the
    participant. When a third party conducts the study, the third party's
    notice and consent forms and procedures may be used. We ensure the
    third parties we hire are contractually obligated to comply with all
    applicable laws, including to obtain necessary consent from
    participants and parents.
        It is important to note that ``research'' is a broad term and can
    take many forms, and a signed consent form is not appropriate for all
    research studies. For example, there are cases in which we may ask for
    user feedback through voluntary surveys within the Facebook or
    Instagram applications, which are available to users aged 13 and over.
    In those cases, U.S. law does not require parental consent before 13 to
    17 year-old users participate, but (i) participation is strictly
    voluntary, and (ii) we provide the users with clear notice about our
    practices, including through our Data Policy (https://www.facebook.com/
    policy.php).
        Attached, please find the most recent version of our Research
    Participation Agreement, which we require participants and parents or
    guardians to sign before participating in a qualitative study (e.g., an
    interview or focus group). As noted above, when we hire a third party
    to conduct research on our behalf, the third party may use its own
    consent form.

        Question 2. During the hearing with the Facebook whistleblower,
    Frances Haugen, she indicated that Facebook uses a variety of research
    practices to glean information from its kid and teen users, including
    young children.
        Please explain how Facebook recruits children and teens to its
    research studies and what forms those studies take.
        Do you have child psychologists or similar therapists on staff who
    help conduct those studies or who work with kids and teens to discuss
    their experiences on your platforms?
        Answer. The method for recruiting research participants depends on
    the type of research. For example, we may send users an e-mail inviting
    them to participate in a study. In other cases, we may surface
    invitations within the Facebook and Instagram applications. We may also
    hire third parties to conduct research on our behalf, in which case the
    third party often handles recruiting research participants.
        We are thoughtful in our approach to engaging children under 13 and
    their parents for participation in research. For example, for research
    with Messenger Kids users, we worked with a third party to establish a
    panel of parents who were interested in allowing their children to
    participate in research and who consented to this participation. We do
    not surface invitations for research feedback within the Messenger Kids
    experience.
        Regardless of methodology, we align with industry best practices
    and ensure users remain in control, for example, by allowing them to
    opt out of research-related communications if they choose.
        In terms of the forms research studies take, studies can be
    qualitative--for example, interviews and focus groups. In other cases,
    research studies may be quantitative and in the form of an online
    survey, for example, either within the Facebook or Instagram
    applications or on a third-party platform.
        We take the issues of safety and well-being on our platforms very
    seriously, especially for the youngest people who use our services. We
    are committed to working with parents and families, as well as experts
    in child development, online safety, and children's health and media,
    to ensure we are building better products for families. That means
    building tools that promote meaningful interactions and helping people
    manage their time on our platform. It also means giving parents the
    information, resources, and tools they need to help their children
    develop healthy and safe online habits. And it means continued research
    in this area.
        We employ and work with researchers from backgrounds that include
    clinical psychology, pediatrics, developmental psychology, public
    health, bioethics, education, anthropology, and communication. We
    collaborate with top scholars to navigate various complex issues,
    including those related to well-being for people on Facebook and
    Instagram. Meta also awards grants to external researchers in order to
    help us better understand how experiences on Facebook and Instagram
    relate to the safety and health of our community, including teen
    communities. And because safety and well-being aren't just Meta issues,
    but societal issues, we work with experts in the field to look more
    broadly at the impact of mobile technology and social media on
    children, and how to better support them as they transition through
    different stages of life.

        Question 3. 3. During the hearing, you did not clearly indicate who
    will make the ultimate decision about whether Instagram Kids is
    launched.
        Who, specifically, will make this ultimate decision? Is it Mark
    Zuckerberg himself?
        Or Adam Mosseri along with Mr. Zuckerberg?
        Answer. We started our work to build an Instagram experience for
    tweens (aged 10-12) to address an important problem seen across our
    industry: kids are getting phones younger and younger, misrepresenting
    their age, and downloading apps that are meant for those 13 or older.
    We believe that it is better for parents to have the option to give
    tweens access to a version of Instagram that is designed for them--
    where parents can supervise and control their experience--than to have
    them lie about their age to access a platform that wasn't built for
    them.
        We were working on delivering experiences that are age-appropriate
    and give parents and guardians visibility and control over what their
    tweens are doing online, like an Instagram experience for tweens. Other
    companies also have recognized these types of issues and built
    experiences for kids. For example, YouTube and TikTok both have
    versions of their apps for those under 13. The principle is the same:
    it's much better for parents and guardians to have the option for their
    kids to use a safer, more age-appropriate version of social media apps
    than the alternative.
        While we stand by the need to develop this experience, we recently
    announced that we are pausing this project. Any decision to resume work
    on the project will be made in collaboration with various teams across
    the company, and with the guidance and input of parents, experts,
    policymakers, and regulators. As Head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri will
    ultimately make the decision to resume, in consultation with members of
    Meta's leadership team.

        Question 4. 4. You indicated that Facebook recently deleted 600,000
    accounts of kids under 13 who, pursuant to COPPA, should not be on the
    platform. This week, Ms. Haugen indicated it could be removed to comply
    with GDPR.
        What do Facebook and Instagram do with the data of underage
    children when they are removed from the platform?
        Is it in fact deleted?
        Or do you retain any form or portion of it in case the account is
    reactivated in the future?
        Answer. At Meta, we take the issues of safety and well-being on our
    platforms very seriously, especially for the youngest people who use
    our services. As per our terms, in the U.S., we require people to be at
    least 13 years old to sign up for Facebook and Instagram.
        In the third quarter of 2021, we removed more than 850,000 accounts
    on Instagram because they were unable to meet our minimum age
    requirement. Instagram disabled these accounts after they were put
    through an age ``checkpoint'' and the users were unable to or did not
    provide identification showing they were at least 13 years old. If a
    user does not provide adequate documentation that they meet the minimum
    age requirements within 30 days, their account is permanently disabled
    and removed from Instagram. When the account is disabled, the data is
    deleted consistent with the Company's standard deletion policies.

        Question 5. 5. As I mentioned at the hearing, a 2019 Facebook
    internal report, entitled ``Apple Escalation on Domestic Servitude--how
    we made it through this SEV,'' outlined how Facebook knew about forced
    domestic servitude content on its platform, but did not remove it in
    full until after Apple threatened to pull Facebook from its app store
    [(``Was this issue known to Facebook before BBC enquiry and Apple
    escalation? Yes.'')]. Yet you disputed this during the hearing, saying
    you did not agree with the interpretation of Facebook's own report.
        Please explain in detail what happened in this case.
        Why did Facebook--in its words--allow for an ``absence of proactive
    detection,'' which meant that ``domestic servitude content remained in
    the platform?
        Answer. We've been combatting domestic servitude on our platform
    for many years, and our goal remains to prevent anyone from using our
    platform to exploit others. In 2019, we further expanded these efforts
    by building a dedicated team and increased the scope of harms that team
    addresses later that year.
        We have teams across investigations, engineering, research, policy,
    and integrity who are dedicated to anti-trafficking efforts, and we've
    invested in technology to proactively detect human exploitation and to
    enforce our Community Standards, which prohibit this behavior.
        Our proactive detection technology in this space is designed to
    detect this content and activity around the world. We're constantly
    working to improve this technology to help us catch more of this
    content more quickly--including expansion into more languages and the
    ability to detect different kinds of exploitation.

        More broadly, how does Facebook approach human exploitation content
    on the platform to ensure it is removed?
        Answer. Our policies prohibit the use of our services for illegal
    purposes. We are committed to fully complying with all applicable
    international human rights standards, labor and employment laws, rules,
    and regulations, and to working to mitigate the risks of modern slavery
    and domestic servitude in our business operations and supply chains.
    Facebook and Instagram have long-standing policies and protocols to
    combat any such abuse. Our policies prohibit content or behaviors that
    may lead to human trafficking, including domestic servitude. Bad actors
    are continually evolving their tactics to evade enforcement, but we are
    committed to continuing to improve so that we can help keep people
    safe.
        We work to remove content on Facebook and Instagram that
    facilitates or coordinates the exploitation of humans, including human
    trafficking. We define human trafficking in our Community Standards as
    the ``exploitation of humans in order to force them to engage in
    commercial sex, labor, or other activities against their will. It
    relies on deception, force and coercion, and degrades humans by
    depriving them of their freedom while economically or materially
    benefiting others.'' Our definition of human exploitation adapts the
    definitions of human trafficking and human smuggling from the Protocol
    to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Palermo
    Protocol) and Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants.
        Our practices and policies recognize domestic servitude is a
    serious problem that requires a multifaceted approach across different
    teams at Facebook and Instagram. Domestic servitude practices are
    global and societal issues that require knowledge of local market
    contexts. We employ local market experts to understand, identify, and
    surface trends on Facebook and Instagram and train our cross-functional
    teams to recognize them. We have members of teams across
    investigations, engineering, research, content policy, and business
    integrity who work on our anti-trafficking efforts.
        We work with law enforcement around the world to help keep our
    community safe, both on and offline. This sometimes means providing
    information (in accordance with applicable law and our terms of
    service) that will help them respond to emergencies, including those
    that involve the immediate risk of harm, such as those related to human
    exploitation. We also work with organizations around the world to
    provide resources and support for victims and survivors of human
    trafficking, and we direct people to expert organizations like Polaris
    and the National Human Trafficking Hotline.
        We use a variety of tools to disrupt criminal organizations,
    including designating them under our Dangerous Organizations policy,
    conducting human review, applying a wide range of artificial
    intelligence (AI), and disrupting networks. We look to enact
    countermeasures--both on our platforms and via our external
    partnerships--to stop bad actors and businesses from using our services
    to commit crimes, and in all stages of the trafficking lifecycle.
    However, this is an adversarial space, and although we have tools to
    combat recidivism, we do find these organizations try to return to our
    platforms. We continue to invest in AI to help us improve our
    enforcement against these organizations at scale.
        In addition, we support our ability to detect violating content
    related to domestic servitude through investments by our technical and
    operational teams. Those increasing investments are geared toward
    improving our ability to identify the illicit actors, networks,
    organizations, and businesses that perpetrate these activities and to
    disrupt them accordingly.
        We continue to work on improving these areas, including identifying
    and strengthening ways in which we can combat domestic servitude, and
    we encourage anyone who encounters content on Meta's platforms that
    indicates someone is in immediate physical danger related to domestic
    servitude to contact local law enforcement immediately and report this
    content to us.

        Question 6. During our hearing with the Facebook whistleblower, she
    indicated that Facebook can estimate how many children under 13 are on
    the platform using measures such as its ``MAP.'' In fact, data shared
    with my office indicates that you did just that.
        How does Facebook determine when underage children are on its
    platforms, both for internal research or for purposes of complying with
    COPPA?
        If, during the course of internal research, you estimate a given
    number of underage kids are on Facebook or Instagram, what steps do you
    take do identify and remove those children?
        How regularly are you removing underage kids from the platforms, if
    you had--as you said--600,000 to remove at any given time?
        Answer. Understanding people's age on the Internet is a complex
    challenge across our industry, and we already have various methods of
    finding and removing accounts used by people who misrepresent their
    age. For example, anyone can report an underage account to us. Our
    content reviewers are also trained to flag reported accounts that
    appear to be used by people who are underage. If these people are
    unable to prove they meet our minimum age requirements, we delete their
    accounts. In the third quarter of 2021, Meta removed more than 2.6
    million accounts on Facebook and 850,000 accounts on Instagram because
    they were unable to meet our minimum age requirement.
        In addition, we've developed artificial intelligence technology
    that allows us to estimate people's ages, like if someone is below or
    above 18. We train the technology using multiple signals. We look at
    things like people wishing a user happy birthday, and the age written
    in those messages--for example, ``Happy 21st Bday!'' or ``Happy
    Quinceanera.'' We're also building technology to find and remove
    accounts belonging to people under the age of 13. This technology isn't
    perfect, and we're always working to improve it, but that's why it's
    important we use it alongside many other signals to understand people's
    ages.
        We're also in discussions with the wider technology industry on how
    we can work together to share information in privacy-preserving ways to
    help apps establish whether people are over a specific age. One area
    that we believe has real promise is working with operating system (OS)
    providers, Internet browsers, and other providers so they can share
    information to help apps establish whether someone is of an appropriate
    age.
        This has the dual benefit of helping developers keep underage
    people off their apps, while removing the need for people to go through
    different and potentially cumbersome age verification processes across
    multiple apps and services. While it's ultimately up to individual apps
    and websites to enforce their age policies and comply with their legal
    obligations, collaboration with OS providers, Internet browsers, and
    others would be a helpful addition to those efforts.
                                   Attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      [all]