[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]