{"id":33080,"date":"2021-10-12T17:02:00","date_gmt":"2021-10-12T17:02:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mathewingram.blog\/?p=33080"},"modified":"2021-10-12T17:02:00","modified_gmt":"2021-10-12T17:02:00","slug":"facebook-hearing-sparks-talk-of-a-social-media-regulator","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2021\/10\/12\/facebook-hearing-sparks-talk-of-a-social-media-regulator\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook hearing sparks talk of a social media regulator"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Note<\/em><\/strong>: This <\/em>was originally published<\/em><\/a> as the daily newsletter at the Columbia Journalism Review, where I am the chief digital writer<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last week, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before a Senate subcommittee about the company\u2019s propensity for disregarding its own research<\/a> into the harms done by its content algorithms, particularly among young girls who use Instagram, its photo-sharing site. One of the solutions that Haugen recommended is something a number of<\/a> other Facebook critics have also proposed over the past several years<\/a>: regulatory oversight that would impose standards of behavior on the social network (and presumably other social networks such as Twitter and YouTube) in an attempt to minimize their various harms. \u201cRight now, the only people in the world who are trained to \u2026 understand what\u2019s happening inside of Facebook, are people who grew up inside of Facebook or Pinterest or another social media company,\u201d Haugen told the Senate subcommittee on **<\/a>. She said the company\u2019s profit motive was so strong that Facebook would not change unless it was subjected to pressure from a government regulator. \u201cUntil incentives change at Facebook, we should not expect Facebook to change,\u201d she said<\/a>. \u201cWe need action from Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are plenty<\/a> of critics of this idea<\/a>, but there\u2019s also one somewhat surprising supporter: Facebook. In a March, 2019 op-ed in the Washington Post<\/em>, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, argued that government regulation is necessary and that he welcomes it<\/a>: \u201cEvery day, we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks,\u201d he wrote. \u201cBut if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn\u2019t ask companies to make these judgments alone. \u201cI believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators.\u201d Among other things, Zuckerberg said he agreed with the need for a data protection law similar to Europe\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation<\/a>. \u201cI believe it would be good for the Internet if more countries adopted regulation such as GDPR as a common framework,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nick Clegg, Facebook\u2019s vice president for global affairs, reiterated this line of argument in interviews following Haugen\u2019s 60 Minutes interview<\/a>. The algorithms the company uses \u201cshould be held to account, if necessary by regulation so that people can match what our systems say they\u2019re supposed to do from what actually happens,\u201d Clegg said on CNN<\/a>. He also said the company is open to amending Section 230 of the Communictions Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for what their users post. \u201cWe\u2019re not saying this is a substitution of our own responsibilities,\u201d Clegg told NBC<\/a>, \u201cbut there are a whole bunch of things that only regulators and lawmakers can do. I don\u2019t think anyone wants a private company to adjudicate on these difficult trade-offs between free expression on one hand and moderating or removing content on the other. Only lawmakers can create a digital regulator.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The fact that Facebook itself wants regulatory oversight is a good reason to oppose it, some critics argue. \u201cWe\u2019ve reached the stage in the battle over the power of Big Tech when even some of the most monopolistic of Silicon Valley companies are begging to be regulated,\u201d Jacob Silverman wrote in <\/a>The New Republic<\/a><\/em> in May<\/a>. \u201cWe shouldn\u2019t listen to them. Whatever sure-to-be-insufficient efforts are made to repair a broken internet can\u2019t involve tech giants as anything but subjects to be criticized, broken up, and, if necessary, prosecuted.\u201d Offers to partner in creating regulations \u201cshould be treated with the withering skepticism they deserve,\u201d he writes. Even Tom Wheeler, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who supports the idea of a new digital regulatory agency<\/a>, wrote that \u201ca tried-and-true lobbying strategy is to loudly proclaim support for lofty principles while quietly working to hollow out the implementation of such principles.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Matt Stoller, a former fellow at the Open Markets Institute and a former policy advisor to the Senate budget committee, wrote in his subscription Substack newsletter that \u201ca digital regulator that legitimizes Facebook\u2019s power would be the worst possible outcome\u201d<\/a> of Haugen\u2019s whistleblowing. \u201cThe concentration of power in the hands of a small group is the fundamental political and economic problem with Facebook,\u201d he said. \u201cWe have to radically decentralize this power. But a regulatory overlay in some ways would worsen the problem.\u201d The bottom line, Stoller argued<\/a>, is that \u201cwe have to eliminate Facebook\u2019s toxic business model, not regulate it, because regulating something serves to legitimize it.\u201d Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia, also argues that we would be better to focus on reducing Facebook\u2019s ability to surveil and target us<\/a> rather than relying on antitrust and other mechanisms to solve our problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s more on Facebook and regulation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whistleblower(s)<\/strong>: Frances Haugen isn\u2019t the first former employee to point the finger at wrongdoing by Facebook, as Guardian<\/a><\/em> reporter Julia Carrie Wong pointed out following Haugen\u2019s testimony<\/a>. Sophie Zhang, who also recently agreed to testify before Congress about her allegations, \u201cwent public in April 2021 with extensive documentation revealing how Facebook failed to address political manipulation in dozens of countries,\u201d Wong noted in a Twitter thread. \u201cI\u2019m glad people are paying attention to her now but it\u2019s weird to retcon her into a secondary player in Haugen\u2019s narrative.\u201d Among other things, Zhang<\/a> \u201cshowed how Facebook let the authoritarian leader of Honduras break its rules and manipulate its platform for 11 months before bothering to do anything about it,\u201d Wong said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulator(s)<\/strong>: In an interview on CJR\u2019s Galley discussion platform on Tuesday, Steven Waldman, the president and co-founder of Report For America, said that there are a number of different aspects to the question of social-media regulation<\/a>, each of which requires a different kind of regulator. \u201cThere are problems for democracy (polarization, hate speech, misinformation), problems for the economy (the ways that monopolies can squelch innovation and other businesses through anti competitive behavior) and problems for mental health, especially of young people,\u201d he said. \u201cEach of these has a different solutions. For instance, a focus on anti-trust \u2014 \u201cbreaking up\u201d Facebook, for instance \u2014 might solve some of those problems (economic) but not others (mental health).\u201d (CJR will be discussing this issue with other experts over the rest of this week<\/a>, including Harold Feld from Public Knowledge).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SEC<\/strong>: The Securities and Exchange Commission has been communicating with attorneys for Frances Haugen<\/a>, according to John Napier Tye, one of her lawyers. The commission hasn\u2019t confirmed whether it is probing the allegations, but Marc Fagel, a former director of the SEC\u2019s San Francisco office, told the <\/a>Wall Street Journal<\/a><\/em> they are almost certain to be doing so. \u201cGiven how much play this has gotten, especially with the revelation that the whistleblower went to the SEC, there is no way they are not looking at this,\u201d Fagel told the <\/a>Journal<\/a><\/em>. He said the regulator would likely focus on whether the company told investors one story about business risks, while concealing worse news that they shared internally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Safe harbor<\/strong>: The Economic Times<\/em> reports that India is considering a \u201crethink\u201d of the safe harbour framework enjoyed by social media platforms in the country<\/a>, in the wake of the Journal<\/em>\u2018s series on Facebook and the testimony of Haugen before the Senate subcommittee. The country\u2019s regulator is \u201cwatching the situation evolve globally and thinks the blanket exemption given to social media companies has to go,\u201d senior government officials told the news outlet. \u201cThe platforms have to be accountable for the content; they can\u2019t shield behind the safe harbour, they have to be much more proactive in identifying and removing harmful and hateful content,\u201d an official told the <\/a>Economic Times<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other notable stories<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New York Times<\/em> is testing an app that brings together all of the company\u2019s podcasts and audio features, according to a report<\/a> from Bloomberg. Starting Tuesday, the paper will begin recruiting users to test a beta version of the app, called \u201cNew York Times Audio\u2019<\/a> (although the company said its podcasts will still be available on platforms from Apple and Spotify). \u201cThe app features curated Times<\/em> podcasts, audio versions of articles and the archive of \u201cThis American Life,\u201d which the newspaper publisher licenses,\u201d Bloomberg said. \u201cIt also has audio stories from other publications, such as New York<\/em> magazine, Rolling Stone<\/em> and Mother Jones<\/em>, that are available on Audm. The Times acquired<\/a> Audm last year.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Intercept<\/em> has published Facebook\u2019s \u201cDangerous Individuals and Organizations\u201d policy<\/a>, a list of thousands of people and groups that the social network bans users from mentioning but which has never been made public. The site says the list \u201chas become an unaccountable system that disproportionately punishes certain communities,\u201d so it has published \u201ca reproduction of the material in its entirety<\/a>, with only minor redactions and edits to improve clarity. It is also publishing an associated policy document<\/a>, created to help moderators decide what posts to delete and what users to punish.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ozy Media, which appeared to have shut down following reports that a senior staff member impersonated a YouTube executive<\/a> on a funding call with Goldman Sachs, says it is looking for new writers, according to a version of the company\u2019s newsletter that was posted on Twitter by <\/a>New York Times<\/a><\/em> media columnist Ben Smith<\/a>. \u201cWe are immediately hiring editors and writers,\u201d the newsletter post said. \u201cAll positions are remote, and come with a competitive salary and benefits package.\u201d The company said it is looking for \u201cenergetic, committed, hard-working people to build a thriving team and culture that we can all be proud of.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Victoria Baranetsky and Shawn Musgrave of the Center for Investigative Reporting write for CJR about Synopsys, a Silicon Valley-based technology company and federal contractor<\/a> that claims its diversity data is a trade secret, and why this is \u201ca problem for journalism and democracy.\u201d Both of the authors have been involved in an ongoing case brought against Synopsys by the Center for Investigative Reporting, in which the Center\u2019s Reveal newsroom \u201cargues that Synopsys\u2019 alleged exception from FOIA\u2019s general rule of disclosure is illegal and a serious concern that will hinder the collection of public records by journalists.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Intercept<\/em> had nearly 70,000 paid members in the US and Brazil last year, the company told Axios<\/a>. The outlet says it\u2019s expecting that figure to drop this year to about 65,000 members. Betsy Reed, the site\u2019s editor-in-chief, said it is seeing \u201cless intense engagement in post-Trump era,\u201d but that memberships are still strong, and that the Intercept<\/em>\u2018s readership hasn\u2019t been impacted dramatically by the departure of co-founder Glenn Greenwald. Memberships account for less a quarter of the site\u2019s funding, with philanthropic donations making up most of the rest, Axios reports<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Reuters Institute for Journalism, based at the University of Oxford in the UK, has launched the Oxford Climate Journalism Network<\/a>, an attempt to \u201chelp journalists cover the climate crisis better,\u201d funded by a grant from the European Climate Foundation. It will do so by offering online course for practicing journalists, leadership programs for editors and newsroom managers, fellowships for mid-career journalists, and original academic research, the Institute said. It said the project is being led by Meera Selva, its deputy director, and Wolfgang Blau, a visiting fellow and member of the Institute\u2019s advisory board.<\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Note: This was originally published as the daily newsletter at the Columbia Journalism Review, where I am the chief digital writer Last week, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before a Senate subcommittee about the company\u2019s propensity for disregarding its own research into the harms done by its content algorithms, particularly among young girls who use … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Facebook hearing sparks talk of a social media regulator”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crsspst_to_mathewingramblogwordpresscom":false,"mf2_syndication":[],"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}