Haugen: "Facebook hides information for your benefit" 4:18
(CNN) -
Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, appeared before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday, saying that "the decisions made on Facebook are disastrous."
After the hearing, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a message online that he sent to his employees.
Haugen's allegations have brought to the table the impact of the company's platforms on young people, political polarization and even authoritarian leaders.
For example, when a senator asked Haugen if Facebook is used by "authoritarian or terrorist leaders," Haugen said yes, pointing to Myanmar and Ethiopia as examples of how the platform can be used to sow violence.
"Terrifying": whistleblower links violence in Myanmar and Ethiopia, and spying on China and Iran with Facebook
Facebook has repeatedly denied or dismissed Haugen's claims.
On Tuesday, Zuckerberg published on his official Facebook account "a note that I wrote to everyone in our company," in which he talks about the massive downfall of that network, WhatsApp and Instagram on Monday and the reactions they have generated. Haugen's complaints.
Here are 5 key phrases from Zuckerberg's message.
advertising
"We do not recognize the false image of the company that is being painted"
"We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It's hard to see coverage that misrepresents our work and motives," wrote the Facebook CEO.
He added that "at the most basic level, I think most of us just don't recognize the false image of the company that is being painted."
Frances Haugen, Facebook's worst nightmare?
1:08
Four conclusions from the accusations of the Facebook whistleblower
"Many of the statements do not make any sense"
It further stated that "many of [the complainant's] assertions do not make any sense."
"If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place?" He asked.
"If we didn't mind fighting harmful content, why would we employ so many more dedicated people than any other company, even those bigger than us?"
What we know about Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by CNN en Español (@cnnee)
"At the center of these allegations is the idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being."
Among Haugen's accusations is that Facebook knows how to make its products more secure, but chooses not to do so in favor of profits.
Zuckerberg said that "just isn't true."
"For example, a measure that has been questioned is when we introduced the Change to Meaningful Social Interactions in the News Feed. This change showed less viral videos and more content from friends and family, we did it knowing that it would mean that people would spend less time in Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing to do for people's well-being, "said the CEO, asking," Is that something a company focused on profits over people would do? "
Mark Zuckerberg recovers $ 2.4 billion in one day 0:47
"I've spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my children and others to have online."
The director of Facebook focused mainly on the impact of the platforms on the youngest.
"From everything posted, I particularly focus on the questions that arise about our work with children. I have spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my children and others to have online, and it is very important to me that all what we build is safe and good for the youngest, "he wrote.
Research Finds Instagram Toxic to Teens, Wall Street Journal Reports
In addition, Zuckerberg said, "The reality is that young people use technology. Think about how many school-age children have telephones."
He said that "rather than ignoring this, technology companies should create experiences that meet their needs while keeping them safe. We are deeply committed to doing industry-leading work in this area."
On this, he gave as an example Messenger Kids, an initiative of the company.
This week it was also known that Instagram promoted pages that glorify eating disorders in adolescent accounts.
Frances Haugen said research done by the company reveals that children believe they are struggling with issues like body image and bullying just because their parents can't guide them.
“It saddens me the most when I look on Twitter and people blame parents for these problems with Facebook.
They say, 'Just take the phone from your kids.'
But the reality is that it is much more complicated than that, "he said. Haugen emphasized how parents face a new set of challenges that did not exist when they were young. He stressed that schools and the National Institutes of Health must provide established information where parents can learn how to better support their children.
The worst crashes of digital platforms in history 0:37
"It's disheartening to see the work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don't care."
Zuckerberg said it was "disheartening" to see "taken out of context" the research the company has done on the impact of its platforms and that it has been "used to build a false narrative that we don't care."
"If we attack organizations that strive to study their impact on the world, we are sending the message that it is safer not to look at all, in case you find something that can be reproached," he wrote in the message to his employees.
And he added that "that is the conclusion that other companies seem to have reached, and I think that leads to a place that would be much worse for society. Although it might be easier for us to follow that path, we will continue investigating because it is the right thing to do. ".
For his part, Haugen called on Congress to take steps to prevent harm caused by the social media company, including amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
He said Facebook should "declare moral bankruptcy" and ask Congress for help.
ANALYSIS |
Facebook Revelations Are Shocking, But Nothing Will Change Until Congress Takes Action
Read Zuckerberg's full message below
"First, the SEV that canceled all of our services yesterday was the worst blackout we have had in years. We have spent the last 24 hours analyzing how we can strengthen our systems against these types of failures. This was also a reminder of how important ours is. work for people. The deepest concern with an outage like this is not how many people switch to competing services or how much money we lose, but what it means for people who depend on our services to communicate with loved ones, run their business or support their communities.
Second, now that today's testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we are in. I am sure many of you have found it difficult to read recent coverage because it simply does not reflect the company we know. We care deeply about issues such as safety, well-being, and mental health. It's hard to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don't recognize the false image of the company that is being painted.
Many of the statements do not make any sense. If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important topics in the first place? If we didn't mind fighting harmful content, why would we employ so many more dedicated people than any other company in our space, even those bigger than us? If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have set an industry leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we are doing? And if social media was as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing increased polarization in America?while it remains stable or decreases in many countries with such intense use of social networks around the world?
At the center of these allegations is the idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That is simply not true. For example, one measure that has been questioned is when we introduced the Change for Meaningful Social Interactions in the News Feed. This change showed fewer viral videos and more content from friends and family, which we did knowing it would mean that people would spend less time on Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing to do for people's well-being. Is that something that a company focused on profits over people would do?
The argument that we deliberately promote content that infuriates people for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads and advertisers are constantly telling us that they don't want their ads to be alongside harmful or angry content. And I don't know of any tech company that sets out to create products that make people angry or depressed. Moral, business and product incentives point in the opposite direction.
But from everything posted, I particularly focus on the questions that arise about our work with children. I've spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my kids and others to have online, and it's very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for the very young.
The reality is that young people use technology. Think about how many school-age children have telephones. Rather than ignoring this, tech companies should create experiences that meet their needs while keeping them safe. We are deeply committed to doing industry leading work in this area. A good example of this work is Messenger Kids, which is widely recognized as being better and safer than the alternatives.
We've also worked to provide this kind of age-appropriate experience with parental controls for Instagram. But given all the questions about whether this would really be better for kids, we've stopped that project to take more time to engage with the experts and make sure everything we do is helpful.
Like many of you, I found it difficult to read the mischaracterization of the research on how Instagram affects young people. As we wrote in our newsroom post to explain this: "Research actually showed that many teens we hear about feel that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with the kinds of tough times and problems that teens have always faced. In fact, in 11 of 12 areas on the slide referenced by the Journal, including serious areas such as loneliness, anxiety, sadness, and eating problems, more teens who said they had trouble with that problem also said that Instagram made those tough times better instead of worse. "
But when it comes to the health or well-being of young people, all negative experiences matter. It is incredibly sad to think of a young man in a moment of heartbreak who, instead of being comforted, has made his experience worse. We have worked for years in industry leading efforts to help people right now and I am proud of the work we have done. We constantly use our research to further improve this work.
Similarly to balancing other social issues, I don't think private companies should make all the decisions themselves. That is why we have advocated for up-to-date internet regulations for several years. I have testified in Congress several times and asked them to update these regulations. I have written op-ed pieces outlining the areas of regulation that we believe to be the most important related to elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition.
We are committed to doing the best job we can, but at some level, the right body to assess the tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the appropriate age for adolescents to be able to use Internet services? How should internet services verify people's ages? And how should companies balance teen privacy while giving parents visibility into their activity?
If we are going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it is important to start with the big picture. We are committed to doing more research ourselves and making more research publicly available.
That said, I am concerned about the incentives that are being established here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify and work on significant issues. It's heartbreaking to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don't care. If we attack organizations that strive to study their impact on the world, we are sending the message that it is safer not to look at all, in case you find something that can be reproached. That's the conclusion other companies seem to have come to, and I think that leads to a place that would be much worse for society. Although it might be easier for us to go down that path, we will continue to investigate because it is the right thing to do.
I know it is frustrating to see the good work we do mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making significant contributions to safety, integrity, research, and products. But I believe that in the long run, if we keep trying to do the right thing and provide experiences that improve people's lives, it will be better for our community and our business. I have asked the leaders of the company to delve into our work in many areas over the next few days so that they can see how much we are doing to get there.
When I reflect on our work, I think of the real impact we have on the world - people who can now stay in touch with loved ones, create opportunities to support themselves, and find community. That is why billions of people love our products. I am proud of everything we do to continue building the best social products in the world and I am grateful to all of you for the work you do here every day. "
Why don't social networks change, even knowing its negative effects
With information from AJ Willingham.