How does Facebook make money?
Exec Explains 1:43
New York (CNN Business) -
Facebook has faced whistleblowers, public relations storms and subpoenas to Congress in recent years.
But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and far-reaching crisis in the company's 17-year history.
On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories, collectively called "The Facebook Papers," based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents that were included in the disclosures. made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in edited form by legal counsel to the Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.
CNN's coverage includes stories about how coordinated groups on Facebook sow discord and violence, including on Jan. 6 on Capitol Hill, as well as Facebook's challenges to moderate content in some non-English-speaking countries, and how human traffickers have used their platforms to exploit people.
The reports from CNN, and other outlets that are part of the consortium, follow a month of intense scrutiny for the company.
The Wall Street Journal previously published a series of stories based on tens of thousands of pages of internal Facebook documents leaked by Haugen.
(The consortium's work is based on many of the same documents.)
Minute by minute: They post internal Facebook documents
Another former Facebook employee raises her voice about the company 4:03
Facebook, to respond to the Senate
The publication of The Wall Street Journal's "Facebook Archives", which raised concerns about the impact of Instagram on teenage girls, among other issues, prompted a hearing by Senate Global Security Subcommittee Antigone Davis with Facebook CEO.
Haugen herself later testified before the Senate subcommittee, during which she said she believes "Facebook products harm children, fuel division and weaken our democracy."
advertising
There is currently no end in sight for Facebook's troubles. Members of the subcommittee have asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify. And on Friday, another former Facebook employee anonymously filed a complaint against the company with the SEC, with allegations similar to Haugen's.
Facebook has previously grappled with scandals over its approach to data privacy, content moderation, and competitors.
But the vast trove of documents, and the many stories that are surely yet to emerge, touch on concerns and issues in seemingly every part of his business: his approach to combating hate speech and misinformation, managing international growth, protecting younger users on your platform.
and even its ability to accurately measure the size of its mass audience.
All of this raises an uncomfortable question for the company: Is Facebook really capable of managing the real-world damage potential of its staggeringly large platforms, or has the social media giant gotten too big not to fail?
Facebook plans to change its name, according to a report 0:41
Facebook tries to turn the page
Facebook, for its part, has repeatedly tried to discredit Haugen, saying that his testimony and reports on the documents mischaracterize his actions and efforts.
"At the heart of these stories is a premise that is false," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to CNN.
"Yes, we are a company and we make a profit, but the idea that we do it at the expense of the safety or well-being of the people misunderstands where our own business interests lie."
In a Twitter feed last week, the company's Vice President of Communications John Pinette called the Facebook Docs a "curated selection of millions of documents on Facebook" that "in no way can be used to draw fair conclusions about U.S". But even that answer is revealing: If Facebook has more documents that would tell a fuller story, why not publish them? (During his Senate testimony, Facebook's Davis said Facebook is "looking for ways to publish more research.")
Instead, Facebook is now reportedly planning to change its name with a new name this week, as the wave of critical coverage continues.
(Facebook previously declined to comment on this report.)
The move appears to be a clear attempt to turn the page, but a fresh coat of paint won't fix the underlying issues outlined in the docs - only Facebook, or whatever it may be called soon, can do that.
Facebook plans to change its name, according to a report
Facebook plans to change its name, according to a report 0:41
Crimes on Facebook
For example, look at a report published by The Wall Street Journal on September 16 that highlighted an internal Facebook investigation into a violent Mexican drug cartel, known as the Jalisco Nueva Generación Cartel. The cartel was said to be using the platform to post violent content and recruit new members using the acronym "CJNG," even though it had been internally designated as one of the "Dangerous People and Organizations" whose content should be removed. Facebook told The Journal at the time that it was investing in artificial intelligence to beef up its application against such groups.
Despite last month's Journal report, CNN last week identified disturbing content linked to the group on Instagram, including photos of weapons and photo and video posts in which people appear to have been shot or beheaded.
After CNN asked Facebook about the posts, a spokesperson confirmed that several videos flagged by CNN were removed for violating company policies, and at least one post had a warning added.
Another Facebook whistleblower is willing to testify before Congress
A trove of internal Facebook documents leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen has started a wave of coverage of the company, starting with the Wall Street Journal's "Facebook Archives" and now, as a consortium of other news organizations, they run stories on the same documents.
Haugen has suggested that Facebook's failure to fix these problems is partly due to prioritizing profit over social good and, in some cases, because the company lacks the ability to put out its many fires at once.
"Facebook is extremely understaffed ... and this is because there are a lot of technologists looking at what Facebook has done and their unwillingness to accept responsibility, and people are just not willing to work there," Haugen said. at a briefing with the "Facebook Papers" consortium last week. "So they have to make very, very, very intentional decisions about what gets or doesn't get done."
Facebook has invested a total of $ 13 billion since 2016 to improve the security of its platforms, according to a company spokesperson. (By comparison, the company's annual revenue topped $ 85 billion last year and its profits reached $ 29 billion.) The spokesperson also said that Facebook has "40,000 people working on security on our platform, including 15,000 people reviewing content in more than 70 languages working in more than 20 locations around the world to support our community."
"We have also eliminated more than 150 networks that seek to manipulate the public debate since 2017, and they have originated in more than 50 countries, most of them originating from or focused outside the United States," the spokesperson said.
"Our track record shows that we crack down on abuse outside the US with the same intensity that we do in the US."
Still, the documents suggest that the company has much more work to do to remove all the damages outlined in the documents and address the unintended consequences of Facebook's unprecedented reach and integration into our daily lives.
An uncertain future for Facebook
Meanwhile, the company seems to be rapidly losing trust, not only among some of its users and regulators, but internally as well.
Several of the internal documents point out concerns among Facebook employees about the company's actions, including a December 2020 post on Facebook's internal site about the wear and tear of the company's integrity team in which an employee points out in a Comment: "Our recent pulse results show that confidence in leadership has declined across the company." (Companies often use pulse surveys to measure employee sentiment on certain topics.)
The internal post came after Facebook's Civic Integrity team disbanded after the presidential election and its staff were assigned to other functions within the company, a move that Haugen criticized, but was criticized by Facebook's vice president of integrity. Guy Rosen said it was done "so that the incredible work started [by the team] for the elections can be further applied ... their work continues to this day."
And on Thursday, Facebook's independent oversight board accused the company of not being "fully forthcoming" about the details of its Cross-Check program that reportedly shielded millions of VIP users from normal rules of moderation. content of the social media platform. (A Facebook spokesperson said in a statement that the company had "asked the board of directors for their opinion on our cross-checking system, and we will endeavor to be clearer in our explanations for them in the future.")
The good news for Facebook: Haugen, and the team that supports her, do not intend to shut down or divide the company. During his Senate testimony, Haugen repeatedly told lawmakers that he was there because he believes in the potential for the good of Facebook, if the company is able to address its serious problems. Haugen even said that he would go back to work for Facebook if given the chance. She suggested that Congress give the company a chance to "file for moral bankruptcy and we can find a way to fix these things together."
"The most interesting thing I discovered from reading these documents is how extraordinary the company is," Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and strategic legal advisor to Haugen, told CNN. "The company is filled with thousands upon thousands of Frances Haugens ... who are just trying to do their job. They are trying to make Facebook safe and useful and the best communication platform that they can."
What remains to be seen is how much Facebook will change in response to disclosures from current and future whistleblowers, especially if its ad-driven business continues to advance unimpeded, as it has done thus far.
Will you agree to the kind of transparency and cooperation that Haugen, regulators and others have called for?
Or will it just continue as usual with a new name?
Editor's Note: This article is part of a CNN series published in "The Facebook Papers", a treasure trove of more than ten thousand pages of leaked internal Facebook documents that provide a deep insight into the internal culture of the company, its approach of disinformation and moderation of hate speech, internal investigation into its newsfeed algorithm, communication related to January 6 and more.
Facebook Mark Zuckerberg