‘To let Facebook be the sole arbiters of what can and cannot remain online is unacceptable’
FACEBOOK bosses yesterday told a Dáil committee it works in the best interest of its users – a claim swiftly knocked back by TDs and Senators. Here are Facebook’s main points and the incredulous responses from members of the Dáil communications committee:
1. Facebook’s six-year delay in taking down a video of a young child being physically abused
Facebook managers said a video on the site of a Malaysian toddler being assaulted should have been removed in 2012 when the child and perpetrator were identified.
But it added that Facebook will still allow such videos to remain online in situations where ‘the child is still at risk and there is a chance the child and perpetrator could be identified to law enforcement as a result of awareness being raised’.
This justification was lambasted by TDs and Senators yesterday who branded it as being ‘inexcusable’.
After the meeting, committee chair Hildegarde Naughton said this particular policy ‘is completely not acceptable’.
‘To say they are going to be the sole arbiters in relation to what can or cannot remain online is just not acceptable. To say they are going to leave harmful or illegal abusive material online so they can find the perpetrator... to me is completely not acceptable.
‘And I don’t think it will be acceptable to many people who witnessed that online. It’s up to law enforcement agencies. It’s up to them to contact the relevant child protection agency within that jurisdiction if it’s in relation to a child etc.
‘And all of those procedures need to be set up and they are obviously not there. They are not in place and that is what I would like to see coming back from Facebook when they report back to us.’
During the hearing, Tipperary TD Michael Lowry told two Facebook executives: ‘You accept the decision not to remove the video in question was a mistake... but to me it’s inexcusable that something that was known to you in 2012 was still available for viewing in 2018.’
He also said their policy to apply a ‘warning screen’ on such videos is irrelevant. He continued: ‘And it doesn’t mat- ter to me if under-18s or over-18s was viewing this, it was a vile act and should not have been available at that stage.
‘The Dispatches programme has obviously, and you have accepted yourself, identified areas of failures. And that begs the question how many other areas of failures have not yet been exposed?
‘You’d have to question the ability of Facebook to police, to edit and to control the content. Your ability to do that, in my view, is seriously questioned. And also the trust and confidence of the public in your efforts to self-regulate has been shattered.’
2. The need for an independent state internet watchdog
On the proposed appointment of a Digital Safety Commissioner, Facebook stated they ‘understand the motivation behind the establishment of such an office’. But they also voiced their concerns at a Dáil Bill to create of a digital watchdog, which may impact on ‘freedom of expression’.
Niamh Sweeney said there was not a clear definition of ‘harmful communications’ in the draft legislation, and that this may be an issue of concern for some other organisations.
However, Fianna Fáil’s Timmy Dooley said he got the ‘sense there is a level of reticence’ about it from the company.
Mr Dooley questioned if Facebook had lobbied the Government about the creation of a digital commissioner, and Ms Sweeney admitted they had.
‘I am also sort of seeing there is some parallels in your reticence that is in the language of the Taoiseach as well that I have noticed in recent times.
‘And I notice he has made his interest known in Mr Zuckerberg and Facebook, and has shown a great excitement about that. In
fact, the last time I saw him on television in the United States with Mr Zuckerberg, I almost expected him to take a phone out and take a selfie he seemed so excited about it,’ the TD said.
But on the issue of ‘perceived reticence’, Ms Sweeney told the meeting there was ‘certainly no perceived reticence’ and that she was only quoting a Law Reform Commission report.
She said: ‘We had meetings with... the LRC over the two years they were preparing that report. But unfortunately they didn’t include a definition of harmful communication in the draft legislation, I think when the detailed scrutiny happens there will be other organisations who will want to come in and speak to that, you might have more faith in than you do with us today.
‘On the question of lobbying, we have discussed with the Taoiseach when he met with our CEO Mark Zuckerberg in Menlo Park last November, we did encourage the option of the Internet Content Governance Advisory Groups report, much of which was captured in the Action Plan for Online Safety, which was published last month.
‘And we did have a discussion about the potential impact of Freedom of Expression with the LRC proposed legislation.’
3. On allegations Facebook was blaming a few low-level employees for systematic abuses identified by Channel 4
Facebook executives claimed that footage captured by Channel 4 showing CPL employees saying it was in Facebook’s interest to turn a blind eye to controversial or disturbing content was ‘categorically untrue’.
CPL, the firm employed by Facebook to monitor such content, was yesterday blamed by the social network for adding training materials that had not been approved by the company.
Facebook head of policy Niamh Sweeney said an investigation was now under way to ‘understand why some actions taken by CPL was not reflective of our policies and the underlying values on which they are based’.
But she added she understood that the explanations to the committee had been ‘undermined by the comments that were captured on camera by the Dispatches reporter’.
Some workers at CPL were given leave of absences to allow them to ‘regroup’ after the documentary aired. Twice Ms Sweeney told the committee that the CPL workers ‘were not being thrown under the bus’.
But Sinn Féin’s Brian Stanley put it to her: ‘You mention that some of the staff involved have been advised to take time off. Is it a case that you have asked for them to be fired, or is it enforced time off? Are they simply sacrificial lambs that you’re able to come in here today and say that these people have been given time off to show how seriously you’re taking the matter when in actual fact the responsibility goes further up the chain in your company?’
4. On allegations Facebook doesn’t remove content, even when users are horrified
Facebook’s Siobhán Cummiskey said it was ‘important to know that sometimes people want to use social media to bring attention to the terrible things that happen in the world’.
She said: ‘We want to allow people to bring attention to those things in a way that is appropriate and in a way that is limited so what we say is that in certain limited circumstances you can share content that might otherwise be disturbing if you are doing so in order to shed light on the terrible things that are happening in the world.
‘And we do want people and we do want social media to have a role in bringing terrible things to light, but we do that in a way that we think is responsible.’
But Fine Gael’s Joe O’Reilly claimed it was ‘financially attractive’ for Facebook to keep users online for as long as possible and by any means possible.
He asked why Facebook was not more proactive in removing offensive material, suggesting it drew users into the website.
Fianna Fáil’s Timmy Dooley went a step further, calling offensive material ‘the cocaine of the business’.
‘You’re not really concerned at what they’re actually seeing, it’s that they’re remaining on your platform,’ he said. ‘It’s the cocaine of the business. It’s attractive. It’s interesting. It captures their attention and it’s addictive. And all the while you have a business model that’s based around the couple of billion people who log in and view this type of material.’
5. On whether Facebook allows children to set up accounts
Facebook reiterated its policy that it do not allow people under 13 to have an account.
If someone is reported to them as being under 13, a reviewer will examine the profile. If it is believed they are underage the account will ‘be put on hold’ until proof of age is offered, the company told the committee.
Facebook said they have since updated their policy for reviewers to put an account on hold if they themselves have a strong indication that an account was created by someone under age.
But the Green Party’s Eamon Ryan said it was evident from the Channel 4 programme that children underage can sign up.
Mr Ryan said: ‘You said there you don’t allow under-13s on Facebook. But one of the many interesting things about the Dispatches programme is they clearly indicated you do allow – not that you encourage or not that you want – but that it does happen. It is allowed.’
The Green Party leader queried if there are ways they could be certain there aren’t children under 13 on the platform with a ‘profile or page’.
Facebook said this has been brought to them by mental health minister Jim Daly but that it would mean a requirement that social media accounts would be linked with official State identification, and that may cause data protection problems.