Yesterday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced the US Congress for the first time to answer lawmakers' questions over the ongoing Cambridge Analytica scandal. In a five-hour hearing, Zuckerberg answered questions from 44 senators, who each had five miutes to grill him on data privacy, regulation and the abuse of his platform.
The marathon session didn’t yield much new information, with Zuckerberg mostly sticking to scripted answers or promising to get back to senators when he didn’t have the requested information to hand. It seems that Zuckerberg did just enough to reassure investors in the company, however, as its share price increased by 4.5 per cent by the end of the day – its highest point in nearly three weeks.
Here are five things that you need to know about from the mammoth question session.
Senator Hatch: I remember well your first visit to Capitol Hill, back in 2010. You spoke to the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, which I chair. You said back then that Facebook would always be free.
Zuckerberg: Senator, yes. There will always be a version of Facebook that is free. It is our mission to try to help connect everyone around the world and to bring the world closer together.
In his response to Senator Hatch, Zuckerberg was careful to state that there will always be a version of Facebook that is free. Crucially, he didn’t confirm that Facebook will stay free for all users. Zuckerberg didn’t add any more detail here, but this seems to imply that the company is considering offering users that opt-out of all advertising the option to pay to use an ad-free version of Facebook.
At the moment, there is no option for Facebook users to opt out of all advertising. In an interview with NBC News earlier this week, Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg said that such an option would be equivalent to “a paid product.”
Later, in a response to a question from Senator Nelson, Zuckerberg again hinted that a paid-for, ad-free version of Facebook was at least somewhere on his company’s radar.
Zuckerberg: Although to be clear, we don't offer an option today for people to pay to not show ads. We think offering an ad-supported service is the most aligned with our mission of trying to help connect everyone in the world, because we want to offer a free service that everyone can afford.
In December 2015, Facebook found out through a Guardian report that Alexander Kogan had sold data on Facebook users to Cambridge Analytica, a clear violation of Facebook’s terms of service. Senator Harris grilled Zuckerberg on his company’s failure to inform users at the time that their data had been misused in this way.
Zuckerberg claimed that he chose not to inform users because he had already asked Kogan and Cambridge Analytica to delete the leaked data, and had received their assurance that they had already done so.
Zuckerberg: Senator, in retrospect, I think we clearly viewed it as a mistake that we didn't inform people and we did that based on false information that we thought that the case was closed and that the data had been deleted.
Senator Harris: So there was a decision made on that basis not to inform the users. Is that correct?
Zuckerberg: That's my understanding. Yes.
The question of regulation came up numerous times during the hearing, and each time Zuckerberg reiterated the position stated in his interviews just after the scandal broke, that as a company Facebook is open to the idea of regulation.
Zuckerberg: Well, Senator, my position is not that there should be no regulation.
[...]
Senator Graham: You embrace regulation?
Zuckerberg: I think the real question, as the internet becomes more important in people's lives, is what is the right regulation, not whether there should be or not.
Zuckerberg didn’t go into much detail about what that regulation would actually look like, although he did offer to send Senator Graham some proposed regulations that he thinks would be appropriate for Facebook. Previously, Facebook has expressed its support of the Honest Ads Acts, a bill currently being debated that would require companies to disclose how online political ads were targeted at users and how much those ads cost.
One of the most cringe-inducing parts of the hearing came when Senator Durbin pressed Zuckerberg on his own willingness to share his personal data. Zuckerberg looked physically uncomfortable as he said that he wouldn’t be willing to share the kind of information that his company regularly collects from its own users.
Senator Durbin: Mr. Zuckerberg, would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night?
Zuckerberg: No.
Durbin: If you messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you've messaged?
Zuckerberg: Senator, no. I would probably not choose to do that publicly, here.
Last week, Zuckerberg faced criticism over privacy double-standards when it emerged that Facebook had deleted messages sent by Zuckerberg over Messenger, even though normal users do not have access to that feature. Later Facebook announced that it has plans to make it possible for users to ‘unsend’ Facebook messages, an option that will become available in the coming months. In the meantime, Zuckerberg will not have access to this option.
The average age of a senator is 61, so it’s perhaps unsurprising that the hearing was littered with misunderstandings about how Facebook works and what its business model is. More than once, Zuckerberg had to explain that Facebook does not sell its users data, but does use that data to allow advertisers to target users with content. Other confusions were even more basic, with Senator Schatz confusing email with WhatsApp and asking whether Facebook can see messages sent over the encrypted messaging app. It can’t.
These misunderstandings hint at a serious problem with Facebook. The company has done a poor job of explaining to its users about how it uses their data, and what the extent of its data-gathering operations are. Numerous senators asked for clarification about how Facebook collects data on people while they are not using the social media site, and several times Zuckerberg was unable to answer these questions, promising to submit a written answer once he had gathered the right information.
For years, Facebook has managed to exist as a dual-headed beast. To advertisers, it’s a sophisticated tool that allows them to target people down to a minute level based on extremely personal information. To users, it’s a social tool that allows them to connect with other people, share information and stay in touch. If Zuckerberg is to restore confidence in Facebook, he must start by plainly explaining to his users how these two parts of his company fit together, and how he’s going to make sure they never get abused to such an extent again.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
