The Case Against Meta
Instagram and Facebook have captivated our generation– serving as a tool for communication, advertising, shopping, and organization. Meta, their shared parent company, has assumed an immense role in our lives which has become out of control and exploitative. Meta came under fire late 2021 when a whistleblower released internal documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The whistleblower, Frances Haugen, had worked in Facebook’s Civic Integrity team, but just a month after the US 2020 Presidential Election, the team previously dedicated to their role in political discourse was dissolved (Heath 2020). The released documents revealed alarming internal research, including information that Meta had been publicly downplaying the adverse effects of their apps.
The documents Haugen released made it evident that time and time again, Meta chooses to prioritize user engagement over responsibility.
Despite their dissolution, Meta executives assured that its Civic Integrity team members would continue their work. They were to integrate into other teams, working more effectively to counteract disinformation and hateful content. However, the months following the Civic Integrity team’s dissolution suggest otherwise.
One month and three days after Facebook’s restructuring announcement, the US Capitol was stormed on behalf of the “Stop the Steal” movement which had grown on social media. As disinformation charged a movement undermining the 2020 election results, Meta no longer had a unit solely devoted to stopping it. They claimed that the Civic Integrity Team would be more effective when integrated into other work focus areas, and now with the election over, they could make this move. The “Stop the Steal” movement indicates that the switch-up failed to prevent the spread of disinformation and hate. Despite the election being over, many Americans did not see it as final.
According to Frances Haugen's documents, it is clear that Facebook employees were not surprised by the insurrection. A company after-action report revealed that Facebook knew they did not take enough action against the Stop the Steal movement in the weeks following the 2020 Election. They realized they prematurely disbanded the Civic Integrity team, and they did not have the means for a quick response to the event on January 6th (Albergotti 2021).
Some of the most jarring information revealed in the documents was Facebook executives’ dismissal of prior internal research and solutions. Despite internal research identifying “ways to diminish the spread of political polarization, conspiracy theories and incitements to violence,” Zuckerberg and other executives shot down these mitigation techniques due to fears of loss in user engagement (Albergotti 2021). This research not only identified issues but also laid out plans to slow down the spread of these harmful movements. Still, they failed to address concerns and take the actions presented to them.
Meta’s inaction enabled the Stop the Steal movement to grow as their conspiracies reached more and more angry, politically charged audiences. Meanwhile, public figures, such as President Trump, were shielded from any measures used to limit the spread of lies (Horwitz 2021). Trump continued to fire up his followers on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, spurring antidemocratic and resentful political discourse. This bitterness was complemented with the conspiracy theories of QAnon, building a coalition under the impression that they could fight for an electoral victory. The insurrection was the worst possible culmination of polarization and conspiracy, undermining democratic institutions with violence.
The January 6th insurrection was an obvious display of the adverse effects of Facebook, but internal documents reveal countless other problems Meta has chosen to conceal from the public. For example, Meta knows Instagram is harmful to many teen girls. Internal research shows app usage is correlated with exacerbated body image issues and increased rates of depression and anxiety. This research was kept confidential after August 2021 Senate requests for studies on Meta’s effects on children and teenagers (Wells 2021). In spite of this research, Meta continued to increase youth engagement, encouraging secondary Instagram accounts such as “Finstas.” As their app harms young girls, they continue to promote increased engagement with this demographic. The attempts to conceal this evidence from the public are telling: Meta refused to accept responsibility over fears of lost profit. Meta’s behavior is reckless without concern for the destructive impacts on users.
An additional exposed problem was a 2018 change in the algorithm attempted to make Facebook healthier for its users. The algorithm change intended to focus users on interaction with family and friends rather than professionally published content (Hagey 2021). It placed more value on reshares and in turn promoted more spread of sensationalized and reactionary content. It became clear to the company that the new algorithm was more harmful to its users. However, fear of lost engagement again won over concerns for users. As a result, executives rejected another algorithm change. As Meta and its products continue to captivate wide audiences around the world, its lack of transparency and accountability leaves a significant threat of harm. Congress, however, does have Meta and other Big Tech companies on its radar.
There have been three hearings on Big Tech in the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee since October 5th, 2021 with Frances Haugen at the center. The second hearing was on December 5th, 2021, focusing on a “variety of bills to foster greater algorithmic transparency and to design protections for kids online, among other proposals” (Curri 2022). About four months later, a March 1st hearing examined five bills, one of which would play a major role in Meta accountability, the Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act.
The bill would establish a Bureau of Digital Services and Safety at the Federal Trade Commission. The 500-person Bureau would include “technologists, socio technical experts, and constitutional lawyers” (U.S. House of Representatives 2022 ) providing the needed expertise to investigate and evaluate Meta and other tech companies’ work.
The Bureau of Digital Services and Safety would focus on online platforms, facilitating independent research, defining code of conduct and evaluating adherence, auditing compliance with FTC adherence, and creating formal positions to mitigate systemic risks (U.S. House of Representatives 2022).
Currently, Congress must ask for Meta’s research to inform policymaking. The Bureau of Digital Oversight and Safety establishment is an intuitive solution to the problems arising in a world driven by social media. We need independent experts devoted to research and regulation to ensure social media users are safe and protected. After Frances Haugen’s testimony, we have too much evidence displaying the failure of relying on Meta to self-regulate. They have proven that people are not their priority. Creating a government bureau ensures the protection of people’s interests and safety.
Still, Congress has lacked swift action in response to the Facebook whistleblower. This delay can be explained by Republican reluctance. The Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act has no Republican cosponsors, and opponents refuse to consider more regulation for Big Tech.
House Republicans, like Jim Jordan and even Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, throw around terms like “censorship” and “big government” (Klar 2021). For them, the movement to regulate Big Tech through antitrust legislation and expanding government supervision is an overreach of powers. A tweet from their Republican colleague, Ken Buck, ranking member on the Antitrust subcommittee, countered this: “Using antitrust laws to stop Big Tech’s bad behavior isn’t Big Government, it’s law enforcement” (Klar 2021). Although not all Republicans share the same anti-government intervention sentiments, the strong opposition has successfully stalled the Democratic agenda.
Republicans had two bills in question in March’s hearing on Big Tech, but they have yet to put their support behind Democratic efforts. The recent hearings hopefully will lead to progress in their legislative efforts.
Big Tech’s increased lobbying efforts may explain this delay. Before the March 1st hearing, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, Rep. Frank Pallone, said: “Big Tech continues to prioritize profits over people while fighting to preserve its lack of accountability” (Curri 2022). As efforts are taken against Big Tech, they have increased their own efforts to avoid responsibility.
In the face of opposition, the Democrat's agenda remains strong. In his State of the Union address on March 1st, Biden chose to stand firmly alongside his Democratic colleagues. Frances Haugen was among his guests, and he gave several nods to the harmful role Big Tech is playing in American society. He mentioned social media’s uncontrolled access to America’s youth: “We must hold social media platforms accountable for the national experiment they’re conducting on our children for profit” (Brody 2022).
Even after the December congressional hearings, bills concerning social media and children have yet to gain momentum. Nevertheless, Biden’s statement is promising. Protecting the youth is not just important– it is strategic. Protecting the innocent and vulnerable is an appeal to sympathetic Americans everywhere. Centering the issue around America’s children takes away a partisan edge, and it will likely help the Democrats advance their agenda in the near future.
Biden also echoed antitrust efforts against Big Tech, claiming “Capitalism without competition is exploitation” (Brody 2022). Meta’s control of our lives has proven to be uncontrolled exploitation. Without independent research, they have concealed negative effects on users. Their algorithms hook users, increasing profit without incentive to prioritize safety. Their actions are continually unchecked. As Meta continues to expand audiences and gain profit without competition or government intervention, it has become clear that they are operating as a monopoly.
Meta continues to capture a wider audience, and its control on American life will only expand in the future. Its influence on political life may continue to spark violence and political polarization. Action must be taken to limit its scope of influence, and it must be done soon. Without competition, regulation, and even the knowledge of Meta’s role in our lives, we can only expect our wellbeing to continue to be sacrificed for profit.
References
Albergotti, Reed, Elizabeth Dwoskin, Craig Timberg. 2021. “Facebook Under Fire.” Washington Post,October 20, 2021.https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/jan-6-capitol-riot-facebook/
Brody, Ben. 2022. “The 5 most important tech lines in Biden’s State of the Union.” Protocol, March 1,2022. https://www.protocol.com/biden-state-of-union-tech
Curi, Maria. 2022. “Democrats Weigh Reining in Online Ads, Bias as GOP Is Skeptical.” BloombergGovernment, February 28, 2022.https://about.bgov.com/news/democrats-weigh-reining-in-online-ads-bias-as-gop-is-skeptical/
Hagey, Keach, Jeff Horwitz. 2021. “Facebook Tried to Make Its Platform a Healthier Place.” Wall StreetJournal, September 15, 2021.https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-algorithm-change-zuckerberg-11631654215?mod=articl_inline
Heath, Alex. 2020. “Facebook Splits Up Unit At Center of Contested Election Decisions.” TheInformation, December 3, 2020.https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facebook-splits-up-unit-at-center-of-contested-election-ecisions
Horwitz, Jeff. 2021. “Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret EliteThat’s Exempt.” Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2021.https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=aticle_inline
Horwitz, Jeff. 2021. “The Facebook Whistleblower, Frances Haugen, Says She Wants To Fix Facebook,Not Harm It.” Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2021.https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-says-she-wants-to-fix-the-company-not-harm-it-11633304122
Klar, Rebecca. 2021. “GOP divided over bills targeting tech giants.” The Hill, June 20, 2021.https://thehill.com/policy/technology/559227-gop-divided-over-bills-targeting-tech-giants?rl=1
Wells, Georgia, Jeff Horwitz, Deepa Seetharaman. 2021. “Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for TeenGirls.” Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2021.https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documnts-show-11631620739?mod=article_inline
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2022. “Re: Legislative Hearing on ‘Holding Big Tech Accountable: Legislation to Protect Online Users.’” February 25, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114439/documents/HHRG-117-IF17-20220301-SD002.pdf