This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2018/nov/27/fake-news-inquiry-facebook-to-face-mps-from-around-the-world-mark-zuckerberg-live-updates
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Fake news inquiry: Facebook questioned by MPs from around the world - live updates | Fake news inquiry: Facebook questioned by MPs from around the world - live updates |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Singapore’s Edwin Tong asks about Facebook’s policy on hate speech, and quotes from a Mark Zuckerberg statement saying that the company has always taken down such content. | |
| Tong then brings up a post made in Sri Lanka, calling for the murder of Muslims. “It was put up at a time when there were significant tensions between Sri Lankan Muslims… that eventually resulted in a state of emergency. | |
| “In that context, wouldn’t such a post inflame tensions?” | |
| Allan agrees it would. | |
| Tong asks why, then, that post is not down. Allan says it should be, and that there must have been a mistake; Tong quotes from Facebook’s response, which says that no policy has been broken, and Allan repeats that it’s a mistake. | |
| “Would you agree that Facebook cannot be trusted to choose what goes on its platform,” Tong asks. Allan disagrees, and says “the best way to resolve this is a dictionary of hate speech terms in Sinhalese that gets surfaced to a Sinhalese reviewer.” | |
| “We make mistakes; our job is to reduce the number of mistakes. We should be accountable for our mistake to you and your colleagues, to every parliament that’s sat round the table today.” | |
| Sun asks if it’s possible that future elections will be interfered with through methods that will only be discovered after the fact. Allan says it’s possible, because “as long as we have an internet, it’s unreasonable to think that we’ll be able to stop all of this.” | |
| Would more be achieved, Sun asks, if Facebook works with relevant authorities to take down false content? Allan says he thinks its important to work within a judicial process: if someone claims a politician is false, he says, the best person to check is the judiciary of the country. | |
| Sun asks if he agrees that falsehoods can cause harm to society, and Allan says he does. | |
| Sun Xueling from Singapore asks how Facebook is policing the setting up and shutting down of fake accounts and their networks. | |
| “The shutting down of fake accounts is an ongoing battle that we have,” Allan says. “Most fake accounts are created with commercial intent … but they’re taken down within minutes. | |
| “Then there are people who are careful, create one or two accounts, and act as though they are a normal Facebook user. The issue in the US, with the Internet Research Agency, was that.” | |
| Allan says that “low-quality information” has reduced by over 50% on the site, according to a study from a French research institute. But, he says, those people who curate individual fake accounts are the hardest to catch. | |
| Zimmer quotes again from the New York Times story two weeks ago: “Mr Zuckerberg and Ms Sandberg stumbled … and sought to conceal warning signs from public view.” | |
| Allan says he doesn’t think that’s true. “Issues have come up, and been debated fully and thoroughly.” | |
| Zimmer notes that Facebook’s quarterly profit is $13bn. “What do you say to the 400 million constituents we represent that shows you’re taking this seriously? There are other bigger issues involving election campaigns … but you’re still downplaying the role that Facebook has in this situation. That’s a huge player on the global scene, and you still don’t seem to get a grasp on how much influence you have on global election campaigns.” | |
| Allan says: “We now have a world-leading security team, who are finding those people and taking them down. We tell you, and you ask how did they get on the site. There will be problems, but we will catch most of them, and our goal is that the Canadian elections should not be unduly influenced through online activity on our platform.” | |
| Canada’s Bob Zimmer asks whether Allan thinks Canada’s democracy is at risk if the country doesn’t change its laws to deal with ‘surveillance capitalism’. | |
| Allan says there are a number of vectors that are problematic: foreign interference, the ability for others to project their views into the country; but also domestic issues, allowing people inside the country to do dirty tricks campaigns. | |
| After a brief interruption from Ireland’s Eamon Ryan, and a quip about missing his gavel from Zimmer, the Canadian asks about Zuckerberg’s dismissal of the idea that Facebook affected the US election as a “crazy idea”. | |
| Allan concedes it was “not elegantly said”, but says that “in an election campaign there is a huge amount of legitimate activity carried out by all the parties … We did spot this activity that was wrong, shouldn’t have happened, but we think that if you look at what changed the outcome, it’s the main point.” | |
| “They’re both problems, but if you ask my why that statement was made, I’m trying to describe to you the thinking behind it.” | |
| The UK’s Brendan O’Hara reiterates the irritation with Facebook’s decision not to send Zuckerberg, and asks if Allan was sent to answer questions or defend the company. | |
| “Were you sent because you, in the entire Facebook empire, are the best person to answer all these questions, or because you’re best placed to defend the company?” | |
| Allan says he thinks it’s the former, and reminds O’Hara that Mike Schroepfer, the company’s chief technical officer, had previously come and not satisfied the committee. He says he volunteered to speak to the committee: “I said, ‘I believe that I have the knowledge that this group needs.’” | |
| “To be precise, both for the issues that you want to raise as the UK commitee, and, I now work on election issues globally… this is the stuff I work on. Our working assumption was that’s what you want to discuss.” | |
| O’Hara complains about how many times Allan is promising to write with answers after the commitee, and asks Allan what light he thinks he’s shone on the issue that has provided greater clarity than Zuckerberg could have. | |
| “I think I’ve given you insights around the way we think about regulation–” he is cut off by Collins, who hands over to the next questioner. | |
| Pow turns to Facebook’s decision to challenge a £500,000 fine from the Information Commissioner’s Office. Allan says there’s a problem about how you assign blame between a first party and a third party in the case of a breach here. “Some of the language here suggests that if I have an email, and share it with a third party, that that could be a breach. That’s the sort of question we have to answer.” | |
| Pow suggests that the appeal shows that Facebook actually doesn’t like regulation. Allan says “we are pleased about the right kind of regulation. Let’s get to the point where you agree that we’re doing the right kind of job, and can hold us to account if we’re not.” | |
| POw says it feels like Facebook priortised its business and the value of its shares over public safety. | |
| Allan says: “We have a mission. We want our service to be good, to be useful and to be safe.” | |
| Pow cites Allan’s claim that the Facebook platform was “win win win,” and says it now seems to be “lose lose lose”. Allan says that that’s only true for a small set of specific issues. | |
| Pow: “Mr Zuckerberg said that much of the criticism of Facebook over the last 18 months had been fair and important; would you agree with that?” | |
| Allan: “Yes.” | |
| Pow: “But in another article, he said that much of the criticism had been untrue and unfair.” | |
| Allan says that some specific points are “quite personal attacks, which we don’t recognise. I work with these people, and I don’t recognise the mischaracterisation of these individuals.” | |
| The plummeting trust in the company is, he says “a major concern. We recognise that we’re not in a good place in terms of trust.” | |
| The UK’s Rebecca Pow next, who wants to make some “quite general points”. She cites a New York Times article saying that Facebook “ignored warning signs” about the negative impacts of its social network. | |
| Allan says “the article mischaracterised discussions and people over the last few years. We are careful about how we release public information, about how they land. There’s no point in releasing security information if everyone’s going to declare it as partisan and dismiss it.” | Allan says “the article mischaracterised discussions and people over the last few years. We are careful about how we release public information, about how they land. There’s no point in releasing security information if everyone’s going to declare it as partisan and dismiss it.” |
| Canada’s Nathaniel Eskine-Smith quotes from Zuckerberg’s statement apologising for Facebook’s failures, and notes that he wasn’t sorry enough to show up. | Canada’s Nathaniel Eskine-Smith quotes from Zuckerberg’s statement apologising for Facebook’s failures, and notes that he wasn’t sorry enough to show up. |
| He then reels off a list of specific failures, from enabling the Rohingya genocide to allowing people to advertise to white supremacists and asks Allan if Facebook would do differently today. | He then reels off a list of specific failures, from enabling the Rohingya genocide to allowing people to advertise to white supremacists and asks Allan if Facebook would do differently today. |
| He then follows up by asking if those failures were malicious or negligence. Allan isn’t happy with the binary. | He then follows up by asking if those failures were malicious or negligence. Allan isn’t happy with the binary. |
| Erskine-Smith then begins to ask questions that seem drawn from the Six4Three emails: did Facebook limit API access to apps that buy mobile adverts; did Mark Zuckerberg ever cancel an announcement to implement API restrictions. Allan begins to protest that the questions are based on the emails, but both Erskine-Smith and Collins deny that any of the contents of the Six4Three emails were shared outside the DCMS committee. Allan then says he doesn’t know the answers, and Erskine-Smith argues that Mark Zuckerberg would, which is why he should have shown up. | Erskine-Smith then begins to ask questions that seem drawn from the Six4Three emails: did Facebook limit API access to apps that buy mobile adverts; did Mark Zuckerberg ever cancel an announcement to implement API restrictions. Allan begins to protest that the questions are based on the emails, but both Erskine-Smith and Collins deny that any of the contents of the Six4Three emails were shared outside the DCMS committee. Allan then says he doesn’t know the answers, and Erskine-Smith argues that Mark Zuckerberg would, which is why he should have shown up. |
| Erskine-Smith then asks whether Allan believes a user’s failure to uncheck a box about sharing data with app developers counts as “meaningful consent” under Canadian law; Allan says he does, prompting a laugh from Erskine-Smith. | Erskine-Smith then asks whether Allan believes a user’s failure to uncheck a box about sharing data with app developers counts as “meaningful consent” under Canadian law; Allan says he does, prompting a laugh from Erskine-Smith. |
| Ireland’s Hildegarde Naughton asks about Facebook’s advertising ban during the country’s abortion referendum. | Ireland’s Hildegarde Naughton asks about Facebook’s advertising ban during the country’s abortion referendum. |
| “We’re not comfortable making that decision”, Allan says, but when there’s no clear laws, sometimes the company is forced to act. The concern, he says, is that there was political interference from overseas. | “We’re not comfortable making that decision”, Allan says, but when there’s no clear laws, sometimes the company is forced to act. The concern, he says, is that there was political interference from overseas. |
| Naughton brings up two private member’s bills running through Ireland’s parliament, and asks if Allan accepts that Facebook needs to be regulated. “Yes,” he says. “Many of the laws on political advertising were drafted pre-internet. We’ve seen many interesting developments; in Brazil, for instance, the responsibility is put on the political actor, so that they can only use services with transparency tools. To the extent that this is all clarified, and we have a simple playbook, that would be extraordinarily helpful.” | Naughton brings up two private member’s bills running through Ireland’s parliament, and asks if Allan accepts that Facebook needs to be regulated. “Yes,” he says. “Many of the laws on political advertising were drafted pre-internet. We’ve seen many interesting developments; in Brazil, for instance, the responsibility is put on the political actor, so that they can only use services with transparency tools. To the extent that this is all clarified, and we have a simple playbook, that would be extraordinarily helpful.” |
| “I have now tens of thousands of colleagues who are deeply committed to protecting the safety of our users. The best way that we can ensure safety is when we’re able to be very open about the problems we’re seeing; some of the problems are on our platform, and we can just throw them off, but some of them need regulation. If someone’s a threat to children, for instance, we don’t want to throw them off the platform and have them go somewhere else.” | “I have now tens of thousands of colleagues who are deeply committed to protecting the safety of our users. The best way that we can ensure safety is when we’re able to be very open about the problems we’re seeing; some of the problems are on our platform, and we can just throw them off, but some of them need regulation. If someone’s a threat to children, for instance, we don’t want to throw them off the platform and have them go somewhere else.” |
| Farrelly turns to “Mainstream Network”, which was running adverts opposing the Chequers deal. Allan says the company has stopped running those adverts, but adds that “as of this week, any company that wants to run ads like that will have to provide a disclaimer saying how it’s funded”. | Farrelly turns to “Mainstream Network”, which was running adverts opposing the Chequers deal. Allan says the company has stopped running those adverts, but adds that “as of this week, any company that wants to run ads like that will have to provide a disclaimer saying how it’s funded”. |
| (That’s the first public confirmation of when Facebook is planning on launching the second half of its transparency tools in the UK, which were delayed earlier this month.) | (That’s the first public confirmation of when Facebook is planning on launching the second half of its transparency tools in the UK, which were delayed earlier this month.) |
| Farrelly suggests that the Six4Three emails – which we still haven’t seen – show that Facebook is potentially breaching the US Rico act, which is intended to crack down on organised crime. He asks if Facebook has ever taken advice on how to defend against a Rico case. Allan says it has not, and that such a comparison is unfair. | Farrelly suggests that the Six4Three emails – which we still haven’t seen – show that Facebook is potentially breaching the US Rico act, which is intended to crack down on organised crime. He asks if Facebook has ever taken advice on how to defend against a Rico case. Allan says it has not, and that such a comparison is unfair. |
| Farrelly asks if it’s fair to ask what Facebook has to hide. Allan: “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to share all our discussions with the public… in terms of what we did, we’ve got nothing to hide, in terms of all our internal discussions, having those treated as our company’s positions, I don’t think that’s fair.” | Farrelly asks if it’s fair to ask what Facebook has to hide. Allan: “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to share all our discussions with the public… in terms of what we did, we’ve got nothing to hide, in terms of all our internal discussions, having those treated as our company’s positions, I don’t think that’s fair.” |
| The UK’s Paul Farrelly again turns to Six4Three. “What’s their beef with you?” | The UK’s Paul Farrelly again turns to Six4Three. “What’s their beef with you?” |
| Allan: “Their beef rests on us making the changes that you all want us to change. When we changed the API, they lost access to the friends data, and they launched a series of lawsuits. | Allan: “Their beef rests on us making the changes that you all want us to change. When we changed the API, they lost access to the friends data, and they launched a series of lawsuits. |
| “Their app – I was not a user – promised to help you find photos of your friends wearing bikinis.” | “Their app – I was not a user – promised to help you find photos of your friends wearing bikinis.” |
| Farrelly notes that it’s “ironic”, because of the way Facebook started (as a website allowing users to compare the hotness of Harvard students). Allan notes the irony, but points out that “Facemash” did not include bikini pictures. | Farrelly notes that it’s “ironic”, because of the way Facebook started (as a website allowing users to compare the hotness of Harvard students). Allan notes the irony, but points out that “Facemash” did not include bikini pictures. |
| Allan says that the change in API terms happened around the time that Facebook transferred to being a mobile-focused company from being a website, and that that explains some emails apparently contained in the seized Six4Three cache. “All companies at that time discussed what the new business models look like … I suspect you may have, in the record, some partial discussions about potential new business models.” | Allan says that the change in API terms happened around the time that Facebook transferred to being a mobile-focused company from being a website, and that that explains some emails apparently contained in the seized Six4Three cache. “All companies at that time discussed what the new business models look like … I suspect you may have, in the record, some partial discussions about potential new business models.” |