By Jordan McDonald
Could this be the tight spot from which Facebook can’t get away?
The social media giant had always fended off criticism without any long-term damage. But, since a 2019 data breach, the company has seen a relentless barrage of negative press. And this week is no different. Let’s break down what’s happened:
· A huge hit came on October 1st when the Wall Street Journal published five stories from leaked internal documents supplied by an anonymous former Facebook employee. Four days later, the source was revealed as Frances Haugen, who that day testified before the US Senate Committee with tens of thousands of internal Facebook documents she had collated before her departure. Her testimony indicated that Facebook: did not do enough to combat hate speech and violence; prioritised profit over user safety and; ignored advice about how to make Instagram less damaging to the mental health of teenage. The combination of the Wall Street Journal stories and Ms Haugen’s more than three-hour testimony opened a window that gave the regular user never-before-seen access into the inner-workings of the social media platform. The news clearly ruffled some of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s feathers because the next day he posted to Facebook a 1300-word response to Ms Haugen’s testimony which essentially attempted to minimise and muddy her claims. However, a quick read through the comments on the post clearly showed people were standing firmly behind Ms Haugen.
· As October ticked on, more stories have been published online that analyse Ms Haugen’s testimony and a handful of her internal documents. A redacted version of her extended documents was being sought by almost every major publication in the world by mid-October which coincidentally birthed the more recent Facebook Papers. What are the Facebook Papers? They’re a collaborative project between 17 news organisations, including Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and CNN, which together gained access to a redacted version of Ms Haugen’s internal documents. Collectively, the news organisations have released numerous stories detailing particular findings in the documents, all aimed at further breaking down the knowledge barrier that exists between Facebook, its users and governments. The effects of this are still being felt by Facebook with the full extent of the damage yet to be seen.
Armed with all the new information, the Australian government has opted to make an early move to force Facebook to change its ways. This week, the Morrison Government revealed they want to create landmark legislation aimed at protecting young users from Facebook’s deceptive practices. Part of the legislation will require Facebook and Instagram to take all reasonable steps to verify a user is 16 or older before they can sign-up. It would be a great first step should the legislation pass. Among Ms Haugen’s findings, it was reported that Facebook actively targets younger users with deceptive content to drive up engagement. The previous discussion around Facebook this month has raised how harmful this can be to the mental health of younger users.
What will Facebook do next?
There are rumours that Facebook will rebrand – perhaps even a name-change. Unfortunately for Zuck, that speculation was met with anger with online punters suggesting this is Facebook simply avoiding its problems. I tend to agree. I don’t see a name-change erasing the recent damage nor minimising any news to come. It will be interesting to watch on with Mr Zuckerberg expected to make any significant announcements at the upcoming Facebook Connect conference on October 28th.