Policy

Why Washington can’t just fix Facebook

Reporting on Facebook's misdeeds from The Wall Street Journal has academics and regulators alike clinging to solutions that are both elusive and insufficient.

Mark Zuckerberg

In 2019, Mark Zuckerberg championed the future of privacy at Facebook's F8 conference.

Photo: Amy Osborne/Getty Images

The wheels of Washington's rapid response machine have been turning on overdrive for the past week as lawmakers and the tech criticism industrial complex have rushed to react to an endless stream of damning reports coming out of The Wall Street Journal's Facebook Files project.

Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn announced a new "probe" into Facebook's "negative impact on teens" after the Journal reported that the company knew Instagram was warping teen girls' self-images. Common Sense Media called for Mark Zuckerberg to testify before Congress — yet again — and wider condemnation poured in from the company's detractors.

The question is, as ever: What can Washington do about this? The answer? Not much.

It's not that there's nothing that can be done to make change. It's that there's so very much to be done, but of all of the options on the table in Congress, it's not clear that any actually meets the moment.

Take Section 230, which protects websites from liability over what its users post. Meaningful change has been hard to come by in part because of politics: Republicans want to use the law to keep more conservative content up, and Democrats hope to pull down more misinformation and online harm. When lawmakers did get together to amend the law in 2018, to curb sex trafficking, unintended consequences for legal speech inevitably emerged.

Even if lawmakers did somehow link arms across the aisle to pass legislation, much of the problematic Facebook content the Journal highlighted in its reporting would still have protection under the First Amendment. In general, letting celebrities post misinformation would make for thin gruel for a lawsuit, even by users who might have experienced some harm from what they read. And there's nothing illegal about providing a platform for people to show off fantastic lives and bodies that may shred teen viewers' self-esteem.

Facebook probably wouldn't want to spend time and money to fend off all that litigation, and would likely suppress a lot of perfectly fine speech in response. But its riches make it one of the few social media sites that could actually afford to defend itself, if it chose to. In other words, a kneejerk change to Sec. 230 could knock down the rival services that Facebook is already trying to beat — without doing much to dent the world's most popular social network.

New privacy laws, while critical in a general sense, would be similarly inadequate here. Despite broad bipartisan interest in protecting kids online, there's little momentum so far behind a proposed revamp to the law that limits collection of kids' data when they're under 13. Even if there were support for those reforms, that would solve a wholly different set of problems, independent of the body-image issues, anxiety and depression among young Instagram users the Journal described.

Of course, there's always antitrust. A bipartisan package of House bills seeks to rein in the competitive practices of Big Tech companies including Facebook, while the Senate is developing its own approach in the meantime. The Federal Trade Commission, meanwhile, is hoping to get past a judge's early skepticism and win a breakup that's upheld on appeal.

But even if Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp were separated, each individual platform would would still have more than 1 billion worldwide users. Global moderation difficulties would persist, particularly on WhatsApp's encrypted chat, and the companies would still have to deal with the reality that objectionable content is sometimes what keeps users on the service.

Splitting the businesses apart would also mean the effort to address these issues would be fragmented. A fragmented response might be preferable to a unified one that buries evidence under the rug and where Mark Zuckerberg calls every shot. But if Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp were broken up, there's little reason to think each individual company would commit to the expensive and time-consuming studies the current company was burying in the first place.

So, with current legislative solutions proving both elusive and insufficient, what can be done to force Facebook's hand in correcting the harms the Journal — and Facebook's own employees — have repeatedly documented? One pressure point might involve pushback from other gigantic tech companies, including Apple.

As the Journal reported, Facebook was aware of an ongoing issue of human trafficking taking place on the platform, but didn't take broad action against posts from these traffickers until Apple threatened to remove the app from its App Store.

"In an internal summary about the episode, a Facebook researcher wrote: 'Was this issue known to Facebook before BBC enquiry and Apple escalation?'" the Journal report reads. "The next paragraph begins: 'Yes.'"

The two behemoths are already engaged in a trillion-dollar privacy war, where Apple holds near-complete control over whether Facebook's precious apps can actually reach users. The device-maker has blocked updates when it was displeased, and once even suspended Facebook's internal testing apps entirely after the company was caught evading Apple's App Store policies. When it comes to making Facebook flinch, Apple may hold stronger cards than any single lawmaker or even head of state — not that Apple is perfect.

What also comes through loud and clear in the Journal's reporting is the one thing Facebook executives care about almost as much as they care about growth: avoiding bad press. That is, the Journal argued, a big part of the motivation behind XCheck — a platform for high-profile Facebook users that has, at times, enabled those users to get away with conduct that ordinary users could not. "Facebook designed the system to minimize what its employees have described in the documents as 'PR fires,'" the Journal wrote, "negative media attention that comes from botched enforcement actions taken against VIPs."

Those PR fires often extend from company leaks or journalists digging up enforcement errors. But if Washington were to require more auditing and transparency from companies like Facebook, or even make it possible for researchers to study the platform without threat of legal repercussions, a lot more of these issues might come to light — and they would be a lot harder for Facebook to cover up.

A DTC baby formula startup is caught in the center of a supply chain crisis

After weeks of “unprecedented growth,” Bobbie co-founder Laura Modi made a hard decision: to not accept any more new customers.

Parents unable to track down formula in stores have been turning to Facebook groups, homemade formula recipes and Bobbie, a 4-year-old subscription baby formula company.

Photo: JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

The ongoing baby formula shortage has taken a toll on parents throughout the U.S. Laura Modi, co-founder of formula startup Bobbie, said she’s been “wearing the hat of a mom way more than that of a CEO” in recent weeks.

“It's scary to be a parent right now, with the uncertainty of knowing you can’t find your formula,” Modi told Protocol.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Sponsored Content

Foursquare data story: leveraging location data for site selection

We take a closer look at points of interest and foot traffic patterns to demonstrate how location data can be leveraged to inform better site selecti­on strategies.

Imagine: You’re the leader of a real estate team at a restaurant brand looking to open a new location in Manhattan. You have two options you’re evaluating: one site in SoHo, and another site in the Flatiron neighborhood. Which do you choose?

Keep Reading Show less
Enterprise

Celonis vows to stay independent despite offers from SAP, ServiceNow

Celonis is convinced standalone mining vendors can survive. But industry consolidation paints a different picture, and enterprise software giants are circling.

Celonis CEO Alex Rinke turned down offers from ServiceNow and SAP, according to sources.

Photo: Celonis

For the past decade, any software vendor that touted new levels of automation and data-driven insights appeared to have seemingly unrestricted access to capital. Now, as valuations drop and fundraising becomes more difficult, founders and company leaders are facing a difficult decision: look to be acquired or try to go it alone.

At Celonis — which, at an $11 billion valuation, is one of the buzzier software upstarts — that question appears to have already been decided. Enterprise software giants ServiceNow and SAP made offers in the past year to buy the process-mining firm, according to sources familiar with the deliberations, which were turned down because the Celonis leadership team wanted to remain independent.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a writer-at-large at Protocol. He previously covered enterprise software for Protocol, Bloomberg and Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JoeWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Enterprise

SaaS valuations cratered in early 2022. But these startups thrived.

VCs were still bullish on supply chain, recruiting and data startups despite the economic environment that chopped the valuations of newly public companies and late-stage enterprise startups.

While private equity has been investing in enterprise tech for decades, the confluence of several trends in the sector is making it more competitive than ever before.
Image: Getty Images; Protocol

Despite a volatile tech stock market so far this year that has included delayed IPOs, lowered valuations and declining investor sentiment, a few enterprise tech categories managed to keep getting funding. Data platforms, supply chain management tech, workplace software and cybersecurity startups all dominated the funding cycle over the past quarter.

When it comes to enterprise SaaS, the number of mega-deals — VC funding rounds over $100 million — spiked last year, according to data from Pitchbook. Partially driven by the onset of a pandemic that accelerated the need for everything from contact centers to supply chains to move into the cloud, the number of large VC deals tripled between 2020 and 2021. That growth has extended into this year, where the number of mega-deals has already outpaced all of 2020.

Keep Reading Show less
Aisha Counts

Aisha Counts (@aishacounts) is a reporter at Protocol covering enterprise software. Formerly, she was a management consultant for EY. She's based in Los Angeles and can be reached at acounts@protocol.com.

Fintech

Plaid is striking back after Stripe entered its core business

Onboarding customers through identity verification and ACH transfers is a hot sector in fintech, and the two fast-growing fintechs are set to battle it out.

Plaid is looking to help banks and fintech companies with anything related to the onboarding of a customer onto a financial product, said Plaid CTO Jean-Denis Greze.

Photo: Plaid

Plaid is moving into identity verification in a crucial expansion beyond its roots connecting banks and fintechs — a move that could put it in more direct competition with Stripe, another company known for its financial software tools.

In conjunction with its Plaid Forum customer conference this week, the company is also announcing two products focused on ACH transfers as it moves into payments.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins