‘It’s clear to me you don’t want to answer that’: Facebook hearing turns into another shouting match

Lawmakers were supposed to wade into questions about Big Data's effect on competition. Instead, their vitriol at Facebook was unending.

The Instagram logo on a dark background
Image: Alexander Shatov/Unsplash

In the wake of last week's damning series of reports about Facebook, senators at a hearing that was initially supposed to be about competition instead unleashed their ire on the firm, comparing it to Big Tobacco, suggesting it lied to Congress and all but accusing the social network of profiting off teens' anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

The bipartisan parade of fury on a politically salient issue lasted hours on Tuesday. Senators focused particularly on a Wall Street Journal report about the company's careful research into the corrosive effect of Instagram on young users' mental health. But the show, coming during a hearing that was supposed to examine the impact of Big Data on competition, was also the latest evidence that Congress' periodic fits of anger at tech companies and the way Facebook obsessively deflects can create a loop that gets in the way of what Washington actually wants to do.

It wasn't hard to understand why lawmakers were at times frustrated with the Facebook witness, Steve Satterfield, a company vice president of privacy and public policy. Facebook had seriously downplayed its research into social media's effect on teens to some of the very senators in the room, according to the Journal report. Satterfield repeatedly pleaded his ignorance of the all-but-unavoidable mental health questions and tried to pivot back to the subject of the hearing, even though he'd begun by offering just one or two sentences about that topic.

"That's not really an answer, though, man," Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who led the hearing as chair of the subcommittee on antitrust, said at one point. Satterfield had just told her that measuring ad revenue per user had "a lot of factors" — and then just stopped talking.

"The simple fact of the matter is that Facebook has known for years that Instagram is directly involved in an increase in eating disorders, mental health issues and suicidal thoughts, especially for teenage girls," said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, to whom the company had previously downplayed research, in what counted as a restrained exchange.

Satterfield also resisted conceding even basic facts about Facebook's business model and failed to promise Facebook would actually show up to an upcoming Sept. 30 hearing that will focus on young users.

In the end, Satterfield's performance — and the way lawmakers trained their fire on him to the exclusion of a representative from Google and a former official from data broker Acxiom — also highlighted just how many questions went largely unaddressed about data and competition.

Although data regulation and antitrust enforcement are traditionally separate aspects of tech policy, practitioners in both areas have come up with a rich set of potential overlaps for lawmakers. They've debated if social media monopolies degrade privacy, whether online services can protect users' privacy without unduly boxing out rivals, whether vast troves of consumer information should play a larger role in merger analysis, if digital platforms that have gatekeeper power use commercial data to exclude rivals and how much of an advantage huge troves of information really provide given that multiple companies can possess the same piece of data.

What to do about all of this is an important and unanswered question, particularly at a time when many of lawmakers' suggested fixes would still leave a lot of public concerns unaddressed. But those critical issues got far less attention in the hearing.

Lawmakers did occasionally get at the data and competition issues, especially Klobuchar and Sen. Mike Lee, the top Republican on the panel. Klobuchar spoke, for instance, about interoperability, which lets users move their data between services and theoretically could boost new competitors by handing them the information dominant companies already possess. She discussed how mobile app store operators compete against rivals and whether users really know the extent of information they're sharing with Google and Facebook. She also teased that she's working on "anti-discrimination bills for exclusionary conduct," which could have some overlap with a House bill, as well as other fixes, potentially for a range of industries.

"Once you get so big and have so much dominance … there are these barriers to entry that make it impossible to allow competition," she said.

Early in the hearing, Lee pointed out that Facebook derives profit from ads powered by the data it collects on users, and asked if lack of transparency into the exchange might be a sign of anticompetitive conduct, particularly in light of the company's shifting product offerings.

Yet Satterfield's answer, in which he tried to reject the premise, showed how difficult the Facebook witness made efforts to get answers even when lawmakers focused on the hearing's main topic.

"We don't see data as something that people give us in exchange for providing our services," Satterfield said. "We see data as something that we use to provide the service to them, to provide value to them."

Of course, Mark Zuckerberg long ago testified succinctly before Congress about the company's business model: "We run ads." But when Satterfield continued to try to frame Facebook's use of data as just a way to enable a social experience, Lee appeared to grow fed up.

"It's clear to me you don't want to answer that, whatever," Lee, who normally keeps his questions to the technical details of policy, said. "I was throwing you a bone there to try to allow you to engage in a dialogue."

Stymied, Lee then pivoted to the Journal reports and made the first of several raised-voice comparisons between Facebook and Big Tobacco. Most of the senators who came after likewise seemed to prefer following that line of inquiry.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley urged Facebook to finally abandon its much-maligned plans for an Instagram Kids app. He also sought the company research behind the Journal reports, including its conclusion that almost a third of teen girls said Instagram exacerbated their negative feelings about their bodies and 13% of British users reporting suicidal thoughts "traced the desire to kill themselves to Instagram."

"You won't release the research because this is a cash cow for you," Hawley said after Satterfield inevitably declined to produce the studies and protested lawmakers' characterizations. "You won't answer our questions because you make a gob of money on this."

Satterfield tried to cite Instagram reforms like "changes that are designed to address potential bullying and harassment in comments," to say that Facebook was committed to billions in investments to improve safety and security, and to suggest that the media reports might be lacking in context. It did little to mollify lawmakers.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked about Facebook's compliance with children's privacy laws and gestured to another Journal report on the company, asking whether Facebook would "stop allowing human traffickers, sex traffickers and drug traffickers to use your platform."

Few who have watched Congress come down on Facebook in the past could have been shocked by the questioning, but Satterfield complained that the discussion had inevitably strayed from the focus of his preparation and role. In response, Sen. Ted Cruz bellowed: "Putting in place policies that result in more teen suicides, that does not fall within your purview?"

Cruz later asked if Facebook had "quantified how many additional teenagers took their" lives because of Facebook products.

"Senator, again, with respect," Satterfield said, "these aren't the issues that I work on. I came here today to talk about data and antitrust."

At the end, Klobuchar assured the witnesses that she and her colleagues weren't giving up on Big Data and competition.

"You're not going to find a more interested and energized subcommittee than this," she said, stifling a chuckle. Then she added: "As you can see from today."


Affirm CEO: 'Buy now, pay later' becomes more attractive in a slump

With consumers grappling with rising rates and prices, the question of whether they’ll still buy now and pay later is open. Max Levchin thinks Affirm knows the answer.

Affirm CEO Max Levchin spoke with Protocol about "buy now, pay later."

Photo: John Lamparski/Getty Images

Shortly after Affirm went public last year, CEO Max Levchin told Protocol that he saw “an ocean of opportunities” for the “buy now, pay later” pioneer. Wall Street agreed.

Affirm’s stock soared in its trading debut as the company blazed a trail for a fast-growing alternative to the credit cards that Levchin says consumers are increasingly rejecting.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Businesses are evolving, with current events and competition serving as the catalysts for technology adoption. Events from the pandemic to the ongoing war in Ukraine have exposed the fragility of global supply chains. The topic of sustainability is now on every board room agenda. Industries from manufacturing to retail and everything in between are exploring the latest innovations like process automation, machine learning and AI to identify potential safeguards against future disruption. But according to a recent survey from Boston Consulting Group, while 80% of companies are adopting digital solutions to navigate existing business challenges or opportunities like the ones mentioned, only about 30% successfully digitally transform their business.

For the last 50 years, SAP has worked closely with our customers to solve some of the world’s most intricate problems. We have also seen, and have been a part of, rapid accelerations in technology in response. Across industries, certain paths have emerged to help businesses manage the unexpected challenges over the last few years.

Keep Reading Show less
DJ Paoni

DJ Paoni is the President of SAP North America and is responsible for the strategy, day-to-day operations, and overall customer success in the United States and Canada. Dedicated to helping customers become best-run businesses, DJ has established himself as a trusted advisor who places a high priority on their success. He works with many of SAP North America's 155,000 customers and helps them adopt business and technology best practices across 25 different industries.


The post-layoff playbook: How to avoid 'survivor's guilt'

Taking care of your laid-off employees is important. But how can you restore trust with the employees who make it through?

Employees who survive layoffs are charged with holding the company together. Whether or not managers listen to their concerns can make or break a company’s culture.

Photo: Justin Pumfrey/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Jennifer Burke was on her way to Hawaii for her daughter’s wedding when Zillow followed through on its long-anticipated layoff. She asked her manager to break the news to her by message in the car. You’re one of the safe ones, her manager responded.

“I felt relieved, of course,” Burke said. “I felt apprehensive. I felt sympathy for my co-workers that I knew were going to be laid off.”

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.


Why chip companies need the college students dazzled by software jobs

New chip fabricating plants will need tens of thousands of skilled workers who don’t currently exist. Training them means persuading students to look away from jobs at big tech companies.

Intel employees in clean room "bunny suits" work at Intel's D1X factory in Hillsboro, Oregon.

Photo: Intel Corporation

Every morning, Isaiah Morris drives his white Nissan Altima eight miles down Arizona state Route 101 to a sprawling, low-level office park in South Tempe. Inside one of the unassuming buildings adjacent to GoDaddy’s headquarters and a couple of Amazon offices, the Arizona State University student dons a lab coat, safety shoes and prescription goggles as he helps engineer chemicals for a chip manufacturing process called planarization.

Morris is an unusual 21-year-old. When they graduate college, many of his tech-minded peers will opt to work for the likes of Apple, Google and other household names that have enjoyed meteoric growth over the last decade. Jobs at those tech companies symbolize prestige for graduates and their parents in a way that careers with chipmakers like Intel do not.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.


A new UK visa could steal your top tech talent

Without meaningful immigration reform, U.S.-trained foreign graduates could head across the pond.

The U.S. immigration system turns away hundreds of thousands of highly skilled tech workers every year.

Photo: Ben Fathers/AFP via Getty Images

Almost as soon as he took office, President Biden began the work of undoing a lot of the damage the Trump administration did to the U.S. H-1B visa program. He allowed a Trump-era ban on entry by H-1B holders to expire and withdrew a Trump proposal to prohibit H-1B visa holders’ spouses from working in the U.S. More recently, his administration has expanded the number of degrees considered eligible for special STEM OPT visas.

But the U.S. immigration system still turns away hundreds of thousands of highly skilled — and in many cases U.S.-educated — tech workers every year. Now the U.K. is trying to capitalize on the United States’ failure to reform its policy regarding high-skilled immigrants with a new visa that could poach American-trained tech talent across the pond. And there’s good reason to believe it could work.

Keep Reading Show less
Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu

Kwasi (kway-see) is a fellow at Protocol with an interest in tech policy and climate. Previously, he covered global religion news at the Associated Press in New York. Before that, he was a freelance journalist based out of Accra, Ghana, covering social justice, health, and environment stories. His reporting has been published in The New York Times, Quartz, CNN, The Guardian, and Public Radio International. He can be reached at kasiedu@protocol.com.

Latest Stories