Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Facebook for agreeing - following on from what happened at a previous meeting - to provide data in respect of the volume of spending during the recent referendum campaign here. This is a very progressive initiative whereby we are setting standards that could and should be applied in other jurisdictions. The "Dispatches" programme is so worrying because instead of setting standards, we are seen to be failing to uphold them. The programme reflects badly on Dublin, on Ireland and on Facebook. In addition to the ethical issues that were raised, this is also an issue for our country.

When the committee met in private session, members discussed the fact that we will have to bring this matter to the attention of our European colleagues because the EU, as a collective political system, is the rule maker and Facebook is the rule taker. What is done in the context of making rules must be reflected in and must inform EU and Irish domestic legislation. I mention this because in recent days the House of Commons' Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee published its interim report, Disinformation and 'fake news', which, interestingly, looks at some of the issues we are examining. We should seek a meeting with that committee in the autumn in order that we might share our analyses. We have a particular interest in sharing analyses because we have to work out how we are going to regulate this online activity post Brexit. This is an issue the House of Commons committee raised in its report. I suggest that what I have outlined is one action that this joint committee could take. We should visit the committee in London or invite its members to come here in order that we might share with them details on how we regulate. This is particularly important in this instance because the "Dispatches" programme revealed that much of the issue involves either regulation or the taking down of UK-specific material. This is one of the reasons I would like us to travel to London to meet our counterparts.

Before I question the representatives from Facebook, I hope to get agreement from members that we could send a cross-committee message to Google asking it to do what Facebook has done in offering to share material relating to online advertising during the referendum. The material, or the ability to get that information, would be of interest to the House of Commons committee because I am aware that it is looking for similar material on the UK referendum.

I shall now turn to the specific issue of take-down material, which was the cornerstone of the "Dispatches" programme. While being shocked by the content, some of which is personally very upsetting, it raises the question of the need for a new online business model. The House of Commons report makes the same case. We need a new business model for online social media companies. Under the current system, the consumer is the product. There is much talk about community and the community of users. In truth, however, the online media and social media companies are selling our attention spans and our addiction to mobile phones, particularly in the context of how we get an endorphin rush regarding material on news feeds, on our friends' feeds and so on. Unfortunately, that business model lends itself to the attention span leaning towards material which induces anger or, I would argue, that which does not lead us to a necessarily attractive engagement. As both the Internet of things and the volume of data evolve, we will be obliged to move away from that business model because there will be too much power held by certain companies that have access to all our data and that will know everything about us. The business model where we are the product has to change. We must, therefore, have citizen ownership of data and this current model must change.

We also need to move towards a liberal online system which is respectful of different views but which is not libertarian in outlook whereby, in a sense, anything goes.

That is something we have learned over the centuries in terms of how our press works. Newspapers and television and radio companies are not allowed to put up whatever material they want. There are rules and regulations and it is increasingly clear that we need such regulation online, as well as in traditional media.

In terms of a new business model, I agree with the analysis of the House of Commons, which stated we need real transparency with regard to age. Has Facebook engaged with the UCD Geary Institute on the transfer of information and data during the referendum? When could we expect such information to be available?

With regard to transparency, why is it impossible for Facebook to not clearly delineate users' ages? Should it not change the business model in that regard? Rather than what we saw in "Dispatches", where uncertainty was allowed as to whether one was dealing with a child online, we need real transparency in order that everyone knows whether a child is aged under 13. We need real transparency in respect of who the people on the network are.

What is Facebook's understanding of the number of fake accounts on its network? Is the figure still 10% or 20%? How effective has it been in removing fake accounts? If one does not know with whom one is dealing in the online world, that undermines its entire business model.

Another question relates to those in Dublin who work in this area. I am interested in those directly employed by Facebook, as well as those working for CPL and other contractors. What is the staff turnover in the area? How long does someone typically stay in that sort of job? How difficult is it to get people to work in the area? Can the witnesses give me an indication of the typical pay for those working in Facebook and as contractors? I do not want to highlight individuals and want to respect people's privacy, but it would be interesting, as background information, to know the details of pay, conditions and, critically, turnover. If turnover is high, it is a sign there is a real problem.

This is important because the issues raised in the programme made me think of the horrific case of Eoin McKeogh, a video of whom was posted online in respect of taxi fare evasion. He had to go through the courts in order to get justice. Max Schrems came here to look for justice and if he had been listened to, rather than fought against from an early stage, we might have avoided some of these difficulties. In a terrible example, images of a young girl attending a concert in Slane some years ago were shared online. She was traduced in the way the images were allowed to be posted.

Given our experiences, we have an obligation to address this issue. We have experience over five or seven years of how the system has not worked, in terms of taking down material. It is in memory of those who have tried to get justice that we should act.

How many times has Facebook been prosecuted in recent years in the courts in the UK or Ireland in cases where someone has expressed concern about material which has not been taken down? I understand that in the context of Irish defamation law, Facebook is not directly responsible for material but if it is informed of something, it then becomes responsible. Are there data on the number of cases in which Facebook has been involved where material was not taken down quickly enough?