Ms Frances Haugen:

There are a couple of real challenges here. One is that Facebook has chosen to focus on a censorship-based safety system, not what we are thinking about, which is the product traces it is making and arguing if they are acceptable risks. When we focus on censorship, it leads to this very elaborate dance where there are incredibly long documents that describe exactly what the characteristics are of violating or non-violating content. This is a little bit like arguing about the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin. We should be focusing on why it is that we are giving the most distribution to the most extreme content and not being able to have these defensible documents, as they call them, where they say: "No, we've thought really hard about this. This is what is violating and non-violating." It is right to say that language is nuanced and especially in circumstances where it is not tailored to individual cultures. There was a Member of Parliament in the UK who told me about how he was actively sent homophobic rhetoric, but because Scottish slang is not acknowledged by San Francisco, he was never able to get any protections. We need to stop focusing so much on individual pieces of content and focus on the overall risks to the system and making the system safer overall.