Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Kaplan and Ms Sweeney for their attendance.

I will begin with a couple of comments. I would like the witnesses to address a number of matters arising from the written submission provided to the committee before the meeting. It notes that "As our CEO explained last week, Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company" and then goes on to state:

it's clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well [as good]. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a mistake.

It is as though the submission is looking for the fool's pardon, as we say in Ireland, that Facebook has been somewhat naive and is almost the victim and has been taken advantage by these app developers.

I will read into the record a memo with which the witnesses will be familiar. It was circulated internally in their company by one of its senior vice presidents, Mr. Andrew Bosworth. I will quote several sections of it rather than go through it in detail. It states:

We connect people ... So we connect more people. That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. ... The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true story as far as we are concerned.

... That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day.

Later, it goes on:

The best products don’t win. The ones everyone use win. ... We do have great products but we still wouldn’t be half our size without pushing the envelope on growth. Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as having your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many friends on as the ones made in growth. Not photo tagging. Not news feed. Not messenger. Nothing.

I am sure the witnesses are familiar with the latter; it has been well circulated in the media. I accept that it was written in 2016, two years after the 2014 watershed to which the witnesses referred as addressing many of the concerns. When did Mr. Bosworth leave the company or when was he fired? Is he still with the company? It seems to me that if one reads that memorandum, it speaks to a DNA within Facebook of pushing the envelope of growth over everything else.

Facebook makes a lot of users owning their data. Perhaps the witnesses can assist me but my understanding is that any data I put onto my page is something I own and over which I have control. However, there is a second set of data. The Data Protection Commissioner confirmed earlier that Facebook tracks individuals when they leave its site so there is another dataset; there is something that it captures on a user's activities once he or she leaves the Facebook environment. Who owns that data? Where is it stored? Can the witnesses provide me with my data or users' data generally? If so, are the two sets of data made readily available? Who owns the second type of data, where is it stored and is it available?

We have been told that people are tracked after they leave Facebook. Do the witnesses think that the company should continue to be allowed to do that? Is it something that should be a regulated practice? Is it something that we should look at regulating and prevent it. I raise this issue with the witnesses because they are here, but I accept that Facebook is one of many and others effectively do the same thing. There is a marketplace and companies need to go with the flow.

There was a discussion earlier about opting in and opting out. Deputy Eamon Ryan focused on the issue. From now on, should it be very clear that when a service is available that facilitates the company to provide the Facebook service through advertising, as it does without a paywall - and we accept that it must make money and the accounts have to stack up - but should there be an opt-in window? From now on, should it any service that allows me to access all that information for free, that I know what I am opting into, so that I would know where my data goes, and what data goes, what it is likely to be used for, what silo it will go into and predict what might happen in future? That would bring transparency into the interaction between user and company. Then we would not have the concern about whatever nefarious activities are going on beneath the bonnet.