Ms Cori Crider:

I might take some of the Senator's other questions. First, on the number of cases, all of the cases I mentioned are Irish.

As to whether Foxglove is engaging both with Facebook and with the outsourcing firms, the answer is that we absolutely are. For example, in the run-up to the meeting with the Tánaiste in January we wrote to both of them about this question of secrecy.

On the mental health services, it seems to us that Facebook has set up this entire system of work and is really calling the shots. For example, the software Ms Plunkett and her colleagues use does not vary from company to company. Facebook designs the software. The production targets are set by Facebook. Even the requirements of counselling that are in the contract with the outsourcing firm are ultimately driven by Facebook. There absolutely needs to be proper medical care and psychiatric support but that is actually not what the terms of the relationship between the outsourcing firms and Facebook currently require. A Facebook employee with a considerably lesser level of exposure to toxic content could get PTSD, by the way. I have spoken to Facebook employees who have developed PTSD with comparatively lesser levels of exposure. Those people can still have sessions with a psychiatrist in a way that Isabella and her colleagues really struggle to access because it just is not a part of this system.

On the question of working from home, it sounds as if essentially the same response was given to the Senator as was given to the Tánaiste - which I have only been able to review as of 7 p.m. last night - that is, Facebook says the really really bad stuff cannot be worked on from home. I would welcome some clarification from Ms Plunkett about this but I am not sure that was the case when the moderators were doing the work at home over Christmas. I am also not sure, from what I can see of Facebook's reply, whether the quality assurance people who are staffers - who check not all tickets but a selection, as part of their job - are not still seeing some of that content themselves. I would not have said there is a perfect firewall, whereby all graphic violence and other really objectionable content is only dealt with in the office. Putting that issue aside for a minute, the question we posed was not that no-one can ever come into the office. We were saying there must be proper protections for people who come in. If they are important and vital enough to the safe functioning of the platform they must take the risk of coming into the office when myself and many others are working in the comfort and safety of home, then why are they not staff? That is the question. There is a practical and moral question that should be looked at from a regulatory standpoint.