A just-surfaced class-action antitrust suit filed by adverting customers against Facebook parent company Meta accused the social network operator of tanking its own streaming platform, Watch, just to appease one of its biggest advertising clients. 

The complaint accuses Meta of being way too tight with Netflix co-founder and former CEO Reed Hastings, who sat on the Facebook board from 2011-2019. The plaintiffs also say that Netflix, which upped its yearly spend with Facebook from $150 million - $200 million in 2019, when it was also provided with user analytics, received access to the private direct messages of Facebook users. 

Facebook finally turned the lights out on Watch back in April of last year, when it shuttered Jada Pinkett Smith talk show Red Table Talk, the last of a somewhat ambitious flurry of original shows launched by the platform starting in 2017.  

That same month, the class-action plaintiffs filed a letter, accusing Meta and Facebook of anticompetitive practices. That year-old letter was obtained and reported on last week by Gizmodo. 

"For nearly a decade, Netflix and Facebook enjoyed a special relationship," the letter states. "Netflix bought hundreds of millions of dollars in Facebook ads; entered into a series of agreements sharing data with Facebook; received bespoke access to private Facebook APIs; and agreed to custom partnerships and integrations that helped supercharge Facebook’s ad targeting and ranking models. It is no great mystery how this close partnership developed, and who was its steward: from 2011- 2019, Netflix’s then-CEO Hastings sat on Facebook’s board and personally directed the companies’ relationship, from advertising spend, to data-sharing agreements, to communications about and negotiations to end competition in streaming video. Hastings directly communicated with Facebook executives, principally Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, to do so."

In November 2018, Next TV sibling publication Multichannel News examined what appeared to be an ambitious effort by Facebook to join the streaming wars. But according to the lawsuit, Facebook founder and chief Zuckerberg had already pulled the plug the previous spring, personally emailing Watch head Fidji Simo to tell her the Watch budget was being trimmed by $750 million. 

The suit references a 2017 Recode conference appearance by Hastings. When asked about video competition with Facebook, he responded, "There's not a big conflict yet."

Hastings later discussed this response over email with Zuckerberg, the plaintiffs added, indicating the two captains of video industry were concerned about their competitive juxtaposition. 

DoubleVerify said it will be expanding its brand safety and suitability measurement to Meta’s Facebook and Instagram Feeds and Reels, enabling advertisers to independently authenticate campaign quality and product their brands in user-generated media environments.

The new capabilities take advantage of proprietary technology from DV that includes artificial intelligence that is able to classify at scale the content above and below ads.

DV is able to measure the quality of in-stream video on Instagram and Facebooks, as well as Meta’s Audience Network.

"The expansion of DV’s industry-leading, AI-powered classification technology to Facebook and Instagram Feeds and Reels underscores our commitment to helping brands ensure safe and suitable ad environments across all channels,” said Mark Zagorski, CEO, DoubleVerify. “The protection of brand reputation online is an important factor in maximizing campaign performance for the global brands we serve.”

Also Read: DoubleVerify Working With Google To Measure YouTube Shorts

DoubleVerify has worked with Meta since 2017, providing fraud and viewability data on Facebook and Instagram. It has been expanding its capabilities to include some brand safety and suitability features for Facebook and media quality authentication for Facebook and Instagram Reels.

"DoubleVerify's expansion of brand safety and suitability solutions across Facebook and Instagram is an important step forward in our ongoing efforts to foster digital transparency and trust within our advertising environments,” said Samantha Stetson, VP of Client Council and Industry Trades at Meta. “Responsible marketing is a key priority at Meta – and we are delighted to expand our partnerships with this important solution."

Congress has new ammunition against Big Tech, and the bipartisan sponsors of legislation to crack down on or break up Meta are using it to push passage of their Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

In a statement early Friday (November 3), Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), lead sponsors of KOSA, cited allegations from whistleblower Arturo Bejar, former director of engineering at Facebook (now Meta), the owner of Instagram, which came in a story in The Wall Street Journal. The senators said the allegations were backed with “irrefutable evidence” that top Meta executives, including executive chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “were personally warned that millions of teens face bullying, eating disorder material, illicit drugs and sexual exploitation, often within minutes of opening the [Instagram] app,” but instead of addressing those “deadly” harms, they “hid that information from the public and congressional oversight, ignored recommendations to protect teens, rolled back safety tools, and dismantled teams responsible for kids’ safety.”

Bejar's allegations came in a Journal story about the Instagram safety executive, who said his warnings that the short-form video site’s approach to protecting teens wasn't working fell on deaf ears.

Blumenthal and Blackburn are the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security Subcommittee.

Also Read: Blumenthal Says Facebook Weaponizes Childhood Suffering

Bejar's allegations come on top of those of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

When Haugen testified to Congress a year ago, Blumenthal called it Facebook's "Big Tobacco" moment.

A former Facebook product manager and data scientist, Haugen took documents when she left the company that she said show its algorithms “amplify polarizing and hateful content” for the sake of profit — a motive partly responsible for “tearing societies apart” — and said the company had research showing that but obscured the fact that it is harmful.

Of Bejar’s latest revelations, Blumenthal and Blackburn said in a joint statement: “Facebook along with other tech giants have been fighting our legislation with armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and opposition campaigns, but the broad coalition of young people, parents and experts will win. It is time to say ‘enough is enough’ to Big Tech and pass the Kids Online Safety Act.”

Meta had not responded to a request for comment early Friday.

Attorneys general in 30-plus states have filed lawsuits against Facebook parent Meta, alleging the company's business model is based on keeping young users on the platform and glued to its streaming video content, a platform that harms young people's mental health.

The suit alleges that Meta's assertions that its features are not manipulative and its platform is safe are bogus, and so represent illegal false and deceptive practices.

It also says Meta has violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting personal data on young users without their parents' consent.

The suit says that one way Meta tried to capture young users was to host various child-targeted video content providers on Instagram, including Disney Junior, PBS Kids and Nickelodeon.

It also cited video streaming features including Facebook Live, IGTV (which was dropped from the platform in 2022), Instagram Video and Reels (which merged into Instagram Video).

Aiding the AGs in their suit was information supplied to Congress and others by a whistleblower who provided documents that the AGs say clearly show Meta knew its platform harmed kids.

The AGs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to force Meta to stop the practices cited, pay fines likely in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, disgorge ill-gotten gains and much more.“Kids and teenagers are suffering from record levels of poor mental health and social media companies like Meta are to blame,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said. 

“Meta has profited from children’s pain by intentionally designing its platforms with manipulative features that make children addicted to their platforms while lowering their self-esteem. Social media companies, including Meta, have contributed to a national youth mental health crisis and they must be held accountable. I am proud to join my fellow attorneys general to stop Meta’s harmful tactics and keep children safe online.”

In addition to New York, states that signed onto the suit, according to James, were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Campbell Brown, a former CNN anchor who was hired by Facebook in 2017 to lead its news partnership team, is departing the company. Brown had been hired to oversee the social platform’s relationship with traditional media, and to scale back the false news that was coursing through Facebook at the time. 

It was a new role at Facebook, which was focused on being a more trusted source for legit journalism in an area rampant with fake news. 

Brown will remain an adviser to Facebook parent Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. 

Brown wrote on Facebook at the time of her hire: “This is a different role for me, but one where I will be tapping my newsroom experience to help news organizations and journalists work more closely and more effectively with Facebook. I will be working directly with our partners to help them understand how Facebook can expand the reach of their journalism, and contribute value to their businesses. That also means making sure there is ongoing feedback from publishers as Facebook develops new products and tools for news organizations.”

Brown helped launch Facebook News, a tab focused on news and lifestyle coverage, and Bulletin, a newsletter platform for established journalists and writers. 

Her role transformed as Facebook made news less of a priority. Last year, Facebook said it was shutting down Bulletin, according to The New York Times, and it stopped paying publishers for content that appeared in its news tab.

Brown hosted Campbell Brown on CNN at 8 p.m. from 2008 to 2010. Before that, she anchored Weekend Today at NBC. 

In 2015 Brown launched the nonprofit news site The Seventy Four, which is dedicated to education in America, its name a reference to the 74 million children in the nation. 

North American broadcasters are in solidarity against Meta (Facebook) after the tech company blocked news on Canadian Facebook and Instagram accounts.

"“Meta – a nearly trillion-dollar company – repeatedly chooses to restrict news content for its users to avoid compensating news producers for the value it gains on their vital journalism," said the National Association of Broadcasters and Canadian Association of Broadcasters in a joint statement. "These retaliatory tactics demonstrate Meta’s monopolistic dominance over the advertising marketplace and its ability to dictate how radio and TV broadcasters, newspapers and others can reach audiences online. Rather than working to ensure its users have access to trusted news and information, Meta is holding news content on its platform hostage."

According to NAB/CAB, Meta's move came after Canada passed the Canada Online News Act, which allows news outlets to get together to bargain collectively with Meta and others for repurposing their content online.

The new law provides for mandatory arbitration if negotiations do not result in an agreement.

A similar U.S. bill has gotten major pushback from Meta and other Big Tech platforms.

The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning Facebook from profiting from data collected from anyone under 18, including via its Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus services.

That came Wednesday (May 3) as one of the proposed changes to the FTC’s 2020 settlement with the parent company — now Meta — over what the agency called its repeated failure to live up to promises it made as part of the settlement to protect kids’ privacy.

An independent review of that settlement order found enough issues that the FTC said those “deficiencies” posed “substantial risks to the public.”

Facebook has repeatedly violated its privacy promises,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement. “The company’s recklessness has put young users at risk, and Facebook needs to answer for its failures.”

The FTC alleges Facebook failed to comply with the FTC privacy order and misled parents about its ability to control who kids communicated with through the Messenger Kids app, as well as misrepresenting the access some app developers had to users’ private data.

Also: FTC Confirms Facebook Investigation

As part of the FTC's proposed changes to the settlement, Facebook would also have new limits on the use of facial recognition technology.

Facebook paid a whopping $5 billion as part of the 2020 settlement, but did not pony up on its promises, the FTC alleges.

The commission said Facebook has violated both the 2020 order and a 2012 settlement that “barred the company from misrepresenting its privacy practices,“ including by "continuing to give app developers access to users' private information..."

The proposed changes include:

1.) “Blanket prohibition against monetizing data of children and teens under 18: Meta and all its related entities would be restricted in how they use the data they collect from children and teens. The company could only collect and use such data to provide the services or for security purposes and would be prohibited from monetizing this data or otherwise using it for commercial gain even after those users turn 18.

2.) “Pause on the launch of new products, services: The company would be prohibited from releasing new or modified products, services, or features without written confirmation from the assessor that its privacy program is in full compliance with the order’s requirements and presents no material gaps or weaknesses.

3.) “Extension of compliance to merged companies: Meta would be required to ensure compliance with the FTC order for any companies it acquires or merges with, and to honor those companies’ prior privacy commitments.

4.) “Limits on future uses of facial recognition technology: Meta would be required to disclose and obtain users’ affirmative consent for any future uses of facial recognition technology. The change would expand the limits on the use of facial recognition technology included in the 2020 order.

5.) “Strengthening existing requirements: Some privacy program provisions in the 2020 order would be strengthened, such as those related to privacy review, third-party monitoring, data inventory and access controls and employee training. Meta’s reporting obligations also would be expanded to include its own violations of its commitments.”

The FTC has given Facebook 30 days to respond to the allegations.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has made children's online privacy protection one of his legislative missions, joined with Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to praise the proposed changes.

“In a Big Tech ecosystem of predatory platforms, Meta stands out for its appalling and consistent record of tracking kids, harming teens, and lying to parents,” Markey and Kennedy said. “Today, the FTC has affirmed what we’ve been saying for years: Meta has already violated the law, and now it’s failing to comply with the terms of its privacy probation. We commend the FTC for taking this step and urge it to move forward with holding Meta accountable.”

Coincidentally, on Wednesday, Markey reintroduced his update of his own Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which would ban all targeted ads to kids on any platform.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) saw the FTC’s proposed move quite differently.

“The FTC has an important role to play as the lead enforcer of the nation’s consumer protection laws,” ITIF VP Daniel Castro said. “Sadly, instead of enforcing the laws on the books, it is attempting to unilaterally expand its scope and power beyond its legal authority in ways that would limit the ability of businesses to offer services to children online.”

Castro said the FTC is trying to legislate, which is the province of Congress.

Meta's decision to reinstate former President Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts “in the coming weeks” drew a storm of protest Wednesday (January 25) from groups that had supported the former president’s banishment from the social media powerhouse.

Meta said the reinstatement will come with “guardrails” to deter any repeat of the conduct that drew the suspension. “The public should be able to hear what politicians are saying so they can make informed choices,” Nick Clegg, president of global affairs for the company, said. Clegg also said the ban had been under “extreme and unusual circumstances” and that now that former president Trump was a declared candidate for president the “normal state of affairs” is for the public to hear what he has to say.

Trump will face enhanced penalties for violating Meta's community standards, including for content that “delegitimizes an upcoming election.” Those penalties could include temporarily restricting access to content or advertising tools.

Trump’s accounts were suspended by Meta’s oversight board after he praised the Capitol rioters, but the board criticized the fact that the suspension was open-ended, saying an indefinite and standardless penalty was not appropriate.

Also : House Weighs In on 'Historic' Big Tech Antitrust Bills

Nonetheless, Facebook extended the ban back in June 2021, saying it would last until at least January 2023. It cited the gravity of the attempted insurrection tied to Trump’s baseless claims of massive election fraud, claims he has continued to make and which Facebook said were dangerous. 

Trump was the lead on a class action suit against Facebook, Google and Twitter, as well as their respective CEOs, for their “shameful censorship” of conservative speech.

“Make no mistake — by allowing Donald Trump back on its platforms, Meta is refueling Trump’s misinformation and extremism engine,”  Media Matters said. “This not only will have an impact on Instagram and Facebook users, but it also presents intensified threats to civil society and an existential threat to U.S. democracy as a whole.”

Also: Trump Accused of Using PAC To Evade Facebook Ban

“Meta is moving backwards,” said Free Press co-CEO Jessica González, “returning us to a time when Donald Trump used the company’s powerful tools to spread lies and dangerous rhetoric, and incite violence targeted at disenfranchised communities and his ideological enemies.”

“By allowing Trump back onto Meta platforms, Facebook and Instagram, Meta has given the former President a renewed platform to radicalize his followers and spread gendered and racialized disinformation encouraging violence,” said Bridget Todd, director of communications at gender justice group UltraViolet. “Facebook has chosen Donald Trump and the traffic he brings to the platform over the lives and wellbeing of its users and the American people. Shame on them.”

Fight for the Future has its own issues with Big Tech's content moderation, but also with the motives for Trump’s complaints about censorship. “Once again, Trump has made himself a huge distraction,” the group said. “By allowing the former president to remain the center of attention in world-changing debates about content regulation, free speech and the harms of Big Tech, we’re helping him accomplish his vile goals of silencing and oppressing the most vulnerable.” ▪️

Former President Donald Trump is branding Facebook’s pre-election restrictions on ads about elections and social issues as part of a plot by Big Tech and the media against him and Republican candidates in the midterm elections.

The restriction, which extended from Tuesday, November 1, through 11:59 p.m. PT on Tuesday, November 8, means the platform is "not hosting any ads about social issues, elections or politics in the U.S." It applies to candidates and issues on both sides of the political aisle.

Also: Media Figures Figure Prominently in Midterms

In a November 7 email to supporters trumpeted as "Breaking News" in red letters, Trump cited reports that Facebook parent Meta was "implementing a restriction period for ads about social issues, elections, or politics in the U.S. for the week leading up to the General Election Day."

Facebook had a similar restriction on the 2020 election following widespread pushback on the use of social media by outside actors and others to try to game the U.S. political system.

As for breaking news, Facebook itself talked openly about the repeat "restriction period" in a blog back in late September.  

While Meta said that the takeaway from the 2020 restriction was that it "achieves the right balance of giving campaigns a voice while providing additional time for scrutiny of issue, electoral and political ads in the Ad Library," Trump saw a more nefarious reason.

Also: Donald Trump Threatens More Lawsuits Against Media

"We know EXACTLY what this is: Big Tech is mercilessly censoring President Trump and true America First Patriots like YOU right before the most crucial Election in our Nation’s history," the ex-president wrote, suggesting that Facebook’s move was a Democrat-backed effort to keep Republicans from taking over control of the House or Senate. The former result is expected and the latter a toss-up, though the Senate is trending in Republicans' favor according to political handicapping site Fivethirtyeight.com.

The email's dire warnings, like most of Trump's emails, had as their goal raising more money for Republican candidates. Supporters and anyone else on the former president's email list, which includes some reporters, were asked to rush to their wallets and pocketbooks to stop the Democrats and their plot.

As this story was being written, the 14th Trump email arrived in this reporter's inbox, with this message: "It's obvious that the Fake News media is pro-DEMOCRAT when it comes to who they want to win today. I've never been able to trust what the Fake News media says, and I’m not about to start now."

The email, which per usual had a request for money at the end, billed itself as the only "Official Trump 2022 Midterm Exit Poll — the ONLY accurate poll out there." Its questions included "Which do you identify as, an American or a Socialist?" and "Who did you vote for in 2016, Crooked Hillary or Donald Trump?" ▪️

A new bipartisan Senate bill would impose restrictions on the biggest players in the digital advertising market that mirror those on electronic trading in the financial sector. Those restrictions would prevent the largest providers of ad-supported digital platforms from also selling third-party ads, meaning major divestitures for Big Tech's biggest.

The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act is targeted to the dominance of Google and Facebook in the digital ad market. The bill's backers point out that Google Ad Manager is used by 90% of large publishers, for example.

A bill summary supplied by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is particularly tough on Google, saying that Google "uses its pervasive market power across the digital advertising ecosystem, and exploits numerous conflicts of interest, to extract monopoly rents and stack the deck in its favor." But other tech giants would be in their sights as well.

The summary minced no words about the potential impact.

"If enacted into law, this bill would most likely require Google and Facebook to divest significant portions of their advertising businesses — business units that account for or facilitate a large portion of their ad revenue," the summary flatly states. "Amazon may also have to make divestments, and the bill will impact Apple’s accelerating entry into third-party ads."

Also: Bills Prompt Faceoff Between Big Tech, Antitrust Groups

Joining Lee in introducing the bill Thursday (May 19) were some big names in the competition oversight space: Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Bill backers say those are monopoly rents that constitute a tax of more than 40% on every ad-supported website that advertises online, which together comprise a big chunk of the entire economy.

While the bill appears to focus on Google, its supporters also say the legislation will need to apply broadband "to avoid replacing one abusive monopolist with another."

The bill prohibits large digital advertising companies -- and they mean large -- from owning more than one part of the digital ad ecosystem. Large is defined as "process[ing] more than $20 billion in digital ad transactions."

That means that ad exchange owners can't own supply side platforms or demand-side platforms unless those only run their own ad inventory.

All digital ad companies that process more than $5 billion in digital ad transactions would also have to abide by some customer and competition-protection obligations, including to act in customers' best interests, to be transparent about their business practices, and to erect firewalls if they are allowed to operate on both sides of the market, which would be those over $5 billion but under the $20 billion threshold.

But wait, there's more. Both state attorneys general and the Department of Justice would be charged with enforcement, and there would be the dreaded -- at least from companies' perspectives -- private right of action for violations of the obligation for $5 billion-and-up companies if committed by those with over $20 billion in business.

"While online advertising is essential to nearly every business, this broken system has been the primary driver of growth for the tech companies that have failed us in so many other ways: by undermining our privacy, censoring our speech, and exploiting our children," said Sen. Lee.

“For too long, Google and Facebook have dominated the digital advertising marketplace at the expense of advertisers, publishers, and consumers. It is past time for a transparent ad technology industry where the best interests of customers are prioritized and companies of all sizes are able to compete," said Sen. Klobuchar. "This legislation will put rules in place to do just that, restoring and protecting competition in digital advertising to create a more even playing field that will promote fairness and innovation moving forward.”

“Structural interventions in the marketplace are a blunt instrument and would be a bad precedent to set for antitrust regulation," said CCIA President Matt Schruers. "The bill would make online ads more costly and harm consumers and the economy.”

Interactive advertising interests also did not share the legislators' enthusiasm.

“This legislation is intended to punish a few companies, but the effects would reverberate across the digital economy, affecting advertisers large and small as well as the American public," said Interactive Advertising Bureau CEO David Cohen. "The unintended consequences would be devastating to one of the most powerful growth engines of the U.S. economy. The market would lose the scale and precision the internet offers, ad costs would rise, and growth opportunities for brands and publishers would disappear. Small businesses and content creators across the country wouldn’t exist without integrated technologies helping them to attract and retain customers, providing them with products and services."

The Connected Commerce Council saw the bill as a disconnect, suggesting it would "disproportionately hurt small businesses that use affordable digital ads to promote their business." ■

Computer companies are telling a federal appeals court that a Texas court made the right call when it granted their request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Texas law they say unconstitutionally prevents online platforms from exercising editorial discretion based on viewpoint.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, whose members include Google, Facebook and Twitter, filed a brief in the state of Texas' challenge of the injunction.

The brief came in advance of the planned May 9 oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on that challenge.

The law, which passed Sept. 9, 2021, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place for violations of its policies.

Because the law prevents them from using their editorial discretion based on viewpoint, the companies told the court, it effectively and constitutionally compels them to "publish, display and even recommend all sorts of speech that they deem objectionable and contrary to policies governing their services -- including pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, Holocaust denial, and misinformation."

They also say the law requires a host of "burdensome" disclosure mandates including notice each time they remove speech from their platforms.

"Governments have no business dictating what speech must appear online. Digital services are constantly combating foreign disinformation, propaganda, and anti-American extremism," CCIA said. "Turning Texas into an online safe space for these adversaries puts Americans at risk from these evolving online threats." ■

As the daughter of immigrants, Mina Lefevre was expected to follow a very narrow career path: doctor, lawyer or engineer. Lefevre was duly obedient, double-majoring in economics and integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley and studying for the MCATs when she suddenly took a sharp and lasting swerve.

“I remember having this moment thinking I really want to pursue my dream,” said Lefevre, head of development and programming at Meta, where she oversees the development and production of original series for Facebook’s video platform and spearheads funded original content that lives across Facebook, Messenger and Instagram.

That dream, spurred by the film theory courses she’d loved in college, involved pursuing entertainment in some form. “That was literally the last thing my parents wanted me to do,” Lefevre said of venturing into the wildly unstable fields of independent feature films in San Francisco, and then temp jobs in television in Los Angeles. “My parents were mortified.”

Rising Through TV Ranks

Eventually, she found steady work, climbing the ladder at places like ABC Family (where she became VP, development and programming, helping launch the channel while developing shows like Pretty Little Liars) and then MTV (where she was head of scripted, doubling the number of such projects with shows like Faking It, Scream and Finding Carter).

Her Iran-born parents were mollified, though, when she first held a job title of director. “My mom kept telling everyone I was a director,” Lefevre said. “It’s very hard to describe what an executive actually does.”

Lefevre said all that studying in college did pay off, as her economics courses gave her a deeper understanding of budgeting. “I probably stick my head too much into budgets for my head of production,” she said with a laugh.

While she has shifted from linear to streaming and has largely moved away from scripted, Lefevre said her past stops also provided the necessary skill sets. “Content and creative are really at the core of what I do,” she said. “What’s changing is the way you’re telling the story and giving it to the consumer. It’s exciting to work at a place able to figure out new ways to communicate that and work with talent to reach their fan base even more directly.”

Since guiding Facebook Watch to its debut back in 2017, Lefevre has steered to screens of various sizes programming like the Daytime Emmy Award-nominated series Red Table Talk with Jada Pinkett Smith, Willow Smith and Adrienne Banfield-Norris and a spinoff with Gloria Estefan and her family. The lineup cuts across genres to include talk shows, reality, sports and docuseries. High-profile talent has come on board, such as Steve Harvey (STEVE), Taraji P. Henson (Piece of Mind with Taraji), Courteney Cox (9 Months with Courteney Cox) and Stephen Curry (Stephen vs. The Game). She has also developed youth-oriented programming for Messenger’s Watch Together with the likes of Cardi B and Post Malone. 

Ricky Van Veen, head of global creative strategy for media partnerships at Meta, said Lefevre has made the shift seamlessly. “Mina’s ability to adapt her strong creative instincts from linear to digital and now even the metaverse is truly impressive,” he noted, adding, “She’s beloved by internal colleagues and industry peers alike for her honest yet warm ‘get things done’ attitude.”

Lefevre said adapting comes with the territory and not just because traditional notions like half-hour and hour formats fall away at Meta. When the company started Facebook Watch, the challenge was to explain what it was trying to do in creating programming that would have a uniquely intimate relationship with an audience and build a community, a social-media water-cooler conversation. 

Then, of course, the field got more crowded. “It’s incredibly competitive out there now,” she said. “The piece of the pie is getting smaller.”

Setting a New Path at Meta

Still, Lefevre is confident the company has found a “unique” new path that they’ll be pushing: “A big point of difference for us is that we’re looking toward a One Meta approach — to find content for all the surfaces, from Facebook to Instagram to Messenger to the richer and more immersive experiences in VR and AR, so the audience can have whatever experience they want.”

The new approach is a win-win-win, she said, benefiting not just audiences and Meta but also the talent who will achieve much broader distribution. 

“We’ll be serving so many surfaces and finding the best ways for consumers to watch content and form a community around it,” she said. “That, to me, is exciting.” ■

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen will be among the guests in First Lady Jill Biden’s box for the State of the Union speech Tuesday night (March 1), giving credence to reports President Joe Biden plans to address Big Tech-related issues in the speech, specifically online child protection.

Also: SOTU to Include Call for Banning Certain Child-Targetted Online Ads

“Each of these individuals, with their resilience, innovation, service, and courage, were chosen by the White House because they represent policies or themes to be addressed by the president in his speech,” the White House said in releasing the list of attendees.

Haugen created quite a stir last November on Capitol Hill with testimony in which she revealed internal Facebook research showing the company knew its Instagram platform could be harmful to some teens. Facebook countered that the research also showed that most teens said it was helpful and that the information on those who said otherwise was useful feedback for potential changes to the platform to address that concern.

Legislators were unconvinced and have pushed various bills to rein in Big Tech. ■

Clinch, an ad tech company that uses artificial intelligence to personalize campaigns, said it launched Flight Control, a platform aimed at making managing complex campaigns easier for advertisers and media buyers.

Flight Control has already been integrated by The Trade Desk, DV360, LG Ads Solutions, Facebook, Outfront and LiveRamp.

The platform enables advertisers to unify personalized campaigns across multiple channels in one platform that is capable of managing strategy, planning, creative, trafficking, mid-campaign and post-campaign analytics, the company said.

Also: Clinch Working With LG Ads To Enable Creative Optimization

“Flight Control is a representation of what Clinch has always sought to do with creative personalization from the client perspective, which is to simplify the logic-building that enables successful DCO campaigns across all channels,” said Oz Etzioni, CEO of Clinch. “It’s no secret that until now, the process of planning, activating and then measuring campaign performance has introduced almost as much friction into campaigns as it is intended to solve.”

By automating all channel specific workflows into one visual framework, Flight Control removes the need for technical expertise or silos for channels like CTV, OTT, programmatic, social, native and digital out-of-home. By handling all channels and phases of a campaign in one system, Flight Control eliminates delays and errors and provides unprecedented real-time analytics and predictive modeling to improve campaign performance from launch through campaign end.

“As Dynamic Creative Optimization (DCO) continues to change the media landscape at a breakneck pace, we see Clinch as a standout for their focus on constant innovation to meet the demands of the market and our clients,” said Amy Thorne, executive VP, performance creative business lead at Merkle, one company using Flight Control alongside Clinch’s Smart Ad Serving product.

Also: LG Ads Solutions Guarantees Outcomes for Ads on CTV

“To date, the industry has really been missing an intuitive UI to create, manage and maintain DCO campaigns across all paid media channels. We’re thrilled to be the first agency to pilot Clinch’s new Flight Control interface and see it as a major evolutionary tool that will take agency enablement to the next level. Flight Control is the game changer we’ve been waiting for,” Thorne said. ■

Showtime’s Billions will return for a seventh season, while anthology series Super Pumped garnered a second season renewal, the premium service said Tuesday.

Billions, which stars Paul Giamatti, Corey Stoll and Maggie Siff, is currently airing its sixth season on the network. Using Showtime's description, the current season – the first without former series star Daniel Lewis – has lead character Chuck (Giamatti) looking to develop a new strategy in light of newcomer Michael Prince (Stoll) that is keener and more sophisticated than before. All the players, from Wags (David Costabile) to Wendy (Siff), from Taylor (Asia Kate Dillon) to Sacker (Condola Rashad), and of course Senior (Jeffrey DeMunn), must sharpen their weapons and look for new alliances in order to survive, said the network.

Billions is executive produced by Brian Koppelman, David Levien and Beth Schacter.

Showtime also announced the renewal of its anthology series Super Pumped prior to the show’s first season debut later this month. The second season of the series will take a deep dive into Facebook’s transition from groundbreaking startup to the power that it has become, according to the network. 

The first installment, Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber, debuts February 27. Future seasons of the series will explore a story that rocked the business world to its core and changed culture. 

Billions’s Koppelman, Levien and Schacter will serve as executive producer for both seasons of Super Pumped, said the network. ■

A little more than three months after changing its name to Meta Platforms and a day after Wall Street returned the favor of a massive revenue guidance miss by cratering its market cap, analysts scrambled to make sense of it all. 

Facebook parent Meta lost about $232 billion in market capitalization Thursday (February 4) — the largest one-day drop by a single company in U.S. stock market history — after it said Q1 revenue would miss Wall Street forecasts by $2 billion, spurred by a combination of intense competition from TikTok, increasingly onerous privacy requirements from Apple Inc. and just plain bad luck. Meta’s Reality Labs unit, which creates the augmented reality and virtual reality products that are expected to be the building blocks of the metaverse, lost about $10.2 billion on revenue of $2.3 billion. 

While Q4 revenue at $33.7 billion was even with estimates, Meta said it lost about 1 million daily global users in the quarter, adding to concerns that its relevance is slipping with younger consumers. 

Meta’s dilemma is eerily similar to Netflix, which saw its stock fall 25% in January after it missed Q4 subscriber growth targets and said it would add just 2 million paying customers in Q1. Netflix has gained some of those losses back: It was trading at $405.18 on Friday afternoon, about even with the previous day.

Also: Netflix Isn’t Quite Dead Yet 

Meta shares fell more than 26% on Thursday, forcing analysts to rejigger their models for the stock and try to find some sense in such a dramatic miss. The stock fell another 2% on Friday, priced at $232.67 at 12:07 p.m. 

In report after report, analysts that follow the stock pointed to the surprising impact of short-form video juggernaut TikTok — even Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on an earnings conference call that TikTok was “growing at a much faster rate” than Facebook’s own Reels short-form video service. 

At the same time, Apple’s new privacy measures for its iOS products are having a huge impact on ad revenue. On the conference call, Meta chief financial officer David Wehner said those iOS privacy requirements will cost Meta about $10 billion in lost revenue in 2022, which he called “a pretty significant headwind for our business.”

Most analysts were pretty shocked by the revenue impact, but kept as much optimism as they could for the company, maintaining their ratings on the stock but slashing their 12-month price targets by nearly $100. For many, their advice to investors was to ride out the storm, buy the stock at its new low-point and reap the benefits later.

Also: Metaverse or Meh-taverse? 

MoffettNathanson media analyst Michael Nathanson, in a research report entitled “Facebook: The Beginning of the End?” maintained his “buy” rating on the stock but dropped his price target from $420 to $380 per share. Evercore ISI Group analyst Mark Mahaney kept his “outperform” rating but slashed his price target to $350 from $430 per share, while Bernstein tech analyst Mark Shmulik maintained his “outperform” rating on the stock but dropped his price target from $400 to $350 per share. 

“There are days in this job that suck. Today is one of those days,” Shmulik wrote in a note to clients after Meta released its results. Shmulik noted that most analysts severely underestimated the impact of Apple’s decision to let iPhone and iPad users opt in or out of the identifiers for advertisers (IDFA) that apps use to track movement through the web and target ads accordingly. When users opt out, it makes those ads a lot less valuable.

While Shmulik and other analysts believe Facebook will eventually figure out a workaround to the IDFA, management didn’t help things during the earnings conference call by “striking a negative tone around the duration and cost (~$10B on ’22 revenues) of any potential long term fixes,” the Bernstein analyst wrote.

Nathanson, who has been a big believer that Facebook would exceed ad forecasts in the past, reduced his Q1 revenue estimate by $2 billion and his full-year 2022 revenue predictions by $12 billion, or 8%. Although he said Meta’s Q4 results were in line with most estimates, its Q1 guidance was “incredibly weak” and was a “headline grabber and not in a good way.”

Still, other analysts were optimistic of Facebook’s resilience, and saw the low stock price as a Netflix-like inflection point, referring to the streaming giant’s recent stock drop. In his note, Evercore‘s Mahaney said that Meta “could well be dead money for several months,” but remained a buyer of the stock because it is trading close to its 2018 trough multiple of 17 times cash flow, which could limit downside and because he believes the company’s new Q1 revenue guidance suggests that revenue trends are stabilizing.

Mahaney also is confident that Facebook’s Reels — its short-form video answer to TikTok — will succeed, and that its macro challenges are temporary.

“TikTok is a real issue, but primarily for Instagram, and much less so for Blue, WhatsApp, FB Messenger, FB Marketplace, etc.,” Mahaney wrote, adding that he still believes Meta has a compelling long-term business model.

“Meta Platforms has a robust combination of revenue growth (17% CAGR ‘21E-‘24E) and profitability (~40% GAAP Operating margins and 50%+ EBITDA margins in ‘21),” Mahaney wrote. “Their core Family of Apps operating margins of near 50% in FY21, supports the significant investment in Reality Labs. The FCF generation has been equally impressive: $39B in FY21. And this has allowed them to execute sizeable share buybacks ($40B+ in ‘21) that we believe are sustainable going forwards.” ■   

If you’re still wondering why the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act was introduced in Congress, you need to look no further than the front page of Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal.

On one side, there was an article about how Facebook lied about promising free data to users in India, Pakistan and other emerging markets.

On the other side, an article on how the attorneys general of several states were filing lawsuits against Google, accusing it of deceiving users about location tracking. 

Big Tech Is a Popular Target

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have quickly figured out that bashing tech giants is as popular with voters as proposing lower taxes, and if anything has a chance for bipartisan support these days, it’s bills like this one.

That’s bad news for Alphabet and Meta, whose founders also don’t seem to get that to most consumers, their new corporate names seem as ludicrous as one of those fake-nose-and-eyeglasses disguises. 

Yes, Facebook. We know it’s still you.

Good for TV?

One possible beneficiary of the bill (and/or others like it) is the television industry … if it remembers to play its cards right.

TV advertising does not currently rely on the sort of data that the bill is targeting.

Unlike Google, TV networks don’t have an email service they can comb through for clues about your behavior. And unlike Facebook, they don’t have a list of which brands you’ve liked or who your friends are.

Mostly, TV is still relying on extrapolations from Nielsen panels.

That’s rapidly changing, however, as more and more television is watched over broadband via smart TVs whose ACR data can help identify, on a second-by-second basis, which shows and ads the viewer has seen by matching pixels grabbed from the TV screen with a database of programming and advertising.

That data is coming in from opted-in viewers. And, as a recent study from Hub Research shows, those viewers don’t seem to mind that advertisers have their data: only 16% of those surveyed disliked the idea of TV ad targeting based on personal information, while 28% reacted favorably.  

And when asked what sort of data they’d be willing to share in order to see more relevant TV commercials, a full 61% said they would be happy to share data about the shows they watched.

That said, there are still potential pitfalls.

While consumers may consent to sharing their viewing data, it’s important to ensure that they understand that their device IDs and IP addresses may also be used to target advertising and to collect attribution data.

The TV industry further needs to sort out what permissions it needs from households to ensure privacy: for instance, is the permission of one member of the household enough, or is it necessary to get permission from all adult household members.

The good news is that none of these privacy tweaks are that difficult in that they are unlikely to significantly impact the TV industry’s ability to collect data. Rather, they just add a layer of transparency that will make it easier to gain consumers' trust.

One thing I have found in speaking with consumers on various projects over the years is that there is a much looser set of expectations around TV data. In a world where it is assumed that Google and Facebook are tracking everything from your messages and emails to your financial data, the idea that someone may know you watch Yellowstone and the NFL Playoffs does not seem very worrisome or invasive.

What’s more, viewers tend to see benefits to having their viewing tracked. They feel their favorite shows might not get cancelled if someone knows they’re watching … or that they might get better program recommendations and, hope of all hopes, more relevant commercials. 

So there’s all that, which is why most consumers consent to sharing their viewing habits. And then there is the ability to target TV commercials based on the context of the show rather than any personal data about consumers.

For some time now, the notion of using contextual targeting has been gaining traction as advertisers worry that the sort of programmatic tactics common online would lead to their ads being placed on shows that were inappropriate for the brand.

Just because your target is watching a certain show doesn’t mean they want to hear from you during that show. Or that they want to see a funny commercial in the middle of a gripping drama. Being able to place ads against certain types of programming creates a stronger connection and makes the ads more effective. And, even better, does not require anyone to give up personal information.

Transparency Is Key

TV still needs some personal information though in order to be able to understand who is watching what, both ads and shows. 

For shows, it means a way to better understand the type of programming that is resonating and which audiences it is resonating with at a time when there is more competition for viewer attention than ever before.

For advertisers, it means using data to gain a better understanding of an ads effectiveness. That means not just knowing exactly how many people saw an ad, but how many watched it all the way through, how many abandoned it halfway through, and, most important of all, how many went on to take an action—visiting a website, going to a store—as a result of seeing that ad, and which services, times of day and genres were most likely to drive them to do so.

That data will be attainable if the TV industry learns from the mistakes of the tech industry. Transparency and honesty count for a lot and are considered proof of good intentions.

Combine that with the power of sight, sound and motion to create an emotional connection with the viewer, and you have a very strong argument for the continued value of television advertising in a time when consumer privacy is under the spotlight.

Social media giants are the latest subpoena targets in the investigation of the House Select Committee on the January 6 attack, which the committee says social media “products” helped organize.

Getting the subpoenas were Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), Reddit and Twitter.

Committee chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said that the move to force their cooperation came after what he called “inadequate responses to prior requests for information” issued in August.

The committee wants information on “the spread of misinformation, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, domestic violent extremism and foreign influence in the 2020 election.”

Thompson said the committee wants to know how the “spread of misinformation and violent extremism” helped fule the attack and what social media companies did, if anything, to try to prevent their platforms from being “breeding grounds” for radicalization.

Also: Sen. Ed Markey Ties Big Tech to January 6 Riots

The committee explained why it picked those four platforms, besides the obivious one about their size and power:

“Alphabet’s YouTube was a platform for significant communications by its users that were relevant to the planning and execution of the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, including livestreams of the attack as it was taking place.

“Meta platforms were reportedly used to share messages of hatred, violence, and incitement; to spread misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories around the election; and to coordinate or attempt to coordinate the Stop the Steal movement. Public accounts about Facebook’s Civic Integrity Team indicate that Facebook has documents that are critical to the Select Committee’s investigation.

“Reddit was the platform for the ‘r/The_Donald’ ‘subreddit’ community that grew significantly on Reddit before migrating to the website TheDonald.win in 2020, which ultimately hosted significant discussion and planning related to the January 6th attack.

“Twitter subscribers reportedly used the platform for communications regarding the planning and execution of the assault on the United States Capitol, and Twitter was reportedly warned about potential violence being planned on the site in advance of January 6th. Twitter users also engaged in communications amplifying allegations of election fraud, including by [former President Donald Trump] himself.” ■

A D.C. District Court judge has said the Federal Trade Commission can proceed with its antitrust suit against Facebook, but not with its allegation that Facebook blocked app interoperability (its so-called "platform policies").

While Judge James E. Boasberg said the agency "may" have a tough time proving its allegations, the suit can proceed to the discovery phase. That is "the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they will present at trial."

The same court had dismissed the FTC's initial suit last June -- as Facebook had requested -- for failing to sufficiently support its claim that Facebook exercised monopoly power in the social network space. But the court had left the door open for the commission to try again. The FTC did and Facebook again asked the court to dismiss.

Also: Facebook Will Participate in Instagram Hill Hearing

This time around, Boasberg said, the FTC's supporting facts are "far more robust and detailed," particularly in regards to the "contours" of the alleged monopoly.

The FTC amended its monopoly claim last September with new data, including the new monopoly "contour" that "between September 2012 and December 2020, Facebook's share of time spent by users of apps providing social networking averaged a whopping 92% per month."

The FTC is claiming that Facebook has become dominant by following CEO Mark Zuckerberg's plan to buy up to monopoly. It cited his 2008 statement that “it is better to buy than compete” — citing the acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram — as exhibits A and B. The FTC called Facebook’s actions an “anti-competitive acquisition strategy with anticompetitive conditional dealing policies, designed to erect or maintain entry barriers and to neutralize perceived competitive threats.”

Also: FTC Accuses Facebook of Anticompetitive Advertising

By contrast, the combined time-spent shares of Snapchat, Google Plus, MySpace, Path, MeWe, Orkut and Friendster did not exceed 18% in any month over that time, the FTC said, citing Comscore data. Only Snapchat reached a 10% share, the FTC said.

That appeared to satisfy the court. Boasberg said his decision was based on the following: "First, the FTC has now alleged enough facts to plausibly establish that Facebook exercises monopoly power in the market for PSN services. Second, it has adequately alleged that the company’s dominant market share is protected by barriers to entry into that market. Third, the agency has also explained that Facebook not only possesses monopoly power, but that it has willfully maintained that power through anticompetitive conduct — specifically, the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp."

The FTC had also alleged that Facebook implemented and enforced policies that prevented apps it believed were a threat to its dominance from interacting with the platform.

Boasberg was unconvinced on that front. "The Court will not, however, allow the allegations surrounding Facebook’s interoperability policies (also known as the Platform policies) to move forward; they founder for the same fundamental reasons as explained before: Facebook abandoned the policies in 2018, and its last alleged enforcement was even further in the past."

The Judge also rejected Facebook's claim that the suit be dismissed because FTC chair Lina Khan had prejudged the outcome and should have recused herself from the vote to pursue the suit.

Khan was counsel to the House Antitrust Subcommittee and as such led an investigation that concluded Facebook had monopoly power, which it shored up with the purchases of WhatsApp and Instagram.

Boasberg said Facebook's argument missed the mark for a number of reasons, including because Kahn was acting in a "prosecutorial capacity" (in filing suit) rather than as an adjudicator engaged in the rulemaking process.

Boasberg said that while Khan has expressed views about Facebook's monopoly power, those views don't suggest she has an axe to grind based on personal animosity or financial conflict of interest that has disqualified prosecutors. And as to her holding those views, Boasberg said: "In selecting a chair for a Commission with these diverse responsibilities — as with choosing the head of any agency — it is natural that the President will select a candidate based on her past experiences and views, including on topics that are likely to come before the Commission during her tenure, and how that administrator will implement the Administration’s priorities.... Courts must tread carefully when reviewing cases in this area lest we 'eviscerate the proper evolution of policymaking were we to disqualify every administrator who has opinions on the correct course of his agency’s future action.' " ■

The term “metaverse” has become a thing again because Mark Zuckerberg has decided to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of a 3D, interactive world where users can work, play and be entertained, even changing Facebook’s holding company name to Meta. 

So while the social media mavens continue to tout how the cool kids will use whatever Silicon Valley can throw at them to interact with content, create creepy little avatars of themselves while they talk to and text their friends’ equally creepy-looking avatars and play games and whatnot using advanced augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technology, just remember that this is really nothing new. 

It’s being touted as a revolution but for me, a person definitely way outside the target audience for these products, we’ve been down this road before. Interacting with content is nothing new for media watchers — we’ve been talking about it ever since Time Warner Cable launched the Full Service Network back in the 1990s. And with streaming and ultra high-speed broadband outpacing more traditional forms of entertainment consumption, media types have long prepared for this inevitable evolution.  

But the media business has never met a buzzword that it couldn’t beat to death and for the moment, “metaverse” appears to fit that bill. According to Bernstein Research, “metaverse” mentions on public company conference calls rose from just one in Q2 2020 to 449 in 3Q 2021.

Even actor Keanu Reeves, an owner of bitcoin and enthusiastic embracer of technology — he’s Neo, for gosh sakes — has asked for the metaverse hype to be turned down a notch, telling The Verge during the press tour for the upcoming Matrix: Resurrections movie that the term is decades old. 

Also: Meta May Not Be Betta But it Still Matters to Streaming Video’s Future  

“Can we just not have metaverse be like invented by Facebook?” Reeves told The Verge. “The concept of the metaverse is like, way older. It’s like, c’mon man.”  

Bernstein Research hosted a conference call with its clients about the metaverse on Dec. 10 (a transcript was provided on Dec. 16) and for software developers and hardware manufacturers it appears that momentum is going their way.

According to Bernstein, the metaverse could represent a $2 trillion annual revenue opportunity, but there is a big question regarding timing: nobody knows exactly when that opportunity will come. Still, that revenue is expected to come from multiple sources — advertising, gaming, software, mobile apps and more — and some is even being spent to some extent today.  

“Companies are already spending to build it [the metaverse] and that costs real capital dollars,” Bernstein Internet analyst Mark Schmulik said on the call. “As they build it, we're already starting to see certain companies like Meta gain traction in hardware sales and related software sales. While it's still too early to draw a line of whether that's going to be successful or not, it's certainly underway.” 

That includes cable and telecom companies, which see the metaverse as another catalyst to drive the need for higher speeds. On the Dec. 10 Bernstein call, cable and telecom analyst Peter Supino noted that he expects 80 million U.S. homes to have at least one way to purchase Gigabit symmetrical service by 2025. 

And while wireless has been capacity constrained in the past, Supino noted that about 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum has been reallocated by the Big Three carriers (AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile) to 5G. 

The metaverse also is important to the cloud services business, because connecting as many machines as possible is a big priority. And that need for connectivity could be a potential boon for Dish Network, which has about 100 MHz of fallow wireless spectrum and partnership possibilities with Amazon Web Services, Azure or Google Cloud. 

“Dish is an unencumbered, high capacity link between the industrial metaverse and the cloud service providers that would like to serve and foster it,” Supino said.

But on the media and entertainment side, the benefits of the metaverse aren’t so clear.

Bernstein media analyst Todd Juenger admitted he was a “card-carrying” cynic when it comes to the Metaverse, adding that with all the hype surrounding the industry’s latest buzzword, he’s feeling more than a little déjà vu.  

Also: A Deeper Look At the Netflix VR Environment 

“The reason I'm cynical is that I feel like I've seen this before in media and entertainment,” Juenger said according to the transcript. “To me, the metaverse just sounds like a new word to describe an evolution that's naturally happening anyway.”

He then went on to offer an example. Remember 3D? Not too long ago, in the wake of James Cameron’s Avatar, the most successful 3D movie ever made, all content was supposed to be 3D, movies, television, networks began springing up all over the place. In 2010, ESPN was set to launch a 3D channel, Discovery was teaming up with Sony and IMAX to launch a 24-hour linear 3D network with movies, documentaries and children's programming and electronics vendors were scrambling to introduce 3D TVs to satiate what they expected to be tremendous demand. 

I don’t have to tell you what happened, but I’ll let Juenger tell you why it did anyway. 

“A couple years go by and where is 3D, right?,” Juenger said. “It was just [that] consumers didn't like it. They didn't benefit from it. It was almost being forced upon them.”

Sound familiar?

Also: A New Reality Check for VR and AR 

Juenger went on to talk about AR, which was all the rage a few years ago, fueled by Pokémon Go, the mobile game that had young and old alike wandering into traffic to capture little AR anime figures. That was supposed to take the video game business by storm and again, it didn’t. Juenger recalled that while Pokémon Go was a massive success and its still going relatively strong, it remains the go-to example of AR’s supposed takeover of the video game business a half decade after its introduction. 

“It's funny that when we talk about AR when it relates to media, we still have to use Pokémon Go as the example, right?” Juenger said, noting that in the entertainment business, everybody copies everybody else, but so far that hasn’t happened with AR. 

“If AR is a big idea, where are the other AR video games?” Juenger said. “Why do we still have to point to Pokémon Go?”

Juenger wasn’t denying the opportunity that a new and improved metaverse presents. He just believes that the concern as to whether media and entertainment companies will take advantage of it is a bit misplaced.They already seem to be doing it. 

Also: Ripley Says Bally Sports Net DTC Offering Will Be Lean-Forward Experience 

“When it comes to entertainment, I will say the content creation will follow the technology platforms.” Juenger said. “I don't deny that there will be a big advancement in devices people use and [are] using social elements of entertainment, which incorporates elements of what we call the metaverse.”

Juenger, who also follows the video game industry, said that Roblox, the online platform that allows people to play games created by other users, already bills itself as a metaverse. The difference between Roblox games and more traditional games like Grand Theft Auto, he said, is that a user can move his Roblox avatar through different games. 

“I'm not sure you even want to take your GTA persona and move it into a different game, so maybe those will just stay separate,” Juenger said. “In terms of VR and AR games — in VR games, every major publisher makes some — but they all tell you that they just earn the minimum. And the only reason they do it is not really to make money, it's really just to stay involved and to build capabilities in case this takes off.” 

Even Disney has jumped on the metaverse bandwagon, envisioning a merger of the physical and virtual worlds in its theme park experiences, which Juenger said, although a  bit cringe-worthy, probably makes sense. 

“To me, that just sounds like an idea of a Disney video game,” Juenger said, adding that the prevailing wisdom that only huge conglomerates can afford to take advantage of metaverse opportunities may not hold true. 

Sure, the mega-media giants like Disney have all the money, technology and resources and have managed to build huge communities with their brands, but their size can make them slow to react to changes in the business. With development getting easier and faster and distribution barriers being shattered across the landscape, Juenger said some believe it is time to consider smaller, faster, more advanced startups to displace some of their older, larger competitors.    

“This is all still new enough and video games are inherently innovative,” Juenger said. “I would bet on the big IPs. But I think it's an evolution, not a revolution. Video game manufacturers — they've gone through a lot of change already. I think this is just another one.” 

Other analysts have delved into the metaverse conversation, with Evercore ISI Internet analyst Mark Mahaney issuing a 33-page report on December 10 that highlighted the pros and cons of the technology. Pros: there is a lot of money to be made. Cons: It’s going to take a big change in consumer behavior to realize that revenue.

On the plus side, Mahaney said Meta (the former Facebook) is putting its money where its vision is, investing more than $10 billion annually in the concept, has about 3.5 billion monthly users in its family of apps that are already engaging in what is most likely the core use of the metaverse (social media); and has the majority of the VR device business through Oculus Quest. And the pandemic has shown that consumers are willing to interact more online -- Zoom went from 10 million data meeting participants in 2019 to 300 million by April 2020. Roblox has more than 47 million DAUs that average 2.6 hours per day on the platform in Q3 2021, and while VR adoption is still nascent -- about 2% of monthly users on Steam -- it is rising.

But there’s a downside too. According to Mahaney’s report, the biggest question is whether enough consumers will swap “real” reality for virtual reality or whether VR will just be another niche product. And then there is the technology part of the metaverse. Zuckerberg has said that the biggest challenge for the industry is cramming a super-computer into the frame of normal-looking eyeglasses. 

“Ultimately, we need high-fidelity graphics, low latency, with hundreds of millions of concurrent users in real-time at a relatively cheap price point,” Mahaney wrote.

That, to me, is going to be the real deciding factor in this. People have different expectations as to how the metaverse will look and feel and I will bet you that none of them has a basis in the current reality.

The technology industry is really good at driving interest and excitement about technology, but it takes time for these things to deliver what’s being promised. And now they are talking about a technology that in order to work as promised is literally going to have billions of users accessing servers and whatnot simultaneously. Just think of how annoyed you get when Netflix takes too much time to load a movie and multiply that by 1,000 or so when your virtual jaunt through the rainforest crashes into a sea of pixels. 

And then there are the social and privacy aspects. It’s probably a safe bet that to keep the cost of these products and services down, people are going to have to give up a load of personal data. Sure many are doing that already, but you’ve got to wonder how much more everyone is going to have to surrender to make a low-cost metaverse worthwhile. 

And as far as the social impact, while most people have spent a year in isolation, when they get a chance to go out and interact with actual people, they do it in droves. The news is full of stories of people, young and old, that risked going to large gatherings during the outbreak. Heck, just yesterday (December 16), AMC Theaters said that 1.1 million people went outside to an actual movie theater to watch Spiderman: No Way Home, the second largest box office day in AMC’s history  (The Avengers: Endgame was No. 1). 

So I guess what I’m saying is that for the metaverse to really be worth the hype, it has to deliver on its promises. If it doesn’t, it risks turning consumers off of the concept, or at least substantially delaying its acceptance until it resurfaces years later with another name -- my vote is for  Vitametamegaverse (“It’s So Tasty Too!”). And that’s another thing that this industry has seen before.  ■ 

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has called on Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan to immediately launch an investigation of "recent revelations and public documentation" that it had misled advertisers and the public in making claims about the "brand safety" and reach of its ads, which she said would violate the FTC's prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices.

If the investigation confirms that public documentation, she said the FTC should take action including getting monetary relief for advertisers and "disgorgement" of the company's "ill-gotten gains."

Despite Facebook's claims about the safety of its product for ad brands and users, she said, whistleblower documents show that while Facebook has asserted that it is 97% effective in weeding out hate speech, its processes "miss more than 90 percent of hate speech content."

If that is the case, "Facebook may thus have made material misrepresentations or omissions to advertisers regarding the effectiveness of its brand safety controls, including its ability to remove criminal content," which would obviously impact how "safe" an ad environment the platform is.

She added that Facebook's rollout of some new brand safety tools claims to avoid adjacency with content in its "tragedy" and "conflict" categories 99% of the time. "If experience is any guide, these newest claims to advertisers may similarly break down under a microscope."

She wants the FTC to pull out that microscope and start looking, including at whether Facebook knew that its "potential reach" ad metric may have been inaccurate when it offered prospective advertisers that metric as a key measure of an ad's potential success, calling it “arguably the single most important number in our ads creation interfaces.”

"A thorough investigation by the Commission and other enforcement agencies is paramount, not only because Facebook and its executives may have violated federal law, but because members of the public and businesses are entitled to know the facts regarding Facebook’s conduct as they make their decisions about using the platform," she told Khan.

As evidence Facebook may have known that was not the case, she cited public analysis as far back as 2017 that demonstrated that its ads might have claimed potential reach that exceeded every 18-34-year-old in the country. ■

Congress continued its bipartisan beatdown of Big Tech Wednesday in a Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee hearing featuring Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri, with more hammering of the industry expected the following day in a House Consumer Protection Subcommittee hearing titled "Holding Big Tech Accountable: Legislation to Build a Safer Internet" and a Senate Communications Subcommittee hearing the same day, “Disrupting Dangerous Algorithms: Addressing the Harms of Persuasive Technology.”

At Wednesday's hearing, co-chaired by Committee Chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Mosseri repeatedly took flak from both sides of the aisle. The hearing was prompted by Facebook whistleblower revelations about internal research showing some negative impact of Instagram on young people, though the company has countered that that research showed more people said it was a positive influence.

For his part, Mosseri said: "I’m proud of our work to help keep young people safe, to support young people who are struggling, and to empower parents with tools to help their teenagers develop healthy and safe online habits." Mosseri, on the eve of the hearing, announced several changes he said would make the platform even safer.

But he also suggested that the issue was bigger than his company, arguing that "more U.S. teens are using TikTok and YouTube than Instagram."

That has hardly assuaged those legislators, who argue Instagram parent Meta (formerly Facebook), is emblematic of the dominant Big Tech players that have grown without sufficient oversight of how they got that way and what they can, and have, done with their massive power. In response, Facebook has taken out an ad campaign essentially calling for tailored regulation of itself and others, though not the elimination of their Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability over third party content, something legislators have kept on the table.

Blumenthal raked Instagram over the coals in his opening, saying social media fanned the flames of a mental health crisis. He said proposals of self-regulation depended on trust and Instagram and other social media giants had squandered that trust. He said he was stunned by the lack of action by Meta after he told the company of the subcommitee's test using a made-up teen account that found it flooded with dangerous pro-anorexia and eating disorder info. He said a similar test this week yielded the same results.

Also: House Dems Say Big Tech Is Dangerous to Democracy

Blumenthal said the time for self-regulatory bodies, as Mosseri and Instagram proposed, was over and that legislation and regulation were coming. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) agreed that a self-regulatory body would not fill the bill given revelations about the company.

Sen. Blackburn echoed Blumenthal, saying that she was frustrated that Meta had not taken action, but simply continued to say that its platform needed improvement, or more tools in the toolkit, or that data would secure, then offered half-measures that didn't cut it. She said those measures were too little too late, and put some flesh on the bones of coming regulation, saying legislators were working on children's privacy, online privacy, data security, and Sec. 230 reforms.

“We should no longer permit Instagram to manipulate and harm the nation’s youth," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy of Mosseri's testimony. "This company has demonstrated time and again it cannot be trusted to place the interests of children ahead of its quest to reap tremendous revenues,” said Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy, Washington, D.C. “Only Congress can protect children and teens online by passing a comprehensive law which ensures platforms such as Instagram operate responsibly.” 

Other takeaways from the hearing:

Mosseri bristled at the suggestion by Blumenthal that its content was addictive, saying that was not the case.

Blumenthal asked if Mosseri would commit to stop developing Instagram Kids for children under 13, a project it paused after Hill pushback. Mosseri would not, saying the idea for an Instagram for 10-12-year-olds was meant to solve a problem, which is kids wanting to access the older version.

Blumenthal cited a just-released Surgeon General's report that he said provided evidence of the negative impact of social media (and video games) on mental health. The report concluded that Big Tech "must step up and take responsibility for creating a safe digital environment for children and youth."

An emotional Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Instagram was using kids as cash cows and that its interests and those of parents and children were diametrically opposed.

In response to probing from Klobuchar, Mosseri conceded that he assumed it was accurate that a company executive said losing teen users would be an existential threat.

Blumenthal said Mosseri's suggestion that companies should have to earn Sec. 230 protection has some appeal to him, but it was not government regulation. He asked if Mosseri would support applying the UK's Children's Code to  the U.S. Mosseri said he would and that enforcement should be at the federal level. Mosseri did not say he would explicitly support giving users a private right of action.

Mosseri denied that the company's marketing budget went from $67 million to $390 million with the majority going to teens. Klobuchar pointed out that the New York Times story that reported that budget increase said "much" not "majority" went to woo teens and asked if he denied that. He said he did not know how much of the budget it was but would get back to her.

Mosseri would not agree to support legislation by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) banning ads targeted to kids, saying that some such ads can be helpful and that its approach is to prevent some types of targeted ads to teens, weight-loss ads for example.

Asked if he would hire more human reviewers-- a suggestion from whistleblower Farnces Haugen--Mosseri nuanced his answer, saying people are better at nuance, while technology is better at scale.

"Today's hearing with Adam Mosseri was just more of the same from Meta: evasions, empty promises, and half-baked safety measures on Instagram that should've been in place all along," said Josh Golin. executive director of Fairplay. "The bottom line is this: Instagram's advertising business is harming children, and nothing meaningful has been done to change that.  It is shocking that even disturbing practices exposed by the Senators at the Antigone Davis hearing—that new accounts were fed content promoting eating disorders—still exist two months later. It's clear that self-regulation will not work. Congress must act now and regulate Big Tech to protect children." ■

Suggesting the changes were to improve a platform that already works hard to protect young people, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri on Tuesday blogged the news of some “new tools and features” to make young people “even safer” on the social media site.

The blog post gave Mosseri something to defend himself with when he faces a congressional gauntlet Wednesday (Dec. 8) during a hearing in the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee. The session was called by Democrats who are none too happy with Instagram or parent company Meta (formerly Facebook) over in-house research suggesting the company knows its platform can be harmful to young people.

Mosseri said Instagram will take a “stricter approach” to what it recommends to teens, and will prevent people from tagging or mentioning teens that are not among their followers.

One knock on Instagram is that its recommendations reinforce issues like eating disorders through its recommendations. Mosseri said Instagram will be “nudging” teens toward other topics if they are dwelling on a topic for “a long time,” though it does not say how long.

He said Instagram early next year will also be launching its first tools to help parents “get more involved” in their teens’ Instagram “experiences.” That will include allowing them to see how much time their kids spend on the site and set time limits.

But Mosseri accentuated the positive even as he was talking about eliminating the negative, using language like “continuing” and “keeping,” which signals the company is not ceding its critics any ground.

“Every day I see the positive impact that Instagram has for young people everywhere,” he wrote. “I’m proud that our platform is a place where teens can spend time with the people they care about, explore their interests and explore who they are. I want to make sure that it stays that way, which means above all keeping them safe on Instagram.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is co-chairing the Instagram hearing, told CBS News Tuesday she thought Instagram was taking "half measures," and only because "they know regulation is coming." ■ 

The House Energy & Commerce Committee has lined up Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen as its lead-off witness for a Dec. 1 hearing--"Holding Big Tech Accountable: Targeted Reforms to Tech's Legal Immunity."--on legislation to curb social media sites' immunity from civil liability over third-party content. That's according to a just-released list of the Democratic witnesses. No Republican witnesses were listed.

Haugen created quite a stir on Capitol Hill in a testimony in which she revealed internal Facebook research showing the company knew its Instagram platform could be harmful to some teens. Facebook countered that the research also showed that most teens said it was helpful and that the information on those who said otherwise was useful feedback for potential changes to the platform to address that concern.

But legislators on both sides of the aisle were unconcerned and more hearings, like Wednesday's were lined up as they decided how to respond.

Also: Gizmodo to Publish Leaked Facebook Internal Research

Wednesday's hearing will feature two panels. Panel one leads off with Haugen, former Facebook product manager, followed by Rashad Robinson, president, Color of Change, and James Steyer, founder and CEO, Common Sense Media.

Panel two will include from the Democratic side: Karen Kornbluh, director, Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative and senior fellow, The German Marshall Fund of the United States; attorney Carrie Goldberg; Matt Wood, VP of policy and general counsel, Free Press Action; and Dr. Mary Anne Franks, law professor at the University of Miami School of Law and president and legislative & tech policy director at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. 

Republican leaders did not offer up any witnesses Monday (Nov. 29), but did weigh in on the importance of the hearing

House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Communications and Technology Republican Leader Bob Latta (R-OH) released the following statement regarding the upcoming committee hearing on Big Tech accountability.  

“A conversation about reforming Section 230 is long overdue, and we look forward to having that discussion this week," said House E&C Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Communications Subcommittee Leader Bob Latta (R-Ohio). "Big Tech continues to prioritize the censorship of speech that does not fit the liberal orthodoxy when they should be focused on encouraging robust discussion and removing illegal content. Energy and Commerce Republicans have been running a process since day one of this Congress to hold Big Tech accountable, which has been guided by our Big Tech Accountability Platform. We look forward to discussing our legislative proposals which will help ensure that free speech is preserved on these platforms.” ■

Technology website Gizmodo.com said it will publish the Facebook internal documents leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former product manager for the company.

The site, which said it is the first news outlet to commit to publishing the internal research and other documents said it got them from a member of Congress — they were leaked to members of the Senate Commerce Committee.

It describes the documents as “stacks of documents containing thousands of confidential memos, chat logs and a veritable library of hidden research.”

Also: Sen. Markey: Facebook‘s Harmful Ad Practices Continue

“We believe there’s a strong public need in making as many of the documents public as possible, as quickly as possible,” Gizmodo said. “To that end, we’ve partnered with a small group of independent monitors, who are joining us to establish guidelines for an accountable review of the documents prior to publication.” 

Those monitors are from New York University, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Columbia University, Marquette University and the American Civil Liberties Union, among other organizations.

Also: Haugen Hearing Branded Big Tech's Big Tobacco Moment

The documents will be released in batches, with the first batch coming “as soon as possible,” Gizmodo said. The first tranche of documents will likely be primarily ones that require the least amount of vetting by its experts, given its goal of “minimiz[ing] any costs to individuals’ privacy or the furtherance of other harms while ensuring the responsible disclosure of the greatest amount of information in the public interest,” the site said.

The leak and Haugen’s testimony have led to more calls for regulating Big Tech and an investigation by state attorneys general. ■

Another day, another stern letter from legislators to Facebook about their social media practices. 

This letter  — to founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg — came from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), saying the company continues to engage in misleading targeted ad policies.

The legislators pointed out that in congressional testimony, Facebook global head of safety Antigone Davis said that young people could only be targeted on the site based on gender, age or location, but that new research showed that Facebook itself targets ads to people using a machine learning system tied to personal data, including browsing history.

The letter follows a complaint by a coalition of groups last week, led by Reset Australia and Fairplay, which said their analysis found that the company continued to collect teen data “to fuel its ad-delivery system.” While advertisers may not be able to target teens, they said, the company's algorithm's can.

Also: Haugen Hearing: Sen. Blumenthal Calls It Facebook’s Big Tobacco Moment

“Facebook’s announcement that it would limit ad targeting to users under the age of 18 implicitly acknowledged the harms that targeted advertisements pose to young people, and Facebook explicitly stated it was committed to taking a ‘more precautionary approach’ in its advertising practices when it announced its policy change,” the lawmakers said in their letter to Zuckerberg. “Unfortunately, new research suggests that harmful advertising practices on Facebook continue.”

“[I]t’s wrong to say that because we show data in our transparency tools it’s automatically used for ads,” Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne said of the coalition’s complaint. "We don’t use data from our advertisers' and partners' websites and apps to personalize ads to people under 18. The reason this information shows up in our transparency tools is because teens visit sites or apps that use our business tools. We want to provide transparency into the data we receive, even if it's not used for ads personalization."

Markey, Trahan and Castor asked for the answers to the following questions by Dec. 13:

1.) “Since Facebook’s announcement [last July] that it will limit ad targeting to users under 18, what specifically has Facebook done to restrict advertisers’ abilities to reach young users?

2.) “Determine in part what commercial content users under 18 on your platform see? If yes, please describe the program in detail.

a. “What types of user data does this system collect or employ?

b. “Does this system collect or employ data from users under the age of 13?

c. “How long has Facebook used this system?

3.) “Will Facebook commit to releasing its algorithmic process for ad targeting to be studied by independent researchers? If not, why not?

4.) “Please describe in detail the ways in which Facebook uses data about the interest and browsing history of users under 18.

5.) “Has Facebook conducted any internal research on the effects of targeted advertising on

users under 18? If so, please provide this research in its entirety.

6.) “Has Facebook communicated with potential advertisers about Facebook’s advertising ‘Delivery System’ and its ability to target users under 18? If so, please describe these communications in detail.

7.) “Has Facebook’s advertising ‘Delivery System’ ever served an advertisement to a user under 18 that promoted weight-loss, nicotine or alcohol use?

8.) “Will Facebook commit to ending targeted advertising to users under 18 on all of its platforms? If not, why not?”

Markey, Castor and Trahan teamed up last April to discourage Facebook from plans to create a kids’ version of its Instagram platform. Those Instagram Kids plans have been under a klieg light in D.C. and elsewhere after whistleblower Frances Haugen turned over internal research to Congress showing the company knew that some young people were hurt by the platform. Facebook countered that the same research found that most kids said they were helped by being on Instagram, adding that it could use both findings to help improve the site.

A bipartisan group of state attorneys general have launched an investigation into Meta's (formerly Facebook) Instagram social media platform for what they say was the company's promotion of that platform to children and youth despite knowing that could lead to physical and mental health harms.

The investigation is being co-led by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and includes AGs from California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont.

“Facebook, now Meta, has failed to protect young people on its platforms and instead chose to ignore or, in some cases, double down on known manipulations that pose a real threat to physical and mental health – exploiting children in the interest of profit,” said Healey. “As Attorney General it is my job to protect young people from these online harms."

She said they would try to identify any unlawful practices and end the company's alleged abuses for good. "Meta can no longer ignore the threat that social media can pose to children for the benefit of their bottom line," she said.  

The investigation will target what techniques, if any, Meta used to boost the frequency and duration of engagement by younger users and the resulting harms.
Also: Blmenthal Presses TikTok, YouTube, SnapChat for Documents

Like the Hill hearings that preceded it, the investigation stems in part from Facebook internal research handed over to Congress by whistleblower Frances Haugen.

"Today’s announcement follows recent reports revealing that Meta’s own internal research shows that using Instagram is associated with increased risks of physical and mental health harms on young people, including depression, eating disorders, and even suicide," Healey's office said.

Healey also helped lead a coalition of 44 AGs last May that urged Facebook not to launch a kids' version of Instagram. The company ultimately agreed to pause the effort, though not to pull the plug entirely.

"These accusations are false and demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of the facts," said Meta in a statement. "While challenges in protecting young people online impact the entire industry, we’ve led the industry in combating bullying and supporting people struggling with suicidal thoughts, self-injury, and eating disorders. We continue to build new features to help people who might be dealing with negative social comparisons or body image issues, including our new 'Take a Break' feature and ways to nudge them towards other types of content if they're stuck on one topic. We continue to develop parental supervision controls and are exploring ways to provide even more age-appropriate experiences for teens by default."

“Combined with our Congressional scrutiny, this investigation will shine a bright light on Instagram’s profiting from harm to kids," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee, who led a hearing into Haugen's allegations and documents. "Facebook can no longer hide or conceal facts that parents need and deserve to know. Mark Zuckerberg must make a choice: either Facebook comes clean on its own, or this bipartisan group of state attorneys general will show the world even more ugly truths.”

“Facebook must release its full research, give access to independent researchers, and support meaningful legislation. I look forward to seeing the results of this important investigation and continuing to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on legislation to protect kids online.” ■

A coalition of groups spanning public health, privacy, consumer advocacy and more are accusing Facebook of continuing to harvest personal data from teens to target advertising to them and is asking the company to stop what it calls "surveillance advertising" to those youth.

The groups, led by Reset Australia and Fairplay, cited Facebook's July 2021 announcement that it was restricting targeted advertising to teens on Facebook, Messenger and Instagram, but they say an analysis conducted by Fairplay, Global Action Plan UK, and Reset Australia found that the company continued to collect teen data "to fuel its ad delivery system," saying that while advertisers may not be able to target teens, the company's algorithm's can.

In a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the groups said Facebook needs to end the use of AI to optimize the delivery of ads to young people who are most vulnerable to them. "[W]hile Facebook said it will no longer allow advertisers to selectively target teenagers, it appears Facebook itself continues to target teens, only now with the power of AI," the groups told Zuckerberg, citing the analysis.

The groups said that conversion APIs (including Facebook Pixel and SPK), which help optimize ad targeting, are still operational on teen accounts, meaning they can still receive personalized ads based on their interests.

"The replacement of targeting ‘selected by advertisers’ with targeting ‘selected by an AI delivery system’ does not represent a demonstrable improvement for children," the analysis asserts.

"It is extremely disappointing that Facebook appeared to take a legitimate step forward, but it was nothing more than a PR play," said Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay. "We hope Congress will take note and move quickly to ban surveillance advertising to children and teens, because when it comes to young people's wellbeing, Facebook simply cannot be trusted."

Among the groups signing on to the letter in addition to Fairplay (formerly Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood) and Reset Australia include Consumer Federation of America, Parents Television and Media Council, Center for Digital Democracy, Common Sense, and dozens of others.

“We haven’t seen the report, but it’s wrong to say that because we show data in our transparency tools it’s automatically used for ads," said Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne. "We don’t use data from our advertisers' and partners' websites and apps to personalize ads to people under 18. The reason this information shows up in our transparency tools is because teens visit sites or apps that use our business tools. We want to provide transparency into the data we receive, even if it's not used for ads personalization." 

On the heels of its popular Formula 1: Drive to Survive docuseries, which gave viewers a behind-the scenes look at drivers and racers in the Formula One World Championship, Barclays analyst Kannan Venkateshwar wrote in a report Friday that perhaps Netflix should make the popular racing circuit the target of its next rights purchase.

Analysts have been waiting for years for streamers like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Facebook and Google to get serious about sports rights, but so far most have merely dipped their toes, like Amazon renewing its deal for Thursday Night Football rights in 2020  and streaming select Major League Baseball games. And while others have made small investments in sports, for the most part they haven’t yet written the mega-checks that some pundits have said they are capable of. 

In his Friday note to clients, Venkateshwar wondered if the entertainment business is looking at streaming sports all wrong. For one, he said, the industry should stop modeling sports content the same way they have modeled scripted and nonscripted content for decades. And secondly, he said streamers may be looking at the wrong sports.

Venkateshwar argued that one of the biggest issues facing new entrants and sports leagues is that distribution of traditional sports like football, soccer and cricket is that they already are widely distributed around the world. 

“This ironically makes the biggest sports the least scalable,” Venkateshwar wrote, adding that may be why potential new entrants to the sports game like Netflix may find traditional sports the least attractive. 

Part of that is due to the tribal nature of most sports. While streamers have dipped their toe in rights auctions for traditional sports like NFL football, NBA and NCAA basketball, MLB baseball and soccer, which he said has helped drive awareness, but is more similar to “how a Korean show like Squid Game became popular globally.”

Sports, he said, has much deeper cultural connotations compared to storytelling.

“This could be why Turkish shows are a bigger rage in Latin America, at present, than local telenovelas but in terms of sports, it is tough for us to see any sport replacing soccer’s pre-eminence in Latin America or Europe,” Venkateshwar wrote.

But the cultural hold is much less with sports like Formula One Racing, UFC mixed-martial arts events and WWE pro wrestling, which can be an advantage for new entrants. 

“The underlying driver of this scalability is the fact that the connective tissue for consumption of niche sports tends to be inherent to the sport itself rather than underlying cultural storylines,” he wrote. For example, Formula One fans share at least some affinity for cars, their underlying brands and even the individual teams and drivers, all of which are less anchored in any particular culture. 

“This may make live carriage of a sport like Formula One a lot more organic for a service like Netflix, especially given the success of affiliated programming like Drive to Survive,” he wrote. 

But cultural scalability isn’t enough for sports like Formula One and the others, Venkateshwar continued, adding that in order for new distribution channels to open, streamers will need to ramp up the viewing experience, with things like virtual paddock clubs, in-cockpit or VR/AR viewing and virtual and real merchandise.  

“This allows for content continuity without distinct boundaries for a given form of content which is why a sport like Formula One could fit well into services like Fortnite, Roblox or Netflix,” Venkateshwar wrote.

Formula One could be more attractive because it has fewer events (about 22 races this year), global locations, is technology-heavy and has direct participation with global brands. While baseball has more games — about 2,400 each season — they are centered more on local markets. Baseball fans in Arizona don’t watch the Seattle Mariners and vice versa. 

For traditional sports, sports betting is most likely the best experiential enhancement, and many distributors are making inroads in that industry. But for distributors like Netflix, the better path may be through sports like Formula 1. 

“Over the near term, we believe Netflix could make its live sports foray by potentially bidding for Formula One broadcast rights in the US in ’22 and Europe in ‘23/‘24,” Venkateshwar wrote. “As a sport, Formula One happens to be one of the most global in terms of reach across all sports but until recently, it struggled to grow its audience, especially as media rights moved away from broadcast to pay TV in different parts of the world. Over the course of the last year however, the sport appears to have seen a resurgence in interest even from casual fans due to the popularity of Netflix’s documentary Drive to Survive. This synergistic growth of the sport and its content extensions could be a significant opportunity for Netflix to present sports as a continuum in a manner that is unique, without content boundaries.”

According to Barclays, while Formula One has dipped in popularity over the past few years — unique viewership has fallen from 490 million in 2018 to 433 million in 2020 — in the U.S., on the heels of the Netflix docuseries, it has risen. Barclays estimates that Formula One viewership on ESPN has grown from 670,000 viewers in 2019 to 920,000 so far in 2021. 

And in the U.S., Formula One events are attracting new fans. During its Q3 conference call with analysts on Nov. 5, Formula One Group CEO Greg Maffei said of the 400,000 people that went to the U.S. Grand Prix event in Austin, Texas, on Oct. 24 — setting an F1 attendance record —  70% were first-time attendees. The usual mix is about 30% first-timers. 

“We have never seen such a crowd in Austin,” Maffei said on the call.  

Venkateshwar noted if Netflix were to dabble in Formula One, its biggest impact would be on churn, given most fans would already be subscribers. But he added that for every $100 million in annual rights costs and 2% churn, Netflix would need just 136,000 new subscribers to break even. For Formula One and others like UFC and WWE, a relationship with Netflix would be beneficial because it would likely draw fans in from areas outside its normal scope. The analyst noted that 60% of F1’s  media rights revenue comes from five countries which account for 35% of its total viewership. 

“Growing rights fees outside of these markets has been a challenge despite the scale of global viewership, not just for Formula One but also other global sports like WWE and UFC,” he wrote.

Netflix senior software engineer Sekwon Choi announced he's leaving the company to join the newly coined Meta and reunite with his former boss, former Netflix chief encoding engineer David Ronca.

Also read: Former Netflix Encoding Chief Ronca Moves to Facebook

Ronca left Netflix in August after a 14-year tenure in which he led the development of the streaming company's pioneering video encoding technology. He now serves as director of video processing for the erstwhile Facebook.

As for Choi, the 11-year Netflix veteran and former Yahoo and Sony engineer announced his career transition on LinkedIn.

"I am joining Meta platforms’ Reality Lab, where I will be working on the Metaverse," Choi said. "Just as Netflix transformed how people consume media, I believe Meta can and will transform how people connect to each other, how people experience the multi-way media and how people use the internet."

So how instrumental was Ronca in spiriting his old charge away from Netflix? And is he coming for more of Netflix's engineering talent? Tough to say, but Choi responded to Ronca's congratulatory note on LinkedIn by thanking him for his support. 

Integral Ad Science said it has been accredited by the Media Rating Council for its system of measuring impressions and viewability of display and video ads on Facebook and Instagram.

Advertisers are looking for more reliable and trustworthy independent metrics for their spending with the big technology companies.

Also: Innovid Expands IAS Integration To Include CTV Measurement

“We’re proud to achieve this important MRC accreditation for our Facebook integrated measurement,” said Lisa Utzschneider, CEO of IAS. “Marketers rely on IAS and our advanced technology to drive much needed transparency along with greater outcomes for their Facebook campaigns. We continue to prioritize our customers’ needs in our role as a leading provider of digital media quality across all social platforms.”

The MRC accreditation covers IAS’s measurement of display and video ads served in the Facebook Newsfeed on desktop and mobile web, as well as those served in both the Facebook and Instagram mobile apps.

IAS said it achieved accreditation following an intensive audit to verify that its data and measurement procedures, controls, disclosures, and reporting meet the required industry standards for validity, reliability, and effectiveness. 

The MRC’s accreditation is the industry’s seal of approval for measurement companies.

“Accreditation of IAS as compliant with MRC’s Viewable Impression Standards for its integrated viewability measurement and reporting of display and video inventory on Facebook and Instagram is an important achievement that will help bring marketers the transparency they need to better evaluate ad spend on these critical platforms,” said George Ivie, executive director and CEO of the MRC. 

IAS has also been accredited by the MRC for its measurement of display and video viewability for desktop, mobile web, and mobile in-app; invalid traffic for desktop, mobile web, and mobile in-app; and property-level brand safety.

Meta (formerly Facebook) is pulling the plug on the facial recognition system on its Facebook social media platform, but signaled it was partly due to unclear guidance from regulators and could have negative consequences for some users, including the disabled.

Jerome Pesenti, VP of artificial intelligence for the company, said Meta will no longer automatically recognize in photos and videos and that it will jettison more than one billion faces on file.

Also read: Meta May Not Be Betta, But It Still Matters to Streaming Video's Future

The move comes after much pushback from privacy advocates and as the company tries to upgrade its image in Washington, where legislators have hammered it over a range of issues from privacy to political ads to its impact on young people.

Pesenti blogged that the company was having to make the change after weighing “the positive use cases for facial recognition against growing societal concerns,” particularly given that it said the government has “yet to provide clear rules.”

Meta has been blanketing the media with ads talking about how it is looking for guidance from Washington on how to proceed with its social media mission.

Also read: Sen. Blumenthal: Facebook Chronically Ignores Internal Alarms

Pesenti pointed to the impact the change would have on its system for creating image descriptions for the blind and visually impaired, saying those descriptions can no longer include the names of people pictured.

He also suggested it was a popular feature that was having to go away due in part to that lack of government guidance.

“More than a third of Facebook’s daily active users have opted in to our Face Recognition setting and are able to be recognized, and its removal will result in the deletion of more than a billion people’s individual facial recognition templates,“ he said.

He did not come right out and say ”you‘ll be sorry,” but he did say the company had to give the move some thought since it has found facial recognition to be “highly valued” by users, including helping those blind and visually impaired web surfers know when they or their friends are in a picture.

He also pointed out that Facebook would no longer be able to automatically notify people when they appear in photos or videos posted by others, or provide recommendations about who to tag in photos and Facebook will ”no longer automatically recognize if people’s faces appear in Memories, photos or videos.“

The company will still use the technology to help people access locked accounts, verify identities or unlock devices, but will make it clear to users they are doing so and give them ”transparency and control.“

Consumer Reports, which has had issues with faical recognition, praised the move.

“We commend Facebook’s decision to shut down its facial recognition program, especially given the company’s history of misleading consumers over the use of the technology," said Maureen Mahoney, senior policy analyst at CR. "But real privacy can’t be guaranteed without comprehensive federal privacy protections."

Fight for the Future, a big Facebook critic, was not popping the champagne given the ambiguity of the technology, Facebook's move notwithstanding.

“Facial recognition is one of the most dangerous and politically toxic technologies ever created,” said Caitlin Seeley George, FFTF campaign director. “Even Facebook knows that … From misidentifying Black and Brown people (which has already led to wrongful arrests) to making it impossible to move through our lives without being constantly surveilled, we cannot trust governments, law enforcement, or private companies with this kind of invasive surveillance.“

Facebook‘s decision to rename itself as Meta left many in Hollywood with a slightly mystified, “Huh, that’s sort of interesting” reaction. But regardless of Meta’s long-term success, the move signals a far broader shift in how we will find, consume, share, even define, entertainment in coming years. And that will matter a lot to the video business, and probably far sooner than many would like. 

The long-signaled announcement by CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday fueled endless gleeful takes on other, better names for the company. Personally, I lobbied for AltriaBook, invoking the rebranding by another notorious maker of toxic, addictive products we can’t quite kick. (SacklerBook was already taken.)   

The Meta name is supposed to reflect the company’s huge commitment to building their version of a three-decade-old vision, an immersive and interconnected future called the Metaverse. Like so many things in the Meta/Face universe, they copied this idea, too, from a 1992 sci-fi novel called Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. 

More notable is a shift in Meta/Face financial reporting. The company said its Reality Labs unit will be carved out of its “Family of Apps” division, and show $10 billion in virtual-reality spending this year. That’s a big number.

And that big number comes amid a bunch of other big numbers. Analysts estimated the company has spent $30 billion on VR and Metaverse projects over the past five years. Going forward, they estimated the company will spend $12 billion annually on Reality Labs. 

For perspective, that’s around 70% of Netflix’s mammoth video-programming budget. It dwarfs the content spending by some other Hollywood players, never mind their interactive investments. 

And worse news for Hollywood, Meta/Face isn’t the only Silicon Valley giant spending billions on immersive technologies. Microsoft, Alphabet, Epic, Amazon, Intel, HTC, Steam, Nvidia, Roblox, Sony, Apple, and Qualcomm are all researching, buying, building and selling VR-related products and companies. 

And though Zuckerberg recently extolled the horrifically named “enterprise Metaverse,” wearing a headset to work in a virtual office will, thankfully, be only part of the future these companies are building. 

Apple — expected to debut its VR headsets in the next 18 months — bought a startup last year that broadcasts VR versions of live sports, giving consumers their choice of a seat anywhere in the venue, among much else. 

Watching sports, movies, concerts, games, and other entertainment in digital spaces is becoming more common, thanks to co-viewing apps such as Scener, and built into apps from Amazon, Hulu and soon, Apple’s iOS operating system.

One of the most mature expressions of the Metaverse comes from Roblox, which went public this year after a decade of quiet but massive growth. 

Roblox and competitors Minecraft and Fortnite "have emerged as the dominant ones collectively helping enable the building blocks of the ‘Metaverse,” LightShed Partners wrote in initiating Roblox coverage in May. “While we don’t know if or when we ever reach that mythical fully interconnected 3D world (or if we want to), one thing is clear: people will spend much more time in interactive space and brand new experiences, some of which we may not imagine today, will emerge under the leadership of these platforms.  And, as in any major change in media, the category-defining platforms should become massively valuable companies.”

Meta/Face is trying to do some of the same thing. Meanwhile, Roblox just hosted an entire music festival, the Electric Daisy Carnival in Las Vegas. 

It’s also moving into broadcast-quality video. Spin Master animated series Bakugan Geoghan Rising streamed an episode on Roblox in September, a week before appearing on Netflix. The Bakugan project caught the eye of a lot of children’s video executives. They, more than anyone in Hollywood, have to build where their youthful audiences are going, on platforms such as Roblox, which may not be where older audiences spend their time. 

And that’s a key: where audiences of the future will be, and what they’ll be doing there. The last generation spent their time on mobile devices. As LightShed noted, the next generation likely will spend far more time in a communal virtual space, entertaining themselves in many ways. 

Another key, as Stephenson noted on Friday when asked about the Meta about-face: “The revenue model — the way that the makers of the system make money — is more important than anything else because it drives the technical features.”

Stephenson’s 1992 vision of the Metaverse came out of frustrations with an interactive art project that struggled to make “various pieces of expensive hardware” work together. 

“It was difficult and expensive and I began to ask myself what would have to happen to make this kind of 3D graphics technology as cheap and ubiquitous as television was at the time,” Stephenson said. “Some kind of mass-market application seemed to be the answer — the equivalent of I Love Lucy or The Ed Sullivan Show — an entertainment product that would actually cause millions of people to go out and buy this hardware and bring the price down.”

On one side of that equation, Meta/Face is selling what it used to call its Oculus Quest 2 VR headsets at what is almost certainly a subsidized price, trading short-term profits for long-term market share. 

Zuckerberg knows that, big as Meta apps Facebook, Instagram, and What’s App are (some 3.5 billion combined users), he’s still at the mercy of walled gardens controlled by Apple and Alphabet. Having his own not-so-walled garden in the Metaverse, and (oh, boy!) control over even more kinds of user data, is crucial to Meta/Face’s long-term relevance.

Netflix is quietly working on the content side of the same challenge. Co-CEO Reed Hastings routinely talks about the company’s competition including Fortnite, from Epic Games, whose CEO, Tim Sweeney, has been one of the Metaverse’s most active proponents. 

It’s also one reason why Netflix launched a games division this year with no expectation of profits, or even fees, anytime soon. Hastings knows his company needs to learn to tell stories in new ways, on new platforms, to remain relevant.

Stranger Things is cool. How much cooler will it be to participate in an immersive, interactive episode set in 1980s Hawkins and the Upside Down, then send a video mail to a colleague, and later join a friend from another state to bet on and watch a soccer match. You’d do all this after stopping by a video mall for a new digital outfit, then posting videos of your avatar wearing your Marvel X Manchester United jersey and celebrating a goal with a custom dance routine. 

We’re not there yet, but the Meta/Face renaming is another indicator of the vast resources Silicon Valley is spending to build versions of the Metaverse future of entertainment and so much else. The question now is whether Hollywood companies will do more than note the news with some slight mystification, and go back to worrying about quarterly subscriber adds.

What's in a name? Fight for the Future suggests that Facebook's rebranding to "Meta" reveals the company's sinister "end game" of trying to control the future of the 'net.

FFTF, which helped launch the HowToStopFacebook.org web site, and may have to rebrand to howtostopmeta.org to keep pace, was not buying the repositioning as more than an effort to distract from what the man behind the curtain was planning next.

Also: Blumenthal Says Facebook Chronically Ignores internal Alarms

In the midst of a political firestorm of criticism over its handling of data and its impact on young people and the use of its platform to spread disinformation and hate speech, Facebook this week rechristened itself Meta, and because it said the next iteration of the internet as the "metaverse."

For a company being criticized as too dominant, putting its new name at the center of what it predicts will be the new online universe was arguably not doing anything to downplay the centrality of its position.

In a "founders letter," CEO Mark Zuckerberg certainly sounded like the company was staking its claim on making that future in its own image.

While Zuckerberg said that the "metaverse won't be created by one company, but by "creators and developers making new experiences and digital items that are interoperable and unlock a massively larger creative economy than the one constrained by today’s platforms and their policies," he went on to say Meta's role in that "journey" would be to "accelerate the development of the fundamental technologies, social platforms and creative tools to bring the metaverse to life, and to weave these technologies through our social media apps."

Zuckerberg said his company is expanding beyond social media to future platforms of connectivity.

Fight for the Future director Evan Greer fired a warning shot about that expansion in a lengthy statement that staked out his group's position, and made clear changing the name will not change FFTF's mission:

“It’s tempting to view Facebook’s rebranding as nothing more than a cynical attempt by the company to distance itself from endless scandals and the real-world harm caused by its surveillance capitalist business model. But it’s actually much more sinister than that. With this announcement Mark Zuckerberg revealed his end game: he’s making a play to control the future of the Internet.

"Fight for the Future has long advocated for decentralized, community-driven alternatives to Big Tech monopolies and their abusive business practices. Decentralized tech projects––ranging from Matrix to Filecoin––are often broadly referred to as “Web 3,” the next iteration of the World Wide Web. With his push for Facebook to build and dominate the “metaverse,” and colonizing forays into digital currencies and NFTs [non-fungible tokens], Zuckerberg is co-opting the terminology of decentralization and attempting to solidify his stranglehold on the future of human attention and interaction.

"We urgently need to enact policies that reduce the harm that Facebook’s surveillance-driven algorithmic manipulation product is doing right now––first and foremost by finally passing a real Federal data privacy law in the US. And we need to reject misguided proposals like gutting Section 230, which would further entrench giants like Facebook and Google while trampling on the basic human rights of marginalized communities.

"But most importantly, we need to stop looking backward and recognize that the Internet is changing. We are heading toward Web 3 whether we want to or not, and we need to fight tooth and nail to ensure that the policies governing this next generation of the Internet are carefully crafted to protect vulnerable communities, free expression and human rights––and that they don’t undermine the potential of truly decentralized technologies, which could help finally end the era of Big Tech surveillance capitalism.

"There is no guarantee that the next iteration of the Internet is better than the last. It’s fun to dunk on Zuck and laugh about overpriced NFTs and doge coin bros, but if those who care about human rights and democracy don’t engage with the transition to the next generation of the web in a serious way, it’s almost guaranteed that Web 3 will be worse, not better for humanity. We are at a crossroads. It’s time to decide what we want the future of the Internet to look like. And then it’s time to fight for that vision. Before it’s too late.”

The Senate Consumer Protection Committee lined up three new targets Tuesday (Oct. 26) in its ongoing punishment of social media for its impact on children and teens and signaled they could take a pounding similar to Facebook's recent unpleasantness on the Hill.

That came in a hearing entitled “Protecting Kids Online: Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.” Testifying were Jennifer Stout, VP of global public policy, at SnapChat owner Snap Inc.; Michael Beckerman, VP and head of public policy, Americas, for TikTok; and Leslie Miller, VP, government affairs and public policy, for YouTube.

Also: Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube Agree to Capitol Hill Grilling

To make sure nobody missed the latest potential Big Tech beatdown, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), chairman of the Subcommittee, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), ranking member, had issued a press release in advance of the hearing pointing out who was testifying and where to stream the proceedings.

In his opening statement, Blumenthal left no doubt about his concerns with edge providers in general. He said Facebook's revelations had led to a "definite and deafening" drumbeat of revelations, and of calls for action from Washington, and not just targeting Facebook. He said that there is there is ample evidence to launch investigations into social media platforms.

Also: Sen. Blumenthal: Facebook Chronically Ignores Internal Alarms

And while he said this hearing was about continuing to educate the committee about "this crisis," it was also about reading those platforms a riot act. Blumenthal said it was the first time TikTok and Snap had appeared before Congress and he appreciated it, but that was about the last encouraging word from him.

Sen. Blumenthal said that Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube were part of the crisis, and along with Facebook were sending the message to American parents: "You cannot trust Big Tech with your kids," and Big Tech can't say to parents it is their job to be the gatekeeper.

Like Facebook, he said, those platforms' algorithms exacerbate downward spirals for teens, fuel hate and violence, amplify depression, anger, and anxiety, and do so because those emotions hook kids on their platforms. He said that was why there was a drumbeat for accountability to "parents, the public, Congress, investors, shareholders, the SEC and other agencies.

Having read the witnesses testimony, Blumenthal said their argument was that "we're not Facebook." But he said that was not a defense, and that the Facebook bar was "the butter," and it should not be a race to the bottom.

Sen. Blumenthal, one of the legislators branding Big Tech with the Big Tobacco label, did say that there was a distinction between the two given that tobacco was inherently dangerous, while social media could be beneficial with proper safeguards.

Blackburn continued the punishment. 

She said for too long social media platforms had been allowed to promote and glorify dangerous content and that she had heard from parents, teachers, and mental health professionals all with the same question: "How long are we going to let this continue, and what will it take for platforms to crack down on this dangerous material."

She said children as young as nine had died after doing viral challenges on TikTok and girls had been lured into sexual relationships on SnapChat. Then there was the videos of people slitting their wrists on YouTube. "You are parents, how can you allow this," she asked. "Does it matter to you?" She answered her own question, suggesting they loved to attract young audiences with content fed to them with algorithms.

Both Blumenthal and Blackburn said social media were driving kids and teens down dark rabbit holes.

Stout said SnapChat is not a "rabbit hole" because it curates its content, including by choosing trusted content partners.

Miller said that YouTube prohibits content glorifying eating disorders, though eating disorder content could be on the platform if it is people sharing their stories around the issue.

Blackburn also called out TikTok for its Chinese connection and collection of data, from keystrokes to geolocation to facial recognition to audio from smart speakers, that could be used by China to surveil U.S. citizens as the Chinese government does to its own citizens.

The witnesses all said they had protections in place for young people, including tools for parents; that they have age limits and remove too-young user accounts when they find them or inappropriate content when they find it; that the majority of users had positive experiences with their platforms, and that they have all done internal impact research and either had, or would, share it publicly.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) clearly appeared unpersuaded. She said that she did not think that kids and democracy should be collateral damage to the profit-seeking of social media.

SnapChat's Stout said that the platform's architecture "was intentionally designed to empower people to express a full range of experiences and emotions with their real friends, not just the pretty and perfect moments." But she also said the company "takes into account the unique sensitivities and considerations of minors when we design products."

TikTok's Beckerman said that company's goal is "providing an age-appropriate experience for our younger users." When pressed by Blackburn, he also said that the company does not share data with the Chinese government and he had research to prove it.

YouTube's Miller said the company has "clear policies that prohibit content that exploits or endangers minors on YouTube and we have committed significant time and resources toward removing violative content as quickly as possible."

From data privacy failures to allegedly dangerous algorithms, there is bipartisan angst and anger over a Big Tech sector once the bootstrap darlings of Capitol Hill. The latest hearing was billed as examining "how tech companies treat young audiences, including how algorithms and product design choices can amplify harms, addiction, and intrusions into privacy." The goal is to come up with legislation essentially to protect kids and young people from all that bad stuff.

The hearing, the fourth in a series on the Web and young people's safety, came against the backdrop of new criticism from the subcommittee of Facebook, driven by more documents from whistleblower Frances Haugen (the headline of a top-of-fold Washington Post front page story: "Insiders [Sa] Zuckerberg Chose Growth Over Safety").

"If TikTok, Snap and YouTube were as wonderful and responsive to concerns as their representatives asserted, there wouldn't have been any need for hearings," said Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay (formerly Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood). "Unfortunately, these platforms are plagued by the same problems as Facebook and Instagram: privacy abuses, and design features and content that jeopardize young people's wellbeing and safety. The underlying issue is a business model that prioritizes engagement and data collection over the best interests of children. That's why we need a US design code. Legislative proposals like the KIDS Act and the Kids PRIVCY Act will get us there but only if Congress acts with the urgency these issues require."

Based on new documents from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen (being dubbed “The Facebook Papers”), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee, said it was just more evidence that the social media platform has “chronically ignored serious internal alarms.”

Blumenthal has called on Facebook to make public all its internal research on the impact of its platform on users and said the latest revelations “demand the full release of the company‘s research on the harms to teens and even to our democracy.”

Also Read: Big Tech Targeted Bill Introduced

There has already been a drumbeat for more documents — which Facebook execs said the country would contemplate — after Haugen turned over internal research showing some young users felt the platform hurt their self-esteem and even prompted thoughts of suicide.

Facebook has defended that research, pointing out that the majority of respondents said Facebook's Instagram platform was a help, not a harm, and that the company was responding to those who felt the other way, with the research helping them identify the issues.

Also Read: Blumenthal Calls on Facebook CEO Zuckerberg to Testify

The company has also launched an ad campaign calling on D.C. to regulate it so it knows what the boundaries for its moderation of third party content should be.

Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube have agreed to testify at an Oct. 26 hearing in Blumenthal‘s committee, the fourth in a series on the impact of the edge on children and young people.

The Main Street Alliance, which advocates for left-of-center programs and policies that benefit small business, is launching a Big Tech-targeted campaign in advance of next week's third-quarter earnings reports from Facebook, Google, and Amazon.

The campaign branding--"The Main Street Against Big Tech"--leaves no doubt where the group stands. It is billed as six-figure campaign to show how Big Tech exploits small business.

It will use a combination of paid ads and earned media to get the message across with videos of small business owners recounting their experiences with Big Tech.

"For too long, Big Tech corporations have used small business owners as a shield to protect them from real reform and accountability, cynically casting themselves as saviors of mom-and-pop shops and lifelines for entrepreneurs," said the group.

More than two thirds (70%) people said social media companies do more harm than good, while only one in five said it is the other way around.

That is according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.

Facebook in particular took it on the virtual chin. Almost eight out of 10 people said Facebook is doing either a poor job or doing a "not so good" job of handling online misinformation.

The poll found that 52% said Facebook was doing a poor job, while 27% said it was "not so good." Only 12% said it was doing a good job and only 1% said it was doing an excellent job. Facebook has been in Washington's sites for how it handles content on its site, including misinformation, hate speech, and content potentially harmful to teens.

The country appears to be about evenly split over whether the government needs to step in to regulate edge giants like Facebook and Twitter.

According to the poll, 47% of respondents said the government "needs to be involved" in the regulation of social media companies, while 45% said no.

Two yes votes for regulation have actually come from Twitter and Facebook. Neither want to see a harsh crackdown on their content moderation abilities or the worst-case scenario of an antitrust-driven break-up of the companies. But given the bipartisan support for some kind of regulation, they are looking to shape that regulatory future into one that does not wreak havoc with their business model.

If regulation is certain, they figure, regulatory certainty, and on terms they can deal with, is the way to go.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security Subcommittee, is trying to pressure Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify on Instagram's impact on youth before his panel, saying to date the executive has been evasive and his company dismissive of evidence it puts profits before the health of teen users.

Also Read: At Haugen Hearing, Blumenthal Calls It Big Tech's Big Tobacco Moment

That pressure has been growing in the wake of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen’s testimony to Congress. Haugen, armed with internal research, told the Senate that the company prioritizes profit over the mental health of its users and knows it is doing so. Facebook says the research shows the company’s Instagram social-media platform is helpful, not harmful, to most teens, and that it used the research to help the minority who said Instagram reinforced their negative body images.

Haugen told Blumenthal and the subcommittee that Facebook was buying its profits with consumer safety and that it intentionally hides documents and repeatedly misleads the public. Until incentives change, she argued, the company won't.

Blumenthal wrote that “as recently as this weekend,” the company was continuing to downplay the reporting about the impact of the research as an “orchestrated ‘gotcha’ campaign.”

The senator said Zuckerberg needed to clear up some inconsistencies between Haugen's testimony and that of Antigone Davis, global head of safety for Facebook, in a separate hearing. There have been multiple hearings on Big Tech's impact on little users.

Blumenthal, in a letter to the CEO dated Wednesday, said Zuckerberg has “doubled down on evasive answers” and “kept hidden” reports on the health of its teenage users, only providing vague plans for action sometime in the future. "Rather than casting baseless aspirations on whistleblowers and journalists, Facebook should be vigorously acting to provide parents with firm commitments for dramatic reforms and direct answers. Sadly, it is not," he says.

Blumenthal wrote that it was “urgent and necessary” for Zuckerberg or Adam Mosseri, who heads up Instagram for Facebook, to testify.

While Facebook has been pushing back on characterizations related to its internal research, it has at the same time blanketed D.C. with ads talking about how it wanted the government to step in and set rules of the road for content moderation.

That effort is in part to head off tough legislation that could break up Big Tech companies or curtail or eliminate their immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from civil liability for most third-party content.

Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and Mike Johnson (R-La.) have teamed up to call on Big Tech to create a rating board for apps and adopt ratings comparable to those for video games, movies and music.

While there have been ratings boards for movies, music and video games for a couple of decades, the relatively newer world of apps has no such body, with ratings often provided by the app creator.

That congressional call for action comes in a just-introduced “Fix Apps Ratings” House resolution. Such resolutions don't have the force of law, but signal the sense of Congress on an issue  — and the implied threat that if action doesn't happen voluntarily, some of those House members might legislate to make it so.

The idea of the industry-run ratings board is to streamline age-appropriate ratings, as well as parental controls that are easy to use, “digital wellness features” and other tools to help kids online.

The resolution comes in the wake of a Facebook whistleblower’s revelations about internal company research finding that some teen Instagram users said using the app made them feel worse about themselves and even prompted thoughts of suicide, though Facebook counters that the majority of teens polled found instagram was helpful, not harmful.

“For too long, apps have been allowed to serve as hubs for bullying, sexually explicit material and other forms of content that jeopardize children’s safety, self-image and overall well-being,” Johnson said.

Both legislators argue that app ratings are often inaccurate, inconsistent, or not specific enough,  while parental controls are too complex or depend on ratings “self assigned” by app developers.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) gave the effort a big thumbs up.

“The technology industry must take responsibility for ensuring apps are rated accurately,” center CEO Dawn Hawkins said. “Parents are left in the dark about the kind of content their children are accessing because app ratings are misleading or inaccurate. … For instance, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok are rated 12-plus, but these social media platforms and others have left children vulnerable to potential predators and harmful content. Tech platforms should focus on defaulting to safety, thereby putting the health and wellbeing of children above profit.”

In the wake of the revelations by a Facebook whistleblower and allegations about the company’s internal research about the impact of its platforms on young people, House Energy & Commerce Committee leaders have proposed a bill that targets “reckless” use of algorithms by limiting Section 230.

Former Facebook staffer Frances Haugen testified about the documents before the committee at a heated hearing that prompted legislators to suggest it was Big Tech‘s Big Tobacco moment.

Section 230 is the add-on to the 1996 Communications Decency Act that provides web platforms immunity from civil liability for what appears on their platforms.

Also Read: Rep. Eshoo Pushes for Subpoena of Facebook Documents

While there has been bipartisan criticism of Facebook, the legislators unveiling the bill are all Democrats: Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Communications Subcommittee chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Consumer Protection Subcommittee chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).

The bill, the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, would remove absolute immunity for an edge provider that “knowingly or recklessly uses an algorithm or other technology to recommend content that materially contributes to physical or severe emotional injury.”

The bill does not apply to “small” online platforms, which are defined as fewer than five million unique monthly visitors, or to algorithms or search features that aren't based on personalization, or to infrastructure like Web hosting or data transfer or storage.

The big issue with Facebook‘s internal research was that it showed that some teens said Instagram made them feel worse about themselves and even contributed to thoughts of suicide. Facebook countered that the research found that a majority of kids did not feel that way, and that the info helped them take actions to help those who did.

But Congress has not been assuaged, arguing that Facebook has not done nearly enough, while keeping that research under wraps and downplaying the negative results.

“Social media platforms like Facebook continue to actively amplify content that endangers our families, promotes conspiracy theories, and incites extremism to generate more clicks and ad dollars,” Pallone said. “These platforms are not passive bystanders — they are knowingly choosing profits over people, and our country is paying the price. The time for self-regulation is over, and this bill holds them accountable. Designing personalized algorithms that promote extremism, disinformation, and harmful content is a conscious choice, and platforms should have to answer for it.”

Added Doyle: “We finally have proof that some social media platforms pursue profit at the expense of the public good, so it’s time to change their incentives, and that’s exactly what the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act would do. Under this bill, Section 230 would no longer fully protect social media platforms from all responsibility for the harm they do to our society. It’s my hope that by making it possible to hold social media platforms accountable for the harm they cause, we can help optimize the internet’s impact on our society.”

With Congress trying to figure out what to do about Facebook, a bunch of civil society groups have banded together to point the way.

Forty-plus groups including the Fight for the Future, the Center for Digital Democracy, National Hispanic Media Coalition and Public Knowledge have launched a new campaign to get Congress and the Biden Administration to crack down on the social media giant in particular, and Big Tech's use of data “surveillance” in general.

That comes in the wake of the whistleblower revelations about Instagram that have prompted bipartisan pushback on the social-media giant and promises of investigations and new privacy legislation, or what more than one legislator called Big Tech's ”Big Tobacco moment.“

Also Read: Rep. Eshoo Pushes for Subpoena of Facebook Documents

The groups want “a full investigation” into Facebook, including subpoenaing documents, a federal data privacy law, and Federal Trade Commission to take enforcement action against surveillance-driven algorithms and data harvesting.

The groups agree that there remains “a fair amount of disagreement,” “both in Congress and among civil society groups,” over how to regulate algorithms, but said there is still a way to get to a federal data-privacy law that could reduce the harms.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), longtime member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, is asking the Democrat-controlled panel to subpoena documents from Facebook.

That call comes following a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee during which Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, armed with internal research, said the company puts profit over the mental health of its users, and knows it is doing so.

“Frances Haugen courageously exposed what we've long suspected: Facebook has known the harm caused by their platform and has done nothing about it,” Eshoo said. “The Energy and Commerce Committee must subpoena all documents from Facebook related to Ms. Haugen's testimony and her SEC whistleblower complaints, particularly those related to the mental health of children, COVID-19, election misinformation, algorithmic amplification and targeted advertising. Ms. Haugen’s disclosures are highly instructive to our legislative process and any frivolous lawsuits or other retaliation against her would be highly problematic.”

Senate Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Protection Subcommittee chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also said at the hearing that his committee would do all it could to prevent any retaliation against Haugen. Facebook has said she only worked for the company briefly and not on the issues — the protection of young people online — before the committee.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, whose last job at the social media company was working on the counterespionage team, may have opened up a new front in Congress’s war on the social platform.

That came during a hearing in the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security, where she was testifying on children's online safety and the alleged lack of it when it came to Facebook.

She was explaining that among the things she looked at was China’s tracking and surveillance using the platform and Iran’s tracking of other state actors. She said Facebook’s “consistent” understaffing of their counterespionage information operations and counterterrorism was a national security threat.

She said she was already speaking with “other parts of Congress” about it.

That got the immediate attention of Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), a member of the Armed Services Committee, who asked whether she was saying that whether Facebook knew it or not it was being used by the country's adversaries “to push and promote their interests at the expense of America’s.”

Haugen said that Facebook was “very aware” that it was happening and the fact that Congress does not get a report from the company on how many people are working on the issue internally is "unacceptable." She told the committee she had “strong national security concerns” about how Facebook operates.

Subcommittee chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told Haugen, “you may have just opened an area for another hearing.” He said “we may want to discuss this issue,” at least informally and possibly for another hearing, which Sullivan definitely supported.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen got an angry and attentive bipartisan audience at a Tuesday (Oct. 5) hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who called it a Big Tobacco moment for Big Tech.

A former Facebook product manager and data scientist, Haugen took documents when she left the company that she said show its algorithms “amplify polarizing and hateful content” for the sake of profit — a motive partly responsible for “tearing societies apart” — and that the company had research showing that but obscured the fact that it is harmful.

Haugen said Facebook was buying its profits with consumer safety and that it intentionally hides documents and repeatedly misleads the public. Until incentives change, she argued, the company won't.

Also Read: Sen. Blumenthal Says Facebook Weaponizes Childhood Suffering

She pointed out that the government took action to curb serious auto accidents (seat belt mandates), against tobacco and against opioid abuse, suggesting taking action now against Facebook was in the same category.

Blumenthal, the subcommittee’s chairman, called the company “morally bankrupt” and called on Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to come before the committee rather than taking a “nothing to see here” approach by “going sailing,” as he suggested Zuckerman had done.

He said if that misleading charge is true, the Federal Trade Commission needs to step in using its authority to pursue false and misleading information.

Also Read: Hill to Hear from Facebook Whistle Blower

Citing last week’s Facebook hearing witness, Antigone Davis, global head of safety for Facebook, who said the research was not a bombshell, Blumenthal said it was the very definition of a bombshell and that Big Tech was having its Big Tobacco moment, the moment when research shows they knew its product was harmful, but concealed that knowledge for the sake of profit. As Connecticut’s attorney general, Blumenthal had led that state’s action against Big Tobacco and remembered the moment when he had the files that showed tobacco knew its product caused cancer.

Ranking member Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said Facebook abused consumers’ privacy, did not respect its users, invaded the privacy of children, and was in violation of federal law — the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the parent Senate Commerce Committee, said Congress must act against powerful tech companies to protect children and the public at large. He called their product addictive, and agreed that legislators on both sides of the aisle are concerned. Wicker said he had talked to an opinion maker just before the hearing who said “the tech gods had been demystified.” Wicker agreed, and said that the hearing was furthering that process.

Both Blumenthal and Blackburn suggested they would be looking to narrow Big Tech's immunity from civil liability for third-party content on their platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 

Haugen said the way to modify Sec. 230 is to exempt platform decisions about their algorithms. Those platforms may arguably not have the control over third-party content, but she said they have 100% control over their algorithms. 

But while there have been ongoing bipartisan differences between what is considered particularly sensitive data and how that should be protected, Facebook’s research revelations could potentially be the tipping point that brings Democrats and Republicans together over a common “enemy.” That certainly seemed to the the case Tuesday,

Blackburn predicted that this Congress would be the one where online privacy legislation finally passed, something both sides have been talking about for almost a decade.

Also Read: Facebook Whistleblower's Identity Revealed on ‘60 Minutes’

The time has come for action on privacy legislation, agreed Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), "and I think you are the catalyst," she told Haugen.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said he agreed it was time to bridge the partisan differences and pass bipartisan privacy legislation. Blumenthal said he thought the differences were minor, particularly in the face of what they had learned about Facebook. Joined by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) they agreed it was time to get to work and get it done.

Haugen revealed her identity on CBS’s newsmagazine 60 Minutes, which drew a strong rebuttal from Facebook. Haugen told the committee she had revealed herself at great personal risk because she believed there was still time to address the Facebook issues. Blumenthal assured her that the committee would do what it could to protect her from any retaliation.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), historically one of the strongest advocates for children's online protections and a primary author of COPPA, called Haugen a 21st Century American Hero.

Markey warned that Facebook lobbyists would he making visits after the hearing telling Congress it can't act.

Facebook took aim at Haugen's authority on the subjects on which she testified, and again said they supported some regulation of Big Tech.

“Today, a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives – and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question," said Ena Pietsch, director of policy communications. "We don’t agree with her characterization of the many issues she testified about. Despite all this, we agree on one thing; it’s time to begin to create standard rules for the internet. It’s been 25 years since the rules for the internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act.”

Lena Pietsch, director of policy communications for Facebook, fired back Sunday night (Oct. 3) against a segment of 60 Minutes revealing the identity of a company whistleblower as former product manager Frances Haugen.

“On Sunday, CBS 60 Minutes ran a segment that used select company materials to tell a misleading story about the research we do to improve our products,“ Pietsch said. “The segment also disregards the significant investments we make to keep people safe on our platform and seeks to impugn the motivations of our company.”

Also Read: Facebook Whistleblower's Identity Revealed on ‘60 Minutes’

In the piece, Hougan, who leaked reams of internal research, alleged that the company's algorithms “amplify polarizing and hateful content" for the sake of profit, a motive partly responsible for "tearing societies apart.”

Pietsch, in a statement e-mailed to Broadcasting+Cable and Multichannel News, went through the piece point by point, including that “it is not accurate that leaked internal research demonstrates Instagram is ‘toxic’ for teen girls,” one of the hot-button allegations that has gotten much currency since The Wall Street Journal first broke the story of the internal research.

Also Read: New Bill Would Make Social Media Liable for Harming Kids

She went on to lay out Facebook's rebuttal:

"To the claim presented on 60 Minutes that internal research shows the company is not doing enough to eradicate harmful content on the platform:

“We've invested heavily in people and technology to keep our platform safe, and have made fighting misinformation and providing authoritative information a priority. If any research had identified an exact solution to these complex challenges, the tech industry, governments, and society would have solved them a long time ago. We have a strong track record of using our research — as well as external research and close collaboration with experts and organizations — to inform changes to our apps.”

"To the claim presented on 60 Minutes that the company’s desire for profit outweighs our efforts to keep the platform safe: 

“The growth of people or advertisers using Facebook means nothing if our services aren't being used in ways that bring people closer together — that’s why we are investing so much in security that it impacts our bottom line. Protecting our community is more important than maximizing our profits. To say we turn a blind eye to feedback ignores these investments, including the 40,000 people working on safety and security at Facebook and our investment of $13 billion since 2016.”

"To the claim presented on 60 Minutes that we mislead the public and our regulators: 

"We stand by our public statements and are ready to answer any questions regulators may have about our work."

"To the claim presented on 60 Minutes that the industry needs regulation:

“We agree it’s time for updated internet regulations and have been calling for it ourselves for two and a half years. Every day, we make difficult decisions on where to draw lines between free expression and harmful speech, privacy, security, and other issues, and we use both our own research and research from outside experts to improve our products and policies. But we should not be making these decisions on our own which is why for years we’ve been advocating for updated regulations where democratic governments set industry standards to which we can all adhere.”

"To the claim presented on 60 Minutes that Instagram’s internal research shows harmful impacts on teens:

“We do internal research to ask hard questions and find out how we can best improve the experience for teens and we will continue doing this work to improve Instagram and all of our apps. It is not accurate that leaked internal research demonstrates Instagram is ‘toxic’ for teen girls. The research actually demonstrated that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with the kinds of hard moments and issues teenagers have always faced. This research, like external research on these issues, found teens report having both positive and negative experiences with social media.”

"To the claim presented on 60 Minutes that the Meaningful Social Interactions ranking change amplified polarizing content on the platform:

"The goal of the Meaningful Social Interactions ranking change is in the name: improve people's experience by prioritizing posts that inspire interactions, particularly conversations, between family and friends — which research shows is better for people’s well-being — and deprioritizing public content. Research also shows that polarization has been growing in the United States for decades, long before platforms like Facebook existed, and that it is decreasing in other countries where Internet and Facebook use has increased. We have our role to play and will continue to make changes consistent with the goal of making people’s experience more meaningful, but blaming Facebook ignores the deeper causes of these issues — and the research."

As advertised, CBS has revealed the identity of the Facebook whistleblower, who lodged a complaint with the feds last month and whose reams of internal documents has the Senate Commerce Committee up in arms over the social media platform.

In a 60 Minutes interview Sunday night (Oct. 3), former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen, who quit in May, said that the company's algorithms "amplify polarizing and hateful content" for the sake of profit, a motive partly responsible for "tearing societies apart."

Congress has already been dragging Facebook over the coals for its content moderation and ad practices, but the revelations have fanned the flames.

Haugen has worked for Google, Yelp, and Pinterest as well, but said it was "substantially worse" at Facebook.  She said the company is lying about making progress about getting hate speech and misinformation off the platform. She said Facebook is not malevolent, but their priorities are misaligned because extreme speech draws a crowd and so serves the company's interest.

Also Read: New Bill Would Make Social Media Liable for Harming Kids

Haugen‘s complaints were filed at the Securities & Exchange Commission because she said what Facebook does and says don't match up.

In a hearing last week, Senate Commerce Consumer Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said that Facebook was weaponizing childhood suffering.

Blumenthal had cited documents provided by the whistleblower saying that there was substantial evidence that experiences on Facebook's platforms made body dissatisfaction worse. He said that was a formal finding from Facebook employees that had been available to the highest levels of management.

The hearing‘s single witness, Antigone Davis, global head of safety for Facebook, said the research showed that many kids found that Instagram helped kids deal with serious issues. She said that teen girls who struggled with 11 of 12 issues said that Instagram helped them, not hurt them. She said that did not mean they were not concerned about the minority who said Instagram did not help, what was most important thing was what they have done with the research, which included tools to help limit time spent on their apps.

"To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is not true," Facebook told CBS in a statement. 

Within minutes of the broadcast, the Senate Commerce Committee issued a press release naming Haugen as the star of their Oct. 5 hearing.

As part of the "social media as piñata" Big Tech bashing this week, which included Hill hearings on online privacy and Instagram's impact on children, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced a bill that would make social media companies liable "for bodily or mental harm their products cause to children."

The bill would remove websites' Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability, allowing parents to sue for damages from social media companies for "bodily injury or harm to mental health that is attributable, in whole or in part, to the individual’s use of a covered interactive computer service provided by the social media company."

That comes as Facebook was raked over the proverbial coals in a Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee hearing Thursday (Sept. 30) over internal documents that suggest it knew Instagram was harmful to young people, including to their mental health and wellbeing.

Hawley referenced the company in announcing his bill.

“Facebook has long had evidence of the harmful effects their products have on children but covered it up because it would hurt their profits," he said. "These Big Tech monopolies know exactly how addictive and manipulative their products are but they’re content to rake in billions by exploiting children. Parents need to be given the tools to take back control.”

The Hawley bill and the Hill hearing--at which both Democrats and Republicans read a company representative the riot act--were both prompted in part by reports from the Wall Street Journal on internal Facebook research. Those documents were separately supplied to the subcommittee by a whistleblower who has agreed to testify at an Oct. 5 hearing in the same subcommittee, and to talk about the documents on 60 Minutes this Sunday (Oct. 3), according to the network.

Hawley also confronted a Facebook VP about the documents in a Senate Judiciary hearing last week.

No wonder legislators appear laser-focused on the power of social media these days. Use of social media giants Twitter and Facebook by politicians increased dramatically in 2020, according to a new Pew Research Center study of how Congress used both to engage with the public during and after the 2020 election, compared with 2016.

The analysis found that between Sept. 8 and Dec. 8, 2016, legislators had 207,009 posts on Facebook and Twitter combined, but that jumped to 315,818 such posts between Sept. 3 and Dec. 3, 2020.

Also Read: Pew: Sizable Portions of U.S. Use Social Media for News

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump was much on the minds, or at least in the feeds, of Democrats. In 2016, "Trump" was the second most common term used by Democrats and in 2020 it was the single most common word mentioned. By contrast, neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden were among even the 10 most common terms for Republicans in 2016 and 2020, respectively.

Other takeaways from the analysis:

In terms of audience engagement, Democrats in 2016 received the largest increase when mentioning the possible election of Trump, while in 2020 Republicans received the biggest boost when saying that every legal vote should be counted or referencing Joe Biden's son, Hunter. For Democrats, “President-elect Trump” got the biggest engagement bump, followed by his strategist, “Steve Bannon.”

So-called link polarization is on the rise. The number of links to popular domains shared exclusively by members of one party or the other increased from 20 in 2016 to 31 in 2020.

Legislators are citing fewer outside links in their posts, driven by a sharp decline in Republicans linking to outside sources, down from 36% in 2016 to only 22% in 2020.

The Pew analysis is based on every Facebook post and tweet created by every voting member of the House and Senate, including official, campaign and personal accounts. That came to almost 166,000 Facebook posts from 698 members of Congress (a total of 1,408 Facebook accounts), and more than 357,000 tweets from 669 members of Congress (a total of 1,438 Twitter accounts).

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Thursday (Sept. 30) that he and Consumer Protection Subcommittee chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) will reintroduce their KIDS Act, which would remake online content targeted to kids.

Markey also called for banning influencer marketing to kids online, as selling by hosts is banned in children’s TV programming.

That came at a subcommittee hearing with the global head of safety for Facebook, Antigone Davis, where her company was hammered for, among other things, planning an Instagram Kids version of that site for children 12 and younger.

The Markey-Blumenthal bill would, among other things, ban auto-play settings, push alerts and reward “badges” on websites and/or apps for kids and young teens.

Also Read: Big Tech Bashed in Senate Hearing On Protecting Kids Online

It would also prohibit websites from recommending content with host-selling and influencer marketing, including “unboxing videos” to kids and young teens or from “exposing children and young teens to marketing with embedded interactive elements.”

Also Read: Senators Push for Research into Tech Impact on Kids

In questioning Davis, Markey said online platforms should not allow influencers to push products on children because they lack the ability to distinguish between ad and non-ad content. He pointed out that such host selling is not allowed on TV — per his own children’s TV legislation — and that that regime should apply to influencers as well.

If Facebook has taught us anything, he said, it is that self-regulation is not an option.

Asked if she supported the bill, Davis said it was certainly time for updated regulations and she would be happy to work with him and would follow up. He pointed out that the company had had access to the legislation — which was launched in March 2020 — for months.

"[E]very single Senator who called out Facebook today should support Senator Markey and Senator Blumenthal's KIDS Act...," said Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay (Formerly Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood). "[W]e need legislation to address the damaging design and predatory data collection practices of platforms like Instagram."