In Facebook Hearing, Hatch Calls for Thoughtful Discussion About Transparency, Warns Against Overreaction

Press Release

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force and a member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered the following remarks during this afternoon's Senate Judiciary hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg:

"To my mind, the issue here is transparency. It's consumer choice. Do users understand what they're agreeing to when they access a website or agree to terms of service? Are websites upfront about how they extract value from users, or do they hide the ball? Do consumers have the information they need to make an informed choice regarding whether or not to visit a particular website? To my mind, these are the questions we should be focusing on."

Senator Hatch's opening statement, as prepared for delivery, is below:

"This is the most intense public scrutiny I've seen for a tech-related hearing since the Microsoft hearings I chaired in the late 1990s. The recent stories about Cambridge Analytica and data mining on social media have raised serious concerns about consumer privacy.

At the same time, these stories touch on the very foundation of the internet economy and the way the websites that drive our internet economy make money. Some have professed themselves shocked--shocked--that companies like Facebook and Google share user data with advertisers. Did any of these individuals ever stop to ask themselves why Facebook and Google don't charge for access?

Nothing in life is free. Everything involves tradeoffs. If you want something without having to pay money for it, you're going to have to pay for it some other way. And that's what we're seeing here. All these great websites that don't charge for access--they extract value in some other way. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they're up front about what they're doing.

To my mind, the issue here is transparency. It's consumer choice. Do users understand what they're agreeing to when they access a website or agree to terms of service? Are websites up front about how they extract value from users, or do they hide the ball? Do consumers have the information they need to make an informed choice regarding whether or not to visit a particular website? To my mind, these are the questions we should be focusing on."

Senator Hatch's questions as prepared for delivery, are below:

Mr. Zuckerberg, I remember well your first visit to Capitol Hill back in 2010. You spoke to the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, which I chair. You said back then that Facebook would always be free. Is that still your objective? If so, how do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your services?
I understand that until just recently, Facebook split its privacy policy across 20 or more separate webpages, making it virtually impossible for a typical user to understand what information he or she was agreeing to allow Facebook to share. Why did you have in place such a convoluted privacy policy? Why not make the policy as clear, easy to understand, and accessible as possible?
Whenever a controversy like this arises, there's always the danger that Congress's response will be step in and overregulate. In your view, what sorts of legislative changes would help to solve the problems the Cambridge Analytica story has revealed? What sorts of legislative changes would not help to solve these problems? What should Congress's role be in responding to the Cambridge Analytica story?
Sharing data lies at the heart of Facebook's model. Facebook has become ubiquitous precisely because users can so easily connect and share information through your platform. Would scaling back the types of user data that can be shared negatively affect the user experience? If so, how?
I've been a bit perplexed by the way Facebook has come in for such criticism when so many other online platforms use a similar business model. I don't necessarily want to name names here, but Facebook is far from the only website that makes money by offering advertisers the ability to target ads to specific user groups. How does your business model differ from, say, Google's, or from other social media sites?
Is Facebook unique in the way it collects and shares user information? How do your data practices differ from those of other websites?
How is Facebook's business model consistent with consumer privacy? Is there a way to offer targeted advertising without sharing user data with advertisers?
How would limiting Facebook's ability to share user data with advertisers change your business model? How would it impact the services you offer to customers?
In your written testimony, you discuss new efforts to verify advertisers who want to run political or issue ads on Facebook. It strikes me that this effort should apply to more than just political ads. For example, shouldn't you also put checks in place for advertisers that use your platform to illegally peddle prescription drugs? Which advertisers will need to be verified under your new policies? And how can we be sure that Facebook won't use these new policies to engage in viewpoint discrimination?

Source