Alex Padilla U.S. Senator for California

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) highlighted the need for stronger personal data privacy protections and the importance of fighting online disinformation during a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) hearing entitled “Social Media Platforms and the Amplification of Domestic Extremism and Other Harmful Content.”

Padilla questioned the witnesses on a variety of issues, including how strong privacy protections could reduce the spread of disinformation or exploitative advertising, how social media platforms are failing to address Spanish language disinformation circulating on their sites, and how the collapse of local news outlets is negatively impacting how consumers engage with content online.

Earlier this year, Padilla sent a letter to tech CEOs to raise the alarm over the increasing rate of Spanish and other non-English language disinformation across social media platforms.

The hearing featured testimony from a panel of witnesses including Ambassador Karen Kornbluh, Director of Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative and Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States; David L. Sifry, Vice President for the Center for Technology and Society at the Anti-Defamation League; Dr. Cathy O’Neil, Chief Executive Officer at O’Neil Risk Consulting & Algorithmic Auditing; Dr. Nathaniel Persily, Co-Director of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center and James B. McClathy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School; and Dr. Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami.

WATCH: View Video of Padilla’s Questioning

Key Excerpts:

• PADILLA:Now, strong data privacy protections may help address some of the unhealthy dynamics that we see online. We’ve been talking about a national privacy law for a long, long time. And I think it’s time that Congress finally gets it done.

Question for Dr. Persily. How can a strong privacy law reduce the risk of echo chambers, micro-targeting of disinformation, or exploitative advertising, which targets specific individuals or groups based on profiling?

PERSILY: […]And so I think you are right, to point out that through national privacy legislation and regulating the kind of data that the firms can collect, that we will be able to get at some of these problems. Because if you think, that part of the problem here is the micro-targeting of messages that necessarily select out audiences for manipulation and persuasion and the like, that it’s only enabled because of the amount of data that the firms have. And so if we had rules on what particularly the big platforms could do in terms of collecting data, I think it would go a long way in trying to write in addressing some of these speech problems as well.

• PADILLA: As I mentioned, reporting on the Facebook Papers reveals an abdication of responsibility to meet the needs of non-English speaking Facebook users around the world. And it’s happening here in the United States as well.

Question for Dr. O’Neil. Why do you think platforms are failing even more for non-English language speakers? And in what ways can Congress be helpful in this space?

O’NEIL: Thank you for the question. You’re absolutely right, that they are failing in non-English language spaces. […] Their mistake is not that they aren’t are doing it well, it’s that they’re pretending they can do it. They simply cannot do it. Because of what I’ve said before that AI doesn’t understand truth, so is just simply looking for keywords. 

So to the extent that Facebook cares about looking good, they care much more about looking good to English speaking Americans and to people like you.

• PADILLA: I welcome any thoughts you may have on the how the shuttering of local news outlets has impacted how users engage with content that they consume online?

KORNBLUH: As you say, it creates this vacuum. And people are served things online. […] People don’t know what they’re being served or who’s behind it. And there are these pretend local outlets that they see online that seemed to have a name that suggests that they are local, but they in fact, are often controlled centrally. The news stories can even be constructed by AI. And they think they’re getting local news, but they’re actually being fed information that serves a political interest or a financial interest. And they’re not aware of it, and there’s no alternative. So they don’t have access to the Civic information that they need to be a citizen. […]

So this is a problem. It’s really a fundamental democracy problem. The press is mentioned in the Constitution. It’s something that we really have to address.

A full transcript of the exchange is available below:

PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let’s just jump right into it. You know, when I was Secretary of State of California, prior to joining the Senate, I saw more than our fair share of bad actors seeking to discourage communities, particularly communities of color, from exercising their right to vote—by gaming social media and exploiting gaps in trusted sources and data voids.

Like many of you, I am alarmed by the recent Facebook Papers, and in particular, their absolute failure at Facebook, to invest in integrity systems—responsive to non-English languages, and cultures around the world and right here in the United States, as well. 

While the focus of today’s hearing is on social media, I hope we can keep in mind the broader information ecosystem. We need to equip our kids and neighborhoods with media and information literacy skills. We need to address the collapse of local journalism. And I’ll be asking a question about that here in a minute, and the expanding news deserts across the country.

Now, this hearing is about platform design choices and it would be an oversight not to reflect on user data. User personal data is indeed what fuels targeting on social media, informing the content users see and how ads are targeted to them. It’s all driven by their data. Now, strong data privacy protections may help address some of the unhealthy dynamics that we see online. We’ve been talking about a national privacy law for a long, long time. And I think it’s time that Congress finally gets it done. 

Question for Dr. Persily. How can a strong privacy law reduce the risk of echo chambers, micro-targeting of disinformation, or exploitative advertising, which targets specific individuals or groups based on profiling?

PERSILY: Thank you, my Senator, for that question. It’s good to see you. Hope to see you back in California.

Well, so as I mentioned before, we tend to think of internet regulation in two domains. One is on speech sort of explicitly and CDA 230 performance, one of them, and then kind of structural infrastructure, design questions, and privacy would be one of those. 

But I actually think that we need to start recognizing that they sort of bleed over into each other. And so I think you are right, to point out that through national privacy legislation and regulating the kind of data that the firms can collect, that we will be able to get at some of these problems. Because if you think, that part of the problem here is the micro-targeting of messages that necessarily select out audiences, for manipulation and persuasion and the like, that it’s only enabled because of the amount of data that the firms have. And so if we had rules on what particularly the big platforms could do in terms of collecting data, I think it would go a long way in trying to write in addressing some of these speech problems as well.

PADILLA: Thank you. Now an extended topic.

As I mentioned, reporting on the Facebook Papers reveals an abdication of responsibility to meet the needs of non-English speaking Facebook users around the world. And it’s happening here in the United States as well. We are blessed with a very diverse population. Spanish language disinformation about how to vote, where to vote, when to vote, etc., ran rampant on platforms in 2020, as compared to similar content in English, and it’s not limited to just election information, by the way.

Significantly, when we were doing census outreach and assistance at that critical time in 2020, we continue to see it in regard to the COVID 19 pandemic, the safety of vaccines, etc. It’s absolutely unacceptable. 

Question for Dr. O’Neil. Why do you think platforms are failing even more for non-English language speakers? And in what ways can Congress be helpful in this space?

O’NEIL: Thank you for the question. You’re absolutely right, that they are failing in non-English language spaces.

In India, which is a huge problem, as we’ve read about in the last few days, but for many months and years, we’ve know this there’s just too many language dialects. And Facebook just doesn’t want to hire people to know those languages. It would be very expensive. So it’s a cost issue.

And on top of the fact, that I already mentioned, the filters for hateful or extreme content are essentially keyword searches. So you need to understand what keywords to search for. So you need a lot of experts working full time on this. And they just simply don’t want to pay for that. And it would be very expensive. So it’s clear. But I just want to make it also clear that there’s no simple solution. I’m not suggesting that they’re avoiding doing something simple to solve these problems. This is actually really really hard.

Their mistake is not that they aren’t are doing it well, it’s that they’re pretending they can do it. They simply cannot do it. Because of what I’ve said before that AI doesn’t understand truth, so is just simply looking for keywords. 

So to the extent that Facebook cares about looking good, they care much more about looking good to English speaking Americans and to people like you. I will just say one quick story. I gave a talk in the Ukraine recently, and one of the audience members was a parliament member of the Ukraine. And she said, “What can we do here in the Ukraine, about the Russian propaganda that makes people, undermines people’s trust in our elections?” And I was like, wow, I really don’t know. I mean, I, you have even less power over Facebook than the Senators in the United States Senate. So it is a really important question.

PADILLA: Just to add to your commentary about looking good in front of Americans, or looking good in front of people like us, members the United States Senate, sadly, looking good in front of investors in Wall Street seems to trump it all.

Then my final question with the time remaining, we know today’s information ecosystem is complex. In addition to facing organized propaganda campaigns, social media users encounter more content at higher speeds, right? The innovation technology has a role to play here. And I worry that efforts to help communities critically engage with information is not keeping pace. It’s also not lost on me that we’ve seen an explosion of propaganda campaigns aimed at manipulating and intimidating communities online, while we’re in the midst of a collapse of local journalism, and independent media. So my final question is for Ambassador Kornbluh.

I welcome any thoughts you may have on the how the shuttering of local news outlets has impacted how users engage with content that they consume online?

KORNBLUH: That’s such an important question.

As you say, it creates this vacuum. And people are served things online. And again, I think we have to underscore that so much of what happens online is manipulation. People don’t know what they’re being served or who’s behind it. And there are these pretend local outlets that they see online that seemed to have a name that suggests that they are local, but they in fact, are often controlled centrally. The news stories can even be constructed by AI. And they think they’re getting local news, but they’re actually being fed information that serves a political interest or a financial interest. And they’re not aware of it, and there’s no alternative. So they don’t have access to the Civic information that they need to be a citizen. 

The Secretary of State of Colorado just made a really interesting point a couple of weeks ago, she said, “If I’m standing up at a podium, and having a press conference, and the voters in my state are reading about, you know, something completely different Sharpie gate or whatever it is online, I’m not in conversation with them.”

Because she’s communicating to them over these social media platforms, and that is sort of a funhouse mirror of what’s going on. So I think we really have to think about how is the civic information, public health information, election administration information, how is it going to get to citizens at a time when local news is so undermined. And I should say part of the reason local news is undermined, is because it was supported by advertising. And all those advertising dollars have now gone to the platforms. So there’s no revenue base for local news. So this is a problem. It’s really a fundamental democracy problem. The press is mentioned in the Constitution. It’s something that we really have to address.

PADILLA: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

###