Evidence of meeting #153 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was facebook.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Have you informed the Government of Canada that this sort of microtargeting practice by the Liberal Government of Canada will no longer be accepted? Just give a yes or no.
12:25 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
We have sent out emails to all admins telling them that they cannot do this.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Coming back to Mr. Collins' original question about the manipulated, sexist, politically hostile video that has been allowed to stay on your Facebook platform, I understand that after The Washington Post contacted Facebook, a statement was issued saying, “We don't have a policy...that the info you post on Facebook must be true”.
From your earlier answers, it would seem that Facebook is refusing to remove this politically hostile video, claiming a sort of perverted defence claim of free speech, and that in the 24 hours after The Washington Post made that notification to you, they report that there was a viewership, on a single Facebook page, of more than 2.5 million views and that it was multiplied many times on other Facebook pages.
If that were to happen in the Canadian election—a similar video of a Canadian politician, perhaps the leader of one or another of the parties were to be posted and manipulated in the same way to give the impression of mental incapacity or intoxication—would Facebook remove that video, or would you do what you maintained in your answers to Mr. Collins, simply say that it's not true, despite those who would continue to exploit the falseness of the video?
12:30 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Sir, just leaving aside the specific video in question that is originating from the United States, we have been at this and I have been at this personally for the last two-plus years, trying to find ways to better secure the platform for the upcoming election.
I can tell you that when we receive requests from various sectors and people and parties, 99% of the time when we find something that has been reported to us, we actually go beyond what the content is. We're not looking for the content. We're looking for the behaviour.
12:30 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
If it originates from a fake account or if it's deemed to be spam, or if it is a violation otherwise of a community's standards, absolutely we would.
I can assure you that in almost every instance that I—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
But it is false. It's not the truth. Does Facebook still defend the concept that it doesn't have to be truthful to be on your platform?
12:30 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Sir, I understand what you're getting at. I think that, if you'll permit me, the way I would like to maybe talk about it a bit is—
12:30 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
That's why we're here. We would welcome basic—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:30 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
We would welcome basic standards that lawmakers can impose on the platform about what should go up and what should come down. If lawmakers, in their wisdom, want to draw the line somewhere north or south of censorship, we would, obviously, oblige the local law.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Perhaps I will close by commenting.
Chris Hughes, a disillusioned co-founder of Facebook who has become something of a whistle-blower again for some, says that “Facebook isn’t afraid of a few more rules. [Facebook is] afraid of an antitrust case”.
Are you aware that, in democracies around the world, you are coming closer and closer to facing antitrust action?
12:30 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
I am aware of multiple questions with respect to regulation around the world, yes, sir.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, Mr. Kent.
Just so that you're aware, I want to remind you all about the sequence of questioning. We're going one question per delegation first, through the countries. You can see how the pattern has been established. Then there are going to be different rounds until all the members have had a chance to ask a question. For example, the next member in the delegation would ask the next question, etc.
Right now we have the second member of the delegation for the U.K., Mr. Lucas. He will be asking the next five-minute question, or maybe Jo Stevens.
Prepare yourself for that. I might look to different countries. If you have a second delegate, he or she will be given the opportunity to ask a question as well.
Go ahead, Ms. Stevens, for five minutes.
May 28th, 2019 / 12:30 p.m.
Jo Stevens Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Potts and Mr. Chan, I want to say thank you for coming today, but my colleagues and I from the U.K. Parliament wanted to ask Mark Zuckerberg our questions. He wouldn't come to answer our questions in London at our Parliament, so we have come across the Atlantic to make it easier for him. We can only conclude that he's frightened of scrutiny. For the avoidance of doubt, I am sick to death of sitting through hours of platitudes from Facebook and avoidance tactics with regard to answering questions. I want the boss here to take responsibility, so please take that message back to Mr. Zuckerberg.
I'd like to ask the Google representatives a question.
In any other sector, your company's monopolistic position would have been dismantled by now. What are you doing at the moment to prepare yourselves for that eventuality?
12:30 p.m.
Head, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
I think we're working very hard to demonstrate to our users and to regulators that we bring value to the marketplace and to our users. They have a clear understanding—whether they're using our maps in signed-in or incognito mode, whether they're using Gmail, or whether they're using our infrastructure services—that there is a value for them and that we're playing a positive role in the marketplace not only by providing value for them in terms of computing services, but also by providing products and services that help businesses grow around the world.
We think regulators have a right and, certainly, a duty to scrutinize our business and to examine it within the framework that they have that's been set up through their local jurisdictions. We will participate in that process and try to explain how we think we're providing that value when we're meeting the obligations of the regulations as they have interpreted them.
12:35 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
However, you're not taking any steps at the moment to prepare yourself for cases.
12:35 p.m.
Head, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada
At the moment, we're focusing on providing services that both fulfill and anticipate the needs of our users.
12:35 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
Perhaps I could ask about a specific hearing that Facebook gave evidence at in February 2018. When we asked Facebook about Cambridge Analytica in Washington, we were not informed of the data incident involving Cambridge Analytica and Aleksandr Kogan.
Mr. Potts, with regard to transparency, which you raised, why were we not informed about the Cambridge Analytica incident, which we specifically raised on that day?
12:35 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
I'm sorry, but I'm not quite clear on what happened during that hearing. I can try to find out exactly what was presented and what evidence was given, but I, unfortunately, don't recall what was given.