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.
Chair, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
Facebook accepts that this film is a distortion, doesn't it?
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Neil, you're closer to this, but my understanding is that the video in question has been slowed down. Is that what this is?
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
That's correct. I think this is manipulated—
Chair, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
It's manipulated film to create the distorted impression that Nancy Pelosi was somehow impaired when she was speaking. That's what has happened and that's why YouTube has taken the film down and that's why there has been a general recognition, including by independent fact-checkers who work for Facebook, that this film is distorted and creates a distorted impression of the third most senior politician in America.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
As you mentioned the fact-checkers, we work with over 50 fact-checkers internationally that are—
Chair, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
This is not in question. The fact-checkers recognize it's fake. You're saying it can stay there. Do you not see that what Facebook is doing is giving a green light to anyone in the world who wants to make a distorted or fake film about a senior politician, or maybe in the future use deepfake technologies to do it, and know that whatever happens Facebook won't remove the film?
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
I think you're asking a philosophical question, sir. Should we remove or should we inform people that it is fake? We have taken the approach to inform people that it's fake, so they can understand why that video is on the platform and what other independent parties have considered this to be. They have considered it to be false and now they see this on our platform if they go to share it. All these questions, I think are very thorough questions, but it allows people to make their own decision and it allows them to tell others it is false.
You mentioned that the video is slowed down, which by all accounts and the fact-checkers have said it is, but I think there are many different cases where videos are slowed down and that would perhaps not be a warrant for this committee.
Chair, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
The issue here is to say that if someone is making a film, or slowing down a film or manipulating a film, to try to create the false impression that a senior public figure is not fit for office, then that is an attempt to undermine them and the office they hold.
This is not a question of opinion. This is not a question of free speech. This is a question of people manipulating content in order to undermine public figures, and my concern is that to leave that sort of content up there, when it is indisputably fake, indisputably false and distorted, and to allow permission for this content to be shared with and promoted by other users is irresponsible.
YouTube has removed this content. I don't understand why Facebook doesn't do the same.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Sir, I understand your concerns, but I think your questions are the right ones and that they show the complexity of this issue and also show perhaps that the approach we are taking is working. You don't hear people—
Chair, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
Sorry, but with all respect, what it shows is the simplicity of these issues, the simplicity that another company has taken, recognizing the same issues, the simple action to say that this is clearly fake, it's clearly distorted, it's there to undermine senior public figures and it actually shouldn't have a place on the platform. It shouldn't be part of your community.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Your opinion is right, and I obviously respect the opinion of YouTube as an independent company, but we're not hearing people talk about this video as if it were real. We're hearing people discuss the fact that it is fake and that it is on the platform, so on the question of whether we have informed people that this is a fake video, yes, we have. I think that is the predominant speech right now. Whether it's the conversation we're having right now, whether it's on the news or others, people understand that this video is fake and they can make further decisions from there.
Chair, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
My concern about this is that it sets a very dangerous precedent. Your colleague Monika Bickert said last week to CNN that basically Facebook's policy is that any political content, any disinformation content in relation to politics will not be taken down, that there would be notes put up for users so they could see that the facts are disputed, but it will never be removed.
If you're going to allow your platform to be abused in this way by people producing disinformation films targeted at users to try to interfere with democracy and the best you're going to do is just put a flag on it to say some people dispute this film, I think that is a very dangerous precedent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, Mr. Collins.
We'll go next to Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Go ahead, for five minutes.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks very much.
You speak to Mr. Zuckerberg often enough, because you're here on his behalf. Remind me why he isn't here today.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Mr. Erskine-Smith, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg have entrusted us to represent the company here today. We are subject matter experts in these areas, and we're more than happy for the opportunity to be here, but I do want to make—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
He said, “I'm looking forward to discussing these issues with lawmakers around the world” less than two months ago. He just didn't mean these lawmakers. He meant other lawmakers, I'm sure.
I'm going to talk about privacy. In his most recent report, our Privacy Commissioner has said that Facebook's privacy protection framework was “empty”. Then on May 7 before this committee, our Privacy Commissioner said that finding still applies, that it is empty. If Facebook takes privacy seriously, and I heard Mr. Chan say that it does—these aren't my words; these are the Privacy Commissioner's words—why had it “outright rejected, or refused to implement” the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations?
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Given that the commissioner has indicated that he will be taking this to Federal Court, we're somewhat limited in what we can say, but what I can share with you is that—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
You're not limited in what you can say at all, Mr. Chan.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
I'm going to continue with what I can share with you, which is that we actually have been working quite hard in the last few months to arrive at a resolution and a path forward with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
So you didn't outright reject or refuse to implement the recommendations.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
I think we were in a conversation about how we could get to the objectives that we all seek.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
When the Privacy Commissioner wrote those specific words in his specific report, he was incorrect, in your view.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
I don't.... If I may, I just want to share a bit more, because I am limited in what I can say—