 On October 5th, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen appeared before a Senate subcommittee to give testimony, telling lawmakers about what she learned in her few years serving on the company's civic integrity team. What she had to say was devastating for the company. I'm here today because I believe Facebook's products harm children, stoke division, and weaken our democracy. This hearing was the culmination of weeks of escalating concerns over Facebook and Instagram's effects on their users' mental health. On September 15th, the Wall Street Journal published a devastating report detailing Facebook's internal research on the negative mental health impact of Instagram on teenage girls. One slide from an internal presentation showed that one in three teen girls said Instagram made them more unhappy about their bodies. Facebook has disputed the findings, saying that the survey only included users who had previously expressed body image concerns. But that still hasn't convinced skeptics. In a hearing the week before, Facebook Trust and Safety chief Antigone Davis made the case directly to the same subcommittee and got a much chillier response. I want to be clear that this research is not a bombshell. It's not causal research. It's in fact just directional research that we use for product changes. This research is a bombshell. The report was so damaging because it confirmed what users of Instagram already know. The culture of the app can be really unhealthy, and it's not hard to find accounts promoting disordered eating or self-harm, as Senator Blumenthal showed firsthand. My office did its own research. We created an Instagram account identified as a 13-year-old girl and followed a few easily findable accounts associated with extreme dieting and eating disorders. Within a day, its recommendations were exclusively filled with accounts that promote self-injury and eating disorders. That is the perfect storm that Instagram has fostered and created. At the time, no one knew how the newspaper had gotten the report. But the weekend before the hearing, Haugen revealed her identity in a bombshell 60 Minutes interview, saying the threat posed by Facebook's algorithms was too important to stay behind the scenes. There were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook over and over again chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money. Speaking to Congress, Haugen painted a picture of Facebook as internally dysfunctional, unwilling to commit resources to anything that didn't boost engagement and willfully blind to the platform's biggest problems. A pattern of behavior that I saw at Facebook was that often problems were so understaffed that there was kind of an implicit discouragement from having better detection systems. So for example, I worked, my last team at Facebook was on the counter-espionage team within the threat intelligence org. And at any given time, our team could only handle a third of the cases that we knew about. We knew that if we built even a basic detector, we would likely have many more cases. How good mourns against the dangers of engagement-based ranking? Basically, any algorithm that promotes content, it thinks its users are more likely to respond to. That's what drives extreme and sensational content to the top of your newsfeed. And the only way to fix it is to stop building that kind of algorithm. They've written blog posts on how they know engagement-based ranking is dangerous, but the AI will save us. Facebook's own research says they cannot adequately identify dangerous content. They can't protect us from the harms that they know exist in their own system. Ultimately, Haugen didn't want Facebook to be broken up or shut down. But she said the only way it will get better is if Congress stepped in. These problems are solvable. A safer, free-speech-respecting, more enjoyable social media is possible. But there's one thing that I hope everyone takes away from these disclosures. It is that Facebook can change, but is clearly not going to do so on its own. It's still hard to say how much impact this will have on Facebook. But over the course of the hearing, lawmakers showed that they were more determined than ever to pass laws governing content algorithms. And if they make good on that promise, it could mean huge changes for Facebook and its users. Here's my message for Mark Zuckerberg. Your time of invading our privacy, promoting toxic content, and preying on children and teens is over. Thank you, Ms. Haugen. We will act. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Facebook has not earned our right to just have blind trust in them. Last week, one of the most beautiful things I heard on the committee was trust is earned, and Facebook has not earned our trust.
 On October 5th, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen appeared before a Senate subcommittee to give testimony,
 telling lawmakers about what she learned in her few years serving on the company's civic integrity team.
 What she had to say was devastating for the company.
 I'm here today because I believe Facebook's products harm children, stoke division, and weaken our democracy.
 This hearing was the culmination of weeks of escalating concerns over Facebook and Instagram's effects on their users' mental health.
 On September 15th, the Wall Street Journal published a devastating report detailing Facebook's internal research on the negative mental health impact of Instagram on teenage girls.
 One slide from an internal presentation showed that one in three teen girls said Instagram made them more unhappy about their bodies.
 Facebook has disputed the findings, saying that the survey only included users who had previously expressed body image concerns.
 But that still hasn't convinced skeptics.
 In a hearing the week before, Facebook Trust and Safety chief Antigone Davis made the case directly to the same subcommittee and got a much chillier response.
 I want to be clear that this research is not a bombshell. It's not causal research. It's in fact just directional research that we use for product changes.
 This research is a bombshell.
 The report was so damaging because it confirmed what users of Instagram already know.
 The culture of the app can be really unhealthy, and it's not hard to find accounts promoting disordered eating or self-harm, as Senator Blumenthal showed firsthand.
 My office did its own research. We created an Instagram account identified as a 13-year-old girl and followed a few easily findable accounts associated with extreme dieting and eating disorders.
 Within a day, its recommendations were exclusively filled with accounts that promote self-injury and eating disorders.
 That is the perfect storm that Instagram has fostered and created.
 At the time, no one knew how the newspaper had gotten the report.
 But the weekend before the hearing, Haugen revealed her identity in a bombshell 60 Minutes interview,
 saying the threat posed by Facebook's algorithms was too important to stay behind the scenes.
 There were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook.
 And Facebook over and over again chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money.
 Speaking to Congress, Haugen painted a picture of Facebook as internally dysfunctional,
 unwilling to commit resources to anything that didn't boost engagement and willfully blind to the platform's biggest problems.
 A pattern of behavior that I saw at Facebook was that often problems were so understaffed that there was kind of an implicit discouragement from having better detection systems.
 So for example, I worked, my last team at Facebook was on the counter-espionage team within the threat intelligence org.
 And at any given time, our team could only handle a third of the cases that we knew about.
 We knew that if we built even a basic detector, we would likely have many more cases.
 How good mourns against the dangers of engagement-based ranking?
 Basically, any algorithm that promotes content, it thinks its users are more likely to respond to.
 That's what drives extreme and sensational content to the top of your newsfeed.
 And the only way to fix it is to stop building that kind of algorithm.
 They've written blog posts on how they know engagement-based ranking is dangerous, but the AI will save us.
 Facebook's own research says they cannot adequately identify dangerous content.
 They can't protect us from the harms that they know exist in their own system.
 Ultimately, Haugen didn't want Facebook to be broken up or shut down.
 But she said the only way it will get better is if Congress stepped in.
 These problems are solvable.
 A safer, free-speech-respecting, more enjoyable social media is possible.
 But there's one thing that I hope everyone takes away from these disclosures.
 It is that Facebook can change, but is clearly not going to do so on its own.
 It's still hard to say how much impact this will have on Facebook.
 But over the course of the hearing, lawmakers showed that they were more determined than ever to pass laws governing content algorithms.
 And if they make good on that promise, it could mean huge changes for Facebook and its users.
 Here's my message for Mark Zuckerberg. Your time of invading our privacy, promoting toxic content, and preying on children and teens is over.
 Thank you, Ms. Haugen. We will act.
 This hearing is adjourned.
 Thank you.
 Facebook has not earned our right to just have blind trust in them.
 Last week, one of the most beautiful things I heard on the committee was trust is earned, and Facebook has not earned our trust.