Softball questions: US lawmakers allowed Mr Zuckerberg to get away easily

About 99% of Facebook's $40.6 billion revenue (2017) came from advertisements and it had 2017 profits of $15.9 bn

The recent testimony by Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg in front of the US Congress highlighted the fact that even US lawmakers have problems comprehending social media, its impact on politics, the privacy issues involved, and the business models deployed by social media giants. Facebook, for instance, has been around for 14 years. It has over 2 billion users across the world and is a highly profitable business because analysis of the data and content generated by users allows targeted advertising. But many of America’s lawmakers appeared out of touch with the fundamentals of how Facebook works and lobbed mainly softball questions. Given that they have been entrusted with the responsibility of providing regulatory oversight, this is as revealing as it is unconscionable. In the absence of clear understanding, it is difficult to see how meaningful legislation can be enacted to protect the privacy of users and prevent the unethical manipulation of opinions.

About 99 per cent of Facebook’s $40.6 billion revenue (2017) came from advertisements and it had 2017 profits of $15.9 billion. It is the largest media platform in the world, with many using it as their primary source of information and media consumption. Other business models may not be as skewed. Google, for example, offers search and communication via e-mail as major functions. But targeted advertising associated with media consumption is a major revenue source for all platforms. Users are offered a “free ride” in exchange for the data and content they generate. Social media has enormous positive effects, but by its very nature, it also creates bubbles. Users gravitate to content they are partial to, and “friend” or “follow” accounts that pique their interest and reinforce their biases. That bubble is useful for targeted advertising, be it for shoes or political parties. 

What differentiates social media players from conventional media organisations is that the former have little focus on vetting content to filter out fake news, conspiracy theories, racism and blatant hate-mongering. Moreover, online advertising has few mandatory disclaimers. It used to be possible until recently to place political ads without disclosure of the advertiser’s provenance. Those loopholes have been blatantly misused. It is only in the wake of the manipulation of the US presidential elections, the Brexit referendum and revelations of data misuse by Cambridge Analytica and Russian hackers that Facebook started to filter out fake IDs and fake news and to demand disclosure of advertisers’ provenance. 

Mr Zuckerberg says he is concerned about similar misuse of Facebook in upcoming Indian elections. But while protecting data and filtering fake news is vital, it comes at a certain cost. It is quite likely that social media platforms will be reluctant to pick up the tab unless they are forced to do so by legislation, or they feel their reputations are at risk, as in the case of the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. But framing such legislation would require a much higher standard of understanding on part of the US lawmakers. It is noteworthy that US and EU laws tend to set the global benchmark when it comes to technology. Their lack of understanding, thus, is a matter of grave concern.