\n\tBy MARTY LEVINE<\/p>\n
\n\tTwo Pitt professors\u2019 testimony was crucial to winning a $25 billion fine last month against Facebook, which, they believe, will prompt the social media giant and other such companies to better protect user data on their sites.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cI think this is going to be a landmark case, not just because of the cost of the judgment, but because it opens the door for other states to sue,\u201d says one of the prosecution\u2019s expert witnesses, Samuel Woolley, William S. Dietrich II Chair in Disinformation Studies and an associate professor in the Department of Communication.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIt’s a monumental judgment in some ways and it could have the effect of encouraging other social media companies \u2026 to be held accountable through the justice system,\u201d said Calum Matheson, associate professor and chair of the Department of Communication and another expert witness for the plaintiff, New Mexico\u2019s Department of Justice.<\/p>\n
\n\tA civil jury found that \u201cFacebook committed 43,899,725 violations of New Mexico law,\u201d the state\u2019s DOJ said after the verdict.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tIn the judge\u2019s ruling, he noted that \u201cFacebook’s core business and primary source of revenue is generated from the sale of advertising to third parties that is targeted at Facebook’s users based on their personal information. Facebook’s privacy settings do not provide users with meaningful control over their data in many ways. \u2026 Facebook’s misrepresentations about users’ control of their data were not isolated incidents, but rather a systematic pattern of deception at the core of Facebook’s business model.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe judge found that, from the top down, the company had \u201ca coherent strategy designed to mislead the public \u2026 concerning users’ control of data, third-party data misuse, misinformation, hate speech, and equal enforcement\u201d of Facebook\u2019s own rules for control of the last two categories. Such violations \u201cconstituted unfair or deceptive trade practices.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tGiven access to Facebook\u2019s internal documents and correspondence among executives \u2013 unearthed as part of the legal proceedings \u2013 Woolley was able to show the difference between \u201cwhat Facebook said they were doing about hateful content and misinformation on their platform versus what they were doing behind closed doors.\u201d Facebook had promoted the creation of an internal system that was supposed to catch, examine and potentially prohibit hateful posts and misinformation among all users. The Facebook executive in charge of this effort had announced \u201ca zero-tolerance approach to hate speech,\u201d Woolley said.<\/p>\n
\n\tBut in the U.S. only 2 percent of hate speech was ever found and deleted, according to internal documents, Woolley told the court. \u201cEvidence demonstrated that Facebook seemed to be making a choice to deceive users and the general public about the systems \u2026 not only to appease powerful figures\u201d but to increase public engagement, lest users flee the platform. Angry and hateful content also increased users\u2019 time on Facebook, the company knew. \u201cThe evidence demonstrated that Facebook had systems in place for years\u201d that favored certain users \u2013 from the politically powerful to advertisers \u2013 that effectively allowed Facebook to delay action on such material, while they supposedly made a decision about whether to remove it.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cFacebook during my cross examination and in their public statements about the verdict have tried to make this about free speech,\u201d Woolley also said \u2013 claiming that their internal system protected journalists and democracy advocates who might be falsely accused of hate speech. But free-speech concerns are a smoke screen, Woolley said.<\/p>\n
\n\tMatheson also testified to Facebook\u2019s misleading statements. \u201cThey can say they don’t sell your data,\u201d but they did sell access to users\u2019 data so that companies can target their ads, he pointed out. This first came to light when Facebook allowed a now-defunct company called Cambridge Analytica to mine user data so that politicians could target them. The company denied the practice but Meta, Facebook\u2019s parent, settled a suit over these actions in 2022 for $725 million.<\/p>\n
\n\tMatheson testified that, following the Cambridge Analytica case, Facebook had promised to police itself, but had done so only minimally. The company made many statements \u201cto make it appear like they were effectively detecting hate speech and removing it.\u201d He compares the actions of Facebook and other such companies to the strategies Big Tobacco used to keep people smoking despite clear health risks.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cSocial media companies need to convince everyone that everything is safe… because people already want to use the product. So what they do is they remove enough doubt \u2013 and people want to use the product anyway.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThe one big advantage social media have over those other industries… is they own the channels that those messages go out through \u2013 as if Philip Morris also owned the New York Times.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tMatheson and Woolley both caution that they do not speak for New Mexico but believe the state\u2019s DOJ will continue to pursue the case while Facebook appeals.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tStill, can any monetary judgment be effective against a company that makes 10 times that amount per year and is said to be worth much more than that? Matheson believes such judgments can affect everything from a company\u2019s stock prices to its public reputation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tDespite the fact that the earlier Cambridge Analytica settlement precludes most states from suing Facebook over the data privacy issue, Woolley says that New Mexico\u2019s tack \u2013 hinging on consumer protection laws \u2013 may prove fruitful for further lawsuits.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThis is a big deal for researchers\u201d as well, he said, given the large amount of internal Facebook data that has now been revealed. \u201cThis case blows the doors wide open\u201d concerning Facebook’s public promises versus its private actions, he said. \u201cA lot of these documents have never been seen before.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tMarty Levine is a staff writer for the University Times.\u00a0Reach him at\u00a0martyl@pitt.edu<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0412-758-4859.<\/p>\n \n\tHave a story idea or news to share?\u00a0Share<\/a>\u00a0it with the University Times.<\/p>\n