Letter To Facebook

August 6, 2021

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

As you know, we are committed to protecting privacy for all Americans while eliminating the
scourge that is disinformation and misinformation, particularly with regard to elections and the
COVID-19 pandemic.

We were surprised to learn that Facebook has terminated access to its platform for researchers
connected with the NYU Ad Observatory project. The opaque and unregulated online advertising
platforms that social media companies maintain have allowed a hotbed of disinformation and
consumer scams to proliferate, and we need to find solutions to those problems. The Ad
Observatory project describes itself as “nonpartisan [and] independent…focused on improving
the transparency of online political advertising.” Research efforts studying online advertising
have helped inform consumers and policymakers about the extent to which your ad platform has
been a vector for consumer scams and frauds1, enabled hiring discrimination2 and discriminatory
ads for financial services3, and circumvented accessibility laws4. Such work to improve the
integrity of online advertising is critical to strengthening American democracy.
We appreciate Facebook’s ongoing efforts to address misinformation and disinformation on its

platforms. But there is much more to do, and independent researchers are a critical part of the
solution. While we agree that Facebook must safeguard user privacy, it is similarly imperative
that Facebook allow credible academic researchers and journalists like those involved in the Ad
Observatory project to conduct independent research that will help illuminate how the company
can better tackle misinformation, disinformation, and other harmful activity that is proliferating
on its platforms.
We therefore ask that you provide written answers to the following questions by August 20,
2021:
1. How many accounts of researchers and journalists were terminated or otherwise disabled
during 2021, including but not limited to researchers from the NYU Ad Observatory?
2. Please explain why you terminated those accounts referenced in question 1. If you
believe that the researchers violated Facebook’s terms of service, please describe how, in
detail.
1
https://qz.com/1751030/facebook-ads-lured-seniors-into-giving-savings-to-metals-com/ and
https://www.propublica.org/article/trumpcare-does-not-exist-nevertheless-facebook-and-google-cash-in-on-
misleading-ads-for-garbage-health-insurance
2
https://themarkup.org/ask-the-markup/2020/08/25/does-facebook-still-sell-discriminatory-ads
3
https://qz.com/1733345/the-fight-against-discriminatory-financial-ads-on-facebook/
4
https://qz.com/1800064/for-blind-facebook-users-ads-havent-been-labeled-as-ads/
3. If the researchers’ access violated Facebook’s terms of service, what steps are you taking
to revise these terms to better accommodate research that improves the security and
integrity of your platform?
4. Facebook’s public statement about its decision to terminate the Ad Observatory

researchers’ access said that research should not “compromis[e] people’s privacy.” Please
explain how the researchers’ work compromised privacy of end-users.
5. The Ad Observatory project asked Facebook users to voluntarily install a browser

extension that would provide information available to that user about the ads that the user
was shown. Facebook’s public statement says that the extension “collected data about
Facebook users who did not install it or consent to the collection.”5 Were these non-
consenting “users” advertisers whose advertising information was being collected and
analyzed, other individual Facebook users, or both?
6. Facebook has suggested that the NYU researchers potentially violated user privacy
because the browser extension could have exposed the identity of users who liked or
commented on an advertisement. However, both researchers at NYU and other
independent researchers have confirmed that the extension did not collect information
beyond the frame of the ad, and that the program could not collect personal posts.67 Given
these technical constraints, what evidence does Facebook have to suggest that this
research exposed personal information of non-consenting individuals?
7. Facebook’s public statement explaining its decision to revoke access for the NYU
researchers states that Facebook made this decision “in line with our privacy program
under the FTC Order.”8 FTC Acting Bureau Director Samuel Levine sent you a letter
dated August 5, 2021 in which he noted that “Had you honored your commitment to
contact us in advance, we would have pointed out that the consent decree does not bar
Facebook from creating exceptions for good-faith research in the public interest. Indeed,
the FTC supports efforts to shed light on opaque business practices.”9
a) Why didn’t Facebook contact the FTC about its plans to disable researchers’
accounts?
b) Does Facebook maintain that the FTC consent decree or other orders required it to
disable access for the Ad Observatory researchers? If so, please explain with
specificity which sections of which decree(s) compel that response.
c) Are there measures Facebook could take to authorize the Ad Observatory research
while remaining in compliance with FTC requirements?
d) In light of Mr. Levine’s statement that the FTC Order does not require Facebook
to disable the access of the Ad Observatory researchers, does Facebook intend to
restore the Ad Observatory researchers’ access?
5
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/research-cannot-be-the-justification-for-compromising-peoples-privacy/
6
https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-reason-banning-researchers-doesnt-hold-up/
7
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/news/why-facebooks-claims-about-the-ad-observer-are-wrong/
8
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/research-cannot-be-the-justification-for-compromising-peoples-privacy/
9
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/consumer-blog/2021/08/letter-acting-director-bureau-consumer-protection-
samuel
8. In its public statement, Facebook highlighted tools that it offers to the academic
community, including its Facebook Open Research and Transparency (FORT) initiative.
However, public reporting suggests that tool only includes data from the three month
period before the November 2020 election, and further that it does not include ads seen
by fewer than 100 people.10
a) Why does Facebook limit this data set to the three months prior to the November
2020 election?
b) Why does Facebook limit this data set to ads seen by more than 100 people?
c) What percentage of unique ads on Facebook are seen by more than 100 people?
We look forward to your prompt responses.
Sincerely,
Amy Klobuchar Christopher A. Coons Mark R. Warner

United States Senator United States Senator United States Senator
10
https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-reason-banning-researchers-doesnt-hold-up/

Letter To Facebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter To Facebook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter To Facebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What questions did the senators ask Facebook?

What concerns did the senators raise about Facebook's actions?

August 6, 2021

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

We appreciate Facebook’s ongoing efforts to address misinformation and disinformation on its

4. Facebook’s public statement about its decision to terminate the Ad Observatory

5. The Ad Observatory project asked Facebook users to voluntarily install a browser

We look forward to your prompt responses.

Amy Klobuchar Christopher A. Coons Mark R. Warner

You might also like