[Senate Hearing 118-028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-028
PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN ONLINE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
__________
Serial No. J-118-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-253 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 14, 2023, 11:03 A.M.
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey O., a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 3
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 4
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Tennessee...................................................... 5
WITNESSES
Witness List..................................................... 45
Bride, Kristin, survivor parent and social media reform advocate,
Portland, Oregon............................................... 8
prepared statement........................................... 46
DeLaune, Michelle C., president and chief executive officer,
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Alexandria,
Virginia....................................................... 10
prepared statement........................................... 53
Golin, Josh, executive director, Fairplay, Boston, Massachusetts. 15
prepared statement........................................... 73
Lembke, Emma, founder, Log Off Movement, Birmingham, Alabama..... 9
prepared statement........................................... 93
Pizzuro, John, chief executive officer, Raven, Point Pleasant,
New Jersey..................................................... 12
prepared statement........................................... 96
Prinstein, Mitch J., Ph.D., ABPP, chief science officer, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC...................... 14
prepared statement........................................... 103
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted to Kristin Bride by Senator Whitehouse....... 125
Questions submitted to Michelle C. DeLaune by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 126
Senator Tillis............................................... 127
Questions submitted to Josh Golin by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 128
Senator Tillis............................................... 129
Questions submitted to Emma Lembke by Senator Whitehouse......... 131
Questions submitted to John Pizzuro by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 132
Senator Welch................................................ 133
Senator Tillis............................................... 134
Questions submitted to Mitch J. Prinstein by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 135
Senator Welch................................................ 136
ANSWERS
Responses of Kristin Bride to questions submitted by Senator
Whitehouse..................................................... 137
Responses of Michelle C. DeLaune to questions submitted by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 141
Senator Tillis............................................... 143
Responses of Josh Golin to questions submitted by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 147
Attachment................................................. 150
Senator Tillis............................................... 200
Responses of Emma Lembke to questions submitted by Senator
Whitehouse..................................................... 207
Responses of John Pizzuro to questions submitted by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 209
Senator Welch................................................ 210
Senator Tillis............................................... 211
Responses of Mitch J. Prinstein to questions submitted by:
Senator Whitehouse........................................... 212
Senator Welch................................................ 213
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submitted by Chair Durbin:
Bronstein, Rosellene, statement, February 14, 2023........... 221
Charmaraman, Linda, Ph.D., statement, February 14, 2023...... 224
CSTI, letter, February 14, 2023.............................. 229
Attachment I............................................... 232
Attachment II.............................................. 234
Attachment III............................................. 236
Howard, Ed, letter, February 12, 2023........................ 240
Lembke, Anna, M.D., statement, February 14, 2023............. 249
RAINN, letter, February 21, 2023............................. 257
Submitted by Ranking Member Graham:
Arora, Saanvi, and Ani Chaglasian, letter, February 10, 2023. 260
Bergman, Matthew P., Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 26.4,
2023, article.............................................. 262
Bergman, Matthew P., statement, February 14, 2023............ 306
PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN ONLINE
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2023
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in
Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Whitehouse,
Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Ossoff, Welch, Grassley,
Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Hawley, Kennedy, and Blackburn.
Also present: Former Congressman Dick Gephardt and Governor
Maura Healey, of Massachusetts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary
Committee will come to order. Before we begin, I want to
comment on last night's mass shooting at Michigan State
University that took the lives of three students and injured
five others. This was the 67th mass shooting in America so far
this year. Sixty-seven. More than one a day. Today, February
14th, is already the anniversary of two horrific mass shootings
in Parkland, Florida, 5 years ago, and Northern Illinois
University in DeKalb, 15 years ago. Now the friends and
families of Michigan State students join in that grief. My
heart goes out to them.
Last Congress, this Committee held 11 hearings on our
Nation's gun violence epidemic, and the Senate passed the most
significant gun safety reform in nearly 30 years, but it's not
enough. We have more to do. We've lost 5,200 Americans to
gunfire already this year, and we're only halfway through
February. We were able to come together on a bipartisan basis
last year to close gaps in our laws to help reduce shootings.
We need to continue the efforts in this Committee and this
Congress, and I'll work to do so. We owe that to the families
and communities who have lost so much.
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will focus on an
issue that impacts every family: keeping our kids safe in the
internet age. This little device here [holding up a cell phone]
is an amazing source of information and communication, but it
also has some properties, which we'll discuss today, that are
not obvious as you glance at it. Why is it that children who
can't really walk on their own, maybe not even talk yet, can
operate one of these, can punch the screen to move things?
There is a captivation that's taking place there in the minds
of young people that continues. It is addictive. We know that.
We also know that it's threatening, and we're going to hear
some stories today, tales of terrible results of communication
through this device.
The online world offers tremendous opportunities and
benefits, but it's a serious risk and danger to our kids. In
almost every aspect of the real world, child safety is a top
priority. We lock the door and teach our kids not to talk to
strangers, but in the virtual world, criminals and bullies
don't need to pick a lock or wait outside the playground to
hurt our kids. They only have to lurk in the shadows online of
Facebook and Snapchat. In those shadows, they can bully,
intimidate, addict, or sexually exploit our kids right in our
own homes. I'd like to turn to a brief video at this point
about the risks our children face.
[Video presentation is shown.]
The online exploitation of children is an urgent, growing
threat. A report last year from Pew Research found that nearly
half of American teens report being harassed or bullied online.
Nearly half. As too many families know, cyberbullying, which is
often relentless, cruel, and anonymous, can lead to tragic
results. Social media can also cause a variety of mental health
problems in teenagers, including anxiety, depression, stress,
body image issues. This has been well documented, and the Big
Tech companies know it.
But despite all these known risks and harms, online
platforms are doing everything they can to keep our kids' eyes
glued to the screens. In the process, they're vacuuming up tons
of data they can use to build profiles and target our kids with
even more ads and content. It's a lucrative business at the
expense of our kids' privacy, safety, and health. We don't have
to take it.
Today we'll hear from an outstanding panel of witnesses
about the challenges to protecting kids online and the steps we
in the Senate and this Committee can take to help. I want to
thank our witnesses Kristin Bride and Emma Lembke who've been
personally impacted by this issue. They speak on behalf of many
others, and they advocate for change to help spare others what
they and their families have gone through. Thank you both for
being here today.
I want to acknowledge Rose Bronstein from Chicago who is in
the audience. She lost her son Nate to suicide last year after
he was viciously bullied over Snapchat and other social media
platforms. Ms. Bronstein, I'm sorry for your loss.
We're also joined by experts representing the National
Center for Missing & Exploited Children, law enforcement, the
American Psychological Association, and the advocacy
organization Fairplay. The Big Tech platforms are not here
today, but don't worry, they'll have their chance. We'll invite
their leaders to appear before this Committee soon to discuss
how they can be part of the solution instead of the problem.
Today's discussion builds upon years of important work by
this Committee. Ranking Member Graham held important hearings
on this issue when he chaired the Committee. I thank him for
his partnership in organizing today's hearings. We consider it
a bipartisan call to action.
There are a number of worthwhile legislative proposals to
protect our kids, such as the EARN IT Act, which enjoys strong
bipartisan support in this Committee. Additionally, for months
I've been working on a comprehensive bill to close the gaps in
the law and crack down on the proliferation of child sex abuse
material online, the Stop CSAM Act. Today I'll be releasing a
discussion draft of this legislation, and I hope to move
forward with it soon.
I also want to acknowledge--she's here now, both Senators
are here now--Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn of this
Committee, who have been leaders on this issue in another
Committee, the Commerce Committee, for a long time. I look
forward to hearing our witnesses' ideas for reform, and I hope
they can provide the basis for advancing legislation.
Like we do in the real world, we need to protect our kids
in the virtual world. This is not a partisan issue. It's an
issue that keeps parents and children up at night. It deserves
the attention of this Committee and this Congress, and it
deserves action. I now turn to the Ranking Member, Senator
Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One, I want to
congratulate you for calling this hearing. It couldn't come at
a better time. It's a great panel. I want the people testifying
to understand that we're all listening to you, that all of our
ears are open and our hearts are open to try to find solutions.
This is the one thing I think unites most Americans, is
that most of them feel helpless. The American consumer is
virtually unprotected from the adverse effects of social media.
That needs to, and I think will, change. How do you protect the
consumer?
Well, you have regulatory agencies that protect our food
and our health, in general. In this space, there are none. You
have statutory schemes to protect the consumer from abuse. In
this space, there are none. You can always go to court in
America, if you feel like you've been wronged, except here.
So, the American consumer is virtually unprotected from the
abuses of social media. And, of all Americans, I think young
people are the most exposed here. Parents feel helpless.
There's somebody affecting your kids you'll never see, and a
lot of times it's a machine. Who's watching the machine, if at
all?
And the Surgeon General issued a report that's pretty
damning, about the business model is to get people to watch
things as much as possible, whether or not those things are
good for you. They make money based on eyeballs and
advertising. There is no regulatory agency in America with any
meaningful power to control this. There are more bills being
introduced in this area than any subject matter that I know of.
All of them are bipartisan.
So, I want to add a thought to the mix, Mr. Chairman. I'm
working with Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. We
have pretty divergent political opinions, except here. We have
to do something, and the sooner, the better. We're going to
approach this from consumer protection. We're going to look at
a digital regulatory commission that would have power to shut
these sites down if they're not doing best business practices
to protect children from sexual exploitation online.
There were 21 million episodes last year of sexual
exploitation against children. It was a million--1.4, I think,
in 2014. This is an epidemic. It is a mental health crisis,
particularly for young teenaged girls. And we have no system in
place to empower parents and empower consumers to seek justice,
to fight back, and protect themselves. That's going to change
in this Congress, I hope.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you. I
know Senator Blackburn's been very involved in the privacy
space. I've worked with Senator Blumenthal on the EARN IT Act.
So, we're going to work together the best we can to find
solutions to empower consumers who are pretty much at the will
of social media, and some people are having their lives ruined.
It's now time for us to act.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Graham. I'm going to ask our
two colleagues Senator Blumenthal and Senator Blackburn to give
brief opening remarks. As I mentioned earlier, they've both
been pioneers in this subject matter.
Senator Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
want to personally thank you not only for having this hearing
but your very important interest and work on protecting kids
online. And I'm grateful, as well, to Senator Graham for his
partnership on the EARN IT Act. This cause is truly bipartisan,
which Senator Blackburn and I, I think, are showing in real
time here, the work that we're doing together. The EARN IT Act
can be a meaningful step toward reforming this unconscionably
excessive Section 230 shield to Big Tech accountability.
I think we need to be blunt, from the beginning, because we
know right now the central truth. Big Tech has relentlessly,
ruthlessly pumped up profits by purposefully exploiting kids'
and parents' pain. Young people like Emma Lembke have been
victims of Big Tech's hideous experiment, as President Biden
rightfully called it. Parents like Kristin Bride have lost
beautiful children like Carson. Parents whose tears and raw
grief as you came to see me in my office have moved me with
heartbreaking power.
But beyond heartbreak, what I feel is outrage: outrage at
inaction, Congress' inexcusable failure to pass the bill that
you advance courageously and eloquently, the Kids Online Safety
Act; outrage at Big Tech, pillaging the public interest with
its armies of lobbyists and lawyers, despite their pledges of
collaboration; outrage that you and other victims must relive
the pain and grief that break our hearts and should, finally,
be a moral imperative to action.
We came so close, last session. We need to seize this
moment. We face a public health imperative, not just a moral
reckoning. Our Nation is in the midst of a mental health
crisis. If you have any doubt about it, read the latest CDC
survey that says three out of five girls in America experience
deep depression, sadness, and helplessness that drives many of
them to plan suicide.
It's a public health emergency, egregiously and knowingly
exacerbated by Big Tech; aggravated by toxic content on eating
disorders, bullying, even suicide; driven by Big Tech's black-
box algorithms, leading children down dark rabbit holes. We
have to give kids and parents--yes, both kids and parents--the
tools, transparency, and guardrails they need to take back
control over their own lives. And that is why we must and we
will double down on the Kids Online Safety Act.
After five extensive hearings last session with Senator
Blackburn at our Commerce Consumer Protection Subcommittee, and
I thank Senator Maria Cantwell for her leadership; after deeply
painful conversations with young people and parents like Emma
and Kristin; after testimony from brave whistleblowers like
Frances Haugen, who presented documents, not just personal
anecdotes, but smoking-gun proof that Facebook calculatingly
drove toxic content to draw more eyeballs, more clicks, more
dollars, more profits; after Facebook hid this evidence from
parents, even misled us, in Congress--it's Big Tobacco's
playback and playbook, all over again--the evidence of harm is
heartbreakingly abundant beyond any reasonable doubt. Action is
imperative now, and I think these brave victims at our hearing
ought to provide the impetus and momentum.
Right now, urgently, the Kids Online Safety Act can be a
model for how bipartisan legislating can still work, a message
to the public that Congress can still work. We need to reform
Section 230. Senator Graham and I are working on the EARN IT
Act. I commit that we will work on major Section 230 reform,
and it will be bipartisan. This mental health crisis will
persist, take more young lives, unless Congress cares more
about the Kids Online Safety Act than it does about Big Tech.
It's urgent that we move forward and I am haunted by what
one parent told me, and all of us, in advocating for the Kids
Online Safety Act. She said, ``Congress must act. It's a
powerful call to action.'' And she asked, ``How many more
children have to die before we make them a priority? Now is the
time. Let's pass it.'' That's her quote. Mine is, ``Congress
needs to act and heed that call and do it now.'' Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blackburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
calling the hearing today. Appreciate that you and Senator
Graham are turning attention to this. As many of you in the
audience know, this is something that Senator Blumenthal and I
have worked on for quite a period of time. We started on this
about 3 years ago, and what you saw over the last couple of
years was a series of hearings and Kristin and Emma and others
who came in to tell their stories and to provide us with
information and to walk us through what was happening.
So, we have heard from parents and kids and teachers and
pediatricians and child psychologists who are all looking at us
and saying, ``This is an emergency.'' And anybody who doubts
it--Senator Blumenthal just held up, and I have also, the CDC
report that just came out, where you talk about youth risk
behavior. And guess what? Social media is one of those items
that is a part of that risk. And we have just taken to heart--
we've listened to not only the testimony in the hearings but to
many of you that came separately to our offices to talk to us
and to say, ``This is our experience, and we want somebody to
know about this, because something needs to be done.''
It is almost as if these social media platforms are
operating in the days of the Wild West, and anything goes. And
when these children are on these platforms, they're the
product. They're the product. Their data is taken. That data is
monetized, and then it is sold to the advertisers, who are
going to feed more information to these children.
And we've come up with this Kids Online Safety Act. Now, we
got close last time, and we almost got it through the finish
line, and we didn't. So, new Congress. A new start on this. And
we're so pleased that Judiciary Committee is working with us,
with Commerce Committee, and we hope to get it on--there are
some things that ought to be a given. These social media
platforms ought to be required to make these platforms safer by
default, not just safer if you go through the 20 next steps,
but safer by default. That ought to be required.
We should also have a requirement that these platforms have
to do independent audits, go through independent audits, not
their research. Now, some of you have said, in these hearings
we've done, and you've heard these social media companies say,
``Well, we're always auditing ourselves.'' But who ever knows
what that audit shows? Not you. Not me. Nobody knows. They like
to keep that to themselves, because as Senator Blumenthal has
said, eyeballs on that site for a longer period of time--it's
more money, money, money in the bank. And who pays that price?
Our kids. Our kids.
Our legislation was supported by 150 different groups. Now,
in a time where politics is divided and you hear left and
right, to get 150 different groups to come together and support
something, I think that's a pretty good day. I think that shows
a lot of support. So, we realized that much of the reason these
groups were coming out and supporting the transparency and the
accountability and the duty of care was because they realized
talking to these social media platforms was like talking to a
brick wall. They could not get a response, and because of that,
something different was going to have to be done.
Senator Graham said it well in his comments. It is
imperative that we take an action because this is a health
emergency. If you don't believe it, read the CDC report. When
you have a majority of children that are experiencing adverse
impacts from social media platforms, you have to step in and do
something. And that is what we are working to do. We welcome
all of you. Thank you to our witnesses, and we look forward to
the hearing today.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Let me say at
the outset that, to explain to any newcomers, we have two roll
call votes that are going to start in just a matter of minutes.
So, Members will come and go. That is no disrespect to the
subject matter or to our witnesses and guests, but we are going
to do a tag team to make sure there is always someone here to
follow your testimony and try to gather after the roll calls,
but that's the circumstance.
Let me welcome the six witnesses. Kristin Bride is a
survivor parent to Carson Bride, and she is a nationally
recognized social media reform advocate, founding member of the
Screen Time Action Network Online Harms Prevention group. She
advocates for online safety for kids. A member of the Council
for Responsible Social Media, she collaborates with other
organizations to raise awareness and advocate legislation to
hold Big Tech accountable.
Emma Lembke. She's from Birmingham, Alabama. Second-year
political science major at Washington University in St. Louis
and the founder of Log Off, a youth movement that works to
uplift and empower young people to tackle the complexities of
social media. Ms. Lembke has also co-founded Tech(nically
Politics), a youth lobbying campaign dedicated to advocating
greater regulation for Big Tech.
Michelle DeLaune is president and chief executive officer
of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the
first woman to lead this organization. During her two decades
at NCMEC, Ms. DeLaune has witnessed firsthand the evolving
threats to our kids, including the explosion--explosion--of
child sexual exploitation online.
John Pizzuro serves as CEO of Raven, an advocacy group that
focuses on protecting kids from exploitation and supporting
those who fight for them. Previously, Mr. Pizzuro spent 25
years in the New Jersey State Police, with the last 6 years as
commander of their Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
There, he led a team of 200 individuals and 71 law enforcement
agencies. They apprehended over 1,500 people who preyed on
innocents.
Dr. Mitch Prinstein--is it Prinstein or Prinstein?
Dr. Prinstein. Prinstein.
Chair Durbin. Prinstein? Dr. Mitch Prinstein, chief science
officer for the American Psychological Association, responsible
for leading their scientific agenda. Before assuming this post,
he was the John Van Seters Distinguished Professor of
Psychology at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. His
research is focused on adolescent interpersonal experience and
psychological symptoms, including depression.
Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay, the leading
independent watchdog of children's media and marketing
industries. Fairplay holds companies accountable for their
harmful marketing and platform design choices, advocates for
policies to protect children online. In his role, Mr. Golin
regularly speaks to parents, professionals, and policymakers
about how to create a healthier environment.
After we swear in the witnesses, each will have 5 minutes
for opening statements. Then Senators will have rounds of
questions. So, first let me ask that all the witnesses stand to
be sworn in. Please raise your right hand.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. Ms. Bride, please, if you will,
start our round.
STATEMENT OF KRISTIN BRIDE, SURVIVOR PARENT AND SOCIAL MEDIA
REFORM ADVOCATE, PORTLAND, OREGON
Ms. Bride. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kristin Bride.
I am a survivor parent and social media reform advocate and
member of the bipartisan Council for Responsible Social Media.
I am testifying here today to bring a face to the harms
occurring every day resulting from the unchecked power of the
social media industry.
This is my son Carson Bride, with the beautiful blue eyes
and amazing smile and great sense of humor, who will be forever
16 years old. As involved parents raising our two sons in
Oregon, we thought that we were doing everything right. We
waited until Carson was in eighth grade to give him his first
cell phone, an old phone with no apps. We talked to our boys
about online safety and the importance of never sending
anything online that you wouldn't want your name and face next
to on a billboard. Carson followed these guidelines, yet
tragedy still struck our family.
It was June 2020. Carson had just gotten his first summer
job making pizzas, and after a successful first night of
training, he wrote his upcoming work schedule on our kitchen
calendar. We expressed how proud we were of him for finding a
job during the pandemic. In so many ways, it was a wonderful
night, and we were looking forward to summer. The next morning,
I woke to the complete shock and horror that Carson had hung
himself in our garage while we slept.
In the weeks that followed, we learned that Carson had been
viciously cyberbullied by his Snapchat friends, his high school
classmates who were using the anonymous apps Yolo and LMK on
Snapchat to hide their identities. It wasn't until Carson was a
freshman in high school that we finally allowed him to have
social media, because that was how all the students were making
new connections.
What we didn't know is apps like Yolo and LMK were using
popular social media platforms to promote anonymous messaging
to hundreds of millions of teen users. After his death, we
discovered that Carson had received nearly 100 negative,
harassing, sexually explicit, and humiliating messages,
including 40 in just 1 day. He asked his tormentors to swipe up
and identify themselves so they could talk things out in
person. No one ever did. The last search on his phone before
Carson ended his life was for hacks to find out the identities
of his abusers.
Anonymous apps like Whisper, Sarahah, and Yik Yak have a
long history of enabling cyberbullying and leading to teen
suicides. The critical flaws in these platforms are compounded
by the fact that teens do not typically report being
cyberbullied. They are too fearful that their phones, to which
they are completely addicted, will be taken away or that they
will be labeled a snitch by their friends.
Yolo's own policies stated that they would monitor for
cyberbullying and reveal the identities of those who do so. I
reached out to Yolo on four separate occasions in the months
following Carson's death, letting them know what happened to my
son and asking them to follow their own policies. I was ignored
all four times. At this point, I decided I needed to fight
back. I filed a national class action lawsuit in May 2021
against Snap Inc., Yolo, and LMK.
We believe Snap Inc. suspended Yolo and LMK from their
platform because of our advocacy; however, our complaint
against Yolo and LMK for product liability design defects and
fraudulent product misrepresentation was dismissed in the
Central District Court of California last month, citing Section
230 immunity. And still, new anonymous apps like NGL and sendit
are appearing on social media platforms and charging teens
subscription fees to reveal the messenger or provide useless
hints.
I speak before you today with tremendous responsibility to
represent the many other parents who have lost their children
to social media harms. Our numbers continue to grow
exponentially, with teen deaths from dangerous online
challenges, sextortion, fentanyl-laced drugs, and eating
disorders. Let us be clear. These are not coincidences,
accidents, or unforeseen consequences. They are the direct
result of products designed to hook and monetize America's
children.
It should not take grieving parents filing lawsuits to hold
this industry accountable for their dangerous and addictive
product designs. Federal legislation like the Kids Online
Safety Act, KOSA, which requires social media companies to have
a duty of care when designing their products for America's
children, is long overdue. We need lawmakers to step up, put
politics aside, and finally protect all children online. Thank
you for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bride appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Bride.
Ms. Emma Lembke?
STATEMENT OF EMMA LEMBKE, FOUNDER, LOG OFF MOVEMENT,
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
Ms. Lembke. Hello, everyone. My name is Emma Lembke. I am
originally from Birmingham, Alabama, but currently I am a
sophomore studying political science at Washington University
in St. Louis. I am humbled and honored to be here today.
I created my first social media account, Instagram, in the
sixth grade. As a 12-year-old girl, to 12-year-old me, these
platforms seemed almost magical, but as I began to spend more
time online, I was met with a harsh reality. Social media was
not magic. It was an illusion, a product that was predicated on
maximizing my attention at the cost of my well-being.
As my screen time increased, my mental and physical health
suffered. The constant quantification of my worth through
likes, comments, and followers heightened my anxiety and
deepened my depression. As a young woman, the constant exposure
to unrealistic body standards and harmful recommended content
led me toward disordered eating and severely damaged my sense
of self.
But no matter the harm incurred, addictive features like
auto-play and the endless scroll pulled me back into the online
world, where I continued to suffer, and there I remained for
over 3 years, mindlessly scrolling for 5 to 6 hours a day. I
eventually reached a breaking point in the ninth grade, and I
began the long and difficult process of rebuilding my
relationship with technology in a healthier way.
Senators, my story is not one in isolation. It is a story
representative of my generation, Generation Z. As the first
digital natives, we have the deepest understanding of the harms
of social media, through our lived experiences, but it is from
those experiences that we can begin to build the most promising
solutions. It is only when young people are given a place at
the table that effective solutions can emerge and safer online
spaces can be created. The power of youth voices is far too
great to continue to be ignored.
Through Log Off, I have engaged with hundreds of kids
across the globe who have shared their experiences of harm with
me. I have listened as young people have told me stories of
online harassment, vicious cyberbullying, unwanted direct
messages. But most powerfully, I have heard as members of my
generation have expressed concern not just for our own well-
being but for younger siblings, for cousins, and for all those
to come after us.
While our stories may differ, we share the frustration of
being portrayed as passive victims of Big Tech. We are ready to
be active agents of change, rebuilding new and safer online
spaces for the next generation. Ten years from now, social
media will not be what it is today. It will be what members of
my generation build it to be. We want to build it differently.
We want to build it right.
I came here today as the representative for those young
change-makers, to be the voice not just of those in my
generation who have been harmed or who are currently struggling
but to be a voice for all of those 12-year-old girls yet to
come. The genie is out of the bottle, and we will never go back
to a time where social media does not exist, nor should we, but
make no mistake, unregulated social media is a weapon of mass
destruction that continues to jeopardize the safety, privacy,
and well-being of all American youth.
It's time to act. And I urge you, Senators, to take
meaningful steps to regulate these companies, not just for our
generation and my generation, but with my generation.
Integrating youth-lived experiences is essential in the
regulatory process in getting it right. Thank you for having me
here today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lembke appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Lembke.
Ms. DeLaune?
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE C. DeLAUNE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN,
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Ms. DeLaune. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Durbin,
Ranking Member Graham, and Members of the Committee. My name is
Michelle DeLaune, and I am the president and CEO of the
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. NCMEC is a
nonprofit organization created in 1984 by child advocates to
help find missing children, reduce child sexual exploitation,
and prevent child victimization.
I am honored to be here today to share NCMEC's perspective
on the dangers that are facing children online and how we can
work together to address these challenges. We have reached an
inflection point in efforts to combat online child sexual
exploitation, and we need congressional intervention to pass
legislation that I'll be speaking to today.
Last year, NCMEC's CyberTipline received over 32 million
reports. These reports contained over 88 million images and
videos and other content related to child sexual exploitation.
And to put these numbers into perspective, we're averaging
80,000 new reports each day. The internet is global, and
unfortunately, so is this crime. Ninety percent of the reports
that we received last year related to individuals outside of
the United States, and the remaining reports, about 3.2
million, related to U.S. individuals.
The report numbers are staggering, but the quality of
reports is often lacking, and there are significant disparities
in how companies report. For instance, companies have no duty
to report child sex trafficking or online enticement of
children. Some companies choose not to report sufficient
information for those cases to be properly assessed and
investigated, and some companies choose not to submit actual
images or the videos actually being reported or any information
that could be used to identify a suspect or a victim.
And we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Very few
companies choose to engage in voluntary measures to detect
known child sexual abuse material, and those who do proactively
look for that make the most reports. Congress has the
opportunity to send a powerful message to victims that they are
not powerless to protect themselves and when abuse imagery of
themselves has been shared online. Currently, child victims
have no recourse if a tech company takes no action to stop,
remove, and report sexually explicit imagery in which they are
depicted.
At the core of NCMEC's mission is helping children and
supporting survivors. And we do a lot to support survivors, but
we need Congress to help address the complexities that
survivors face in this space. The following legislative
measures are urgently needed to support survivors: laws that
require that content seized by Federal law enforcement from
offenders be sent to NCMEC for victim identification efforts
and supporting restitution efforts; laws enabling child victims
of extortion and enticement to have immunity when reporting
their images to NCMEC; laws enabling minor victims to have
legal recourse if a tech company knowingly facilitates the
distribution of their sexually abusive imagery; regulations to
implement the remedies promised to survivors in 2018 when the
Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act was passed by Congress; and laws to
make sure that we are using the appropriate words when we're
discussing these crimes: ``child sexual abuse material,'' not
``child pornography.''
And while we struggle to address the current volume and
complexity of online child sexual exploitation, additional
threats to child safety online are occurring. When a platform
implements end-to-end encryption, no one, not even the platform
itself, has visibility into users exploiting children. We
believe in a balance between user privacy and child safety.
When tech companies implement end-to-end encryption with no
preventive measures built in to detect known child sexual abuse
material, the impact on child safety is devastating.
Several of the largest reporting companies have indicated
that they will be moving to default end-to-end encryption this
year. We estimate that, as a result, two-thirds of reports to
the CyberTipline submitted by tech companies will go away, and
these reports will be lost simply because tech companies have
chosen to stop looking for the material. And we can talk about
lost report numbers, but behind every report is a child, and
the abuse doesn't stop just because we decide to stop looking
for it.
We look forward to working with Congress and other
stakeholders on solutions. In closing, NCMEC is proud to
support many excellent legislative initiatives from last
Congress, including the EARN IT Act, the END Child Exploitation
Act, and the Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Act. And we look
forward to working with Congress to ensure the legislative
measures become law in the current term.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee to discuss the protection of children online. We're
eager to continue working with this Committee, survivors and
their families, the Department of Justice, engaged tech
companies, and other nonprofits to find solutions to these
problems, because like you, we believe that every child does
deserve a safe childhood. I thank you, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeLaune appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. DeLaune.
Mr. Pizzuro?
STATEMENT OF JOHN PIZZURO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAVEN,
POINT PLEASANT, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pizzuro. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and
distinguished Senators, thank you for this opportunity to
testify on protecting our children online. Today there are
countless victims of infant and children being raped online as
well as extortion. The sad reality is we're failing to protect
our children from the threats they face online. Those who would
protect our youth are overburdened, under-resourced, which
makes those children vulnerable.
I'm here today as the CEO of Raven, an advocacy group
comprised of 14 professionals, including 9 retired Internet
Crimes Against Children commanders, task force commanders who
have committed their lives to the advocacy and the protection
of children. I'm retired from the New Jersey State Police,
where I served as the commander of the ICAC Task Force.
We witnessed children targeted by offenders across all
platforms. No social media or gaming platform was safe, from
apps such as Snapchat, Twitter, Kik, Telegram, Discord, LiveMe,
and MeetMe to gaming platforms and outline games such as
Minecraft, Roblox, and Fortnite. And these just represent a
fraction of places where offenders regularly interact with
children. If the platform allows individuals to chat or a way
to share a photograph and videos, I assure you there's a very
real danger that offenders are using that access to groom or
sexually exploit minors.
Children are made vulnerable on these platforms as a result
of poor moderation, the absence of age or identity
verification, and inadequate or missing safety mechanisms and
the sheer determination of offenders. As the New Jersey ICAC
commander, I struggled with the significant increases in
arrests, victims, investigations we faced each year. These
challenges were frustratingly present with every ICAC task
force commander throughout the United States. The most
staggering increase we faced was self-generated sexual abuse
videos of children ages seven, eight, and nine.
The online landscape is horrifying because offenders know
this is where our children live, and they recognize there are
not enough safeguards to keep them at bay. The details of these
cases shock the conscience. There's no shortage of case reports
describing the sexual abuse of 11-year-olds or a mother who is
targeted by an offender because her 5-year-old is too young to
text but is the age of interest for the offender, or the
offender bought a stuffed animal for the 10-year-old that he
was going to rape, along with a bottle of Viagra and other
sexual devices when that Viagra failed.
Today, law enforcement is no longer able to proactively
investigate child exploitation cases, due to the volume of
CyberTips. As a result of that increase, law enforcement
agencies have been forced to become reactive, and most no
longer can engage in the proactive operations such as peer-to-
peer file-sharing investigations or undercover chat operations
which target hands-on offenders.
Sadly, most of the investigative leads provided by service
providers through NCMEC to the ICAC task forces are not
actionable, meaning they do not contain sufficient information
to permit an investigation to begin. The lack of uniformity in
what is reported by service providers results in law
enforcement being forced to sort through thousands of leads,
trying to desperately identify worthwhile cases.
Peer-to-peer file-sharing investigations and operations
used to allow ICAC task forces to efficiently locate and
apprehend hands-on offenders. In the last 90 days alone, there
have been 100,000 IP addresses across the U.S. that have
distributed known images of rape and toddler sexual abuse, yet
only 782, less than 1 percent, are being worked right now.
The Darknet, including Tor, has become the newest online
haven for child exploitation. Some forums and boards contain
the most abusive child exploitation videos and images law
enforcement has encountered. Chat forums allow offenders to
create best practices on how to groom and abuse children
effectively. There's a post, even, named The Art of Seduction,
that explained how to seduce children, that has been read more
than 54,000 times.
Based upon what I have experienced, I can confidently tell
you three things. At the moment, the predators are winning, our
children are not safe, and those who are fiercely committed to
protecting them are drowning and will continue to do so unless
we can get them the resources they need. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today, and I welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pizzuro appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Pizzuro.
Dr. Prinstein?
STATEMENT OF MITCH J. PRINSTEIN, Ph.D., ABPP, CHIEF SCIENCE
OFFICER, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Prinstein. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking
Member Graham, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thanks
for the opportunity to testify today.
Psychologists are experts in all human behavior, and we
have been studying the effects of social media scientifically
for years. In my written testimony, I've detailed a variety of
caveats, limitations, and clarifications that make it
challenging as a scientist to offer causal statements about the
effects of social media. In short, online activity likely
offers both benefits and harms. Today, I want to discuss
specific social media behaviors and features that are most
likely to harm and which youth may be most vulnerable.
Unfortunately, some of these most potentially harmful
features are built directly into the architecture of many
social media applications, and kids are explicitly directed
toward them. To date, we have identified at least seven sets of
results that deserve more attention to safeguard risk for
children. I will briefly describe these here, but first it's
critical to understand that, following the first year of life,
the most important period for the development of our brains
begins at the outset of puberty, and this is precisely the time
when many are given relatively unfettered access to social
media and other online platforms. In short, neuroscience
research suggests that when it comes to seeking attention and
praise from peers, adolescents' brains are all gas pedal with
weak brakes. This is a biological vulnerability that social
media capitalizes on, with seven psychological implications.
First, our data suggest that the average teen is picking up
their phone over 100 times and spending over 8 hours online a
day, mostly on social media. Psychological science reveals that
over half of all youth report at least one symptom of clinical
dependency on social media, such as the inability to stop using
it or a significant impairment in their ability to carry out
even simple daily functions.
Second, as compared to what kids see offline, data suggest
that exposure to online content changes how youths' brains
respond to what they see and influences teens' later behavior.
These are psychological and neuroscientific phenomena occurring
outside of youths' conscious awareness, suggesting a
potentially troubling link between likes, comments, reposts,
and teens' later risk-taking behavior.
Third, although many platforms have functions that can be
used to form healthy relationships, users instead are directed
to metrics and follower counts that don't really offer
psychological benefits. For this reason, social media often
offers the empty calories of social interaction that appear to
help satiate our biological and social needs but do not contain
the healthy ingredients necessary to reap benefits. Research
reveals that in the hours following social media use, teens
paradoxically report increases, rather than decreases, in
loneliness.
Fourth, data suggest that approximately half of youths
experience digital stress, a phenomenon resulting from too many
notifications across platforms, a fear of missing important
social updates, information overload, and anxiety that their
posts will be well received. More digital stress predicts
increases in depression over time.
Fifth, a remarkably high proportion of teens are exposed to
dangerous discriminatory and hateful content online. This
predicts anxiety and depression among youth even beyond the
effects of similar content they see offline.
Sixth, the more time kids are online, the less time they're
engaged in activities critical for healthy development, most
notably sleep. Sleep disruptions at this age are associated
with changes in the size and physical characteristics of
growing brains.
And last, new evidence suggests frequent technology use may
change adolescent brain growth to increase sensitivity to
peers' attention and change teens' self-control.
So, what do we do? First and foremost, we must increase
Federal funding for this research, $15 million will not move
the needle. The funding for this work should be commensurate
with our commitment to protect children.
Second, parents and teens must become better educated about
these emerging research findings. Recently, more than 150
organizations, led by APA, called on the Surgeon General to
create and distribute teaching resources so families could
minimize risks and maximize benefits from social media.
Third, more must be done to protect youth who belong to
traditionally marginalized communities. Warnings on harmful,
illegal, hateful, and discriminatory content should be
mandated, yet content in spaces scientifically proven to offer
social support and vital health information to members of these
communities must be saved.
The manipulation of children to generate a profit is
unacceptable. The use of children's data should be illegal, and
the use of psychological tactics known to create addiction or
implicitly influence children's behavior should be curtailed.
Social media companies should be compelled to disclose both
internal and independent data documenting potential risks that
come from the use of their products, so parents, teens, and
regulators can make informed decisions.
APA is heartened by the focus on mental health in Congress
and eager to work with this Committee to develop legislation
and help enact bills that will protect children. Your actions
now can make a difference.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prinstein appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Golin?
STATEMENT OF JOSH GOLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAIRPLAY, BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Golin. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham,
and distinguished Members of the Committee for holding this
important hearing. My name is Josh Golin, and I'm executive
director of Fairplay, an organization committed to building a
world where kids can be kids, free from the harmful
manipulations of Big Tech and the false promises of marketers.
We advocate for policies that would create an internet that is
safe for young people and not exploitative or addictive.
You've heard today from witnesses about a litany of online
harms that have had a devastating toll on families in our
society. These harms share a common nexus: Big Tech's business
model and manipulative design choices. Digital platforms are
designed to maximize engagement, because the longer they
capture a user's attention, the more money they make by
collecting data and serving targeted ads. As a result, children
are subject to manipulative design and relentless pressure to
use these platforms as often as possible.
Over a third of teenagers say they are on social media
almost constantly. Overuse of social media displaces critical
offline activities like sleep, exercise, offline play, and
face-to-face interactions, which, in turn, undermines
children's well-being. Big Tech's profit-driven focus on
engagement doesn't just harm young people by fostering
compulsive overuse. It also exploits their developmental needs,
often at the expense of their safety and well-being.
For example, displays of likes and follower counts, which
take advantage of young people's desire for social approval,
invite harmful social comparisons, and incentivize interactions
with strangers and the posting of provocative and risque
content. Additionally, algorithms designed to maximize
engagement fill young people's feeds with curated content that
is most likely to keep them online, without regard to the
user's well-being or potentially harmful consequences.
So, on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, depressed teens
are shown content promoting self-harm, and young people
interested in dieting are barraged with content promoting
eating disorders. A report last year from Fairplay detailed how
Meta profits from 90,000 unique pro-eating-disorder accounts on
Instagram that reach more than 6 million minors, some as young
as nine.
How did we get here? For one, the last time Congress passed
a law to protect children online was 25 years ago. The digital
landscape has changed dramatically in unforeseen ways since the
passage of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and
that law only covers children until they turn 13, leaving a
significant demographic vulnerable to exploitation and harm.
Consequently, the social media platforms that define youth
culture and shape our children's values, behavior, and self-
image were developed with little to no thought about how young
people might be negatively affected.
At this point, it is clear that tech platforms will not
unilaterally disarm in the race for children's precious
attention, nor can we expect young people to extract themselves
from the exploitative platforms where their friends are or
expect overworked parents to monitor every moment that their
kids are online. We need new legislation that puts the brakes
on this harmful business model and curbs dangerous and unfair
design practices.
Such legislation should: one, extend privacy protections to
teens, to limit the collection of data that fuels harmful
recommendations and puts young people at risk of privacy harms;
two, ban surveillance advertising to children and teens, to
protect them from harmful marketing targeted to their
individual vulnerabilities; three, impose liability on
companies for how their design choices and algorithms impact
young people; four, require platforms to make children's
privacy and account settings the most protective by default;
and, finally, impose transparency requirements, including
access to algorithms, that enable outside researchers to better
understand how social media impacts young people. Last
Congress, the Kids Online Safety Act and the Children and
Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, two bills which,
together, would do all five of these things, advanced out of
the Commerce Committee with broad bipartisan support.
The Committee votes followed a series of important hearings
in the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees, as well as the
House, that established a clear record of harm and the need for
new online protections for young people. We've named the
problem and debated the solution. Now is the time to build on
last year's momentum and disrupt the cycle of harm by passing
privacy and safety-by-design legislation. Let's make 2023 the
year that Congress finally takes a huge step toward creating
the internet children and families deserve. Thank you so much
for having me here today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Golin appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. I want to thank all the witnesses. And, as
you noticed, some of the Members are going to vote and will
return. At the bottom of this discussion, from the legal point
of view, is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which I'm sure you're all aware of as to the liability of these
companies for the speech that is broadcast or is exercised over
their social media. It provides that companies will not be
treated as publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another person. Gets them off the hook.
The EARN IT Act, which we are debating here, would change
that ball game. Unless there is a provable effort by these
companies to police their own product, they would be exposed to
liability. And I will tell you, as a former trial lawyer, I
invite them to take on the media that ignore that
responsibility after the EARN IT Act is enacted into law. I
hope that will be soon.
Ms. DeLaune, when you told the story about encryption
inhibiting the CyberTips that come your way, I couldn't help
but be struck by the numbers that you used. Last year, 32
million CyberTips were sent to NCMEC, your organization,
concerning child sex abuse material. Upwards of 80 percent, or
25 million, of those would be lost if the companies adopt end-
to-end encryption. Would you bring that explanation down to a
level where liberal arts majors are with you?
[Laughter.]
Ms. DeLaune. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you. With the end-
to-end encryption, again, end-to-end encryption serves a very
important purpose. End-to-end encryption with no mitigation
strategy for the detection of known child sexual abuse imagery
is unacceptable, though what we have seen--the vast numbers for
the CyberTipline are because companies have voluntarily--a
handful of companies have voluntarily chosen to look and seek
out known child sexual abuse material. By simply turning off
the lights and no longer looking, the abuse doesn't go away.
The abuse continues; just nobody is able to actually
investigate, intervene, and help a child.
You know, we really support a balanced approach. There are
disagreements and discussions between many stakeholders
regarding how end-to-end encryption can balance user safety,
user privacy, with not having children as collateral damage.
You know, we also want to speak to the privacy of the children
who are depicted in the imagery that is continuing to be
circulated. These are images, as Mr. Pizzuro mentioned, images
of children being sexually abused and raped. They also are
entitled to privacy. So, we do look for a balanced approach
that will help support user privacy and not leave children as
unfortunate collateral damage.
Chair Durbin. Let me open another subject for inquiry, and
that is the statement by Dr. Prinstein, Mr. Golin--kind of
reflects, Emma Lembke, on your decision at a very young age to
do something about what you consider to be a problem. I'm
trying to square this, the possibility of diverting people from
conduct which apparently is almost addictive in its nature and
move them to a different level. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Lembke. Yes, sir. And, Senator, thank you for your
question. I think what is important to note is that social
media is not all bad. Members of my generation understand it to
be a multifaceted entity, one where we can connect with each
other, we can explore our identities, and we can express
ourselves on a new dimension.
The difficulty, though, of reaping these benefits in these
online spaces is, as they are right now, as the status quo
creates it, I, a 12-year-old girl, could go onto Instagram and
research a healthy recipe and within seconds be fed pro-
anorexic content. There are steps that companies can take to
place meaningful safeguards so that this content does not harm
young people and so that we can begin to go into these online
spaces in a safer and more productive manner, reaping the
benefits of a technological era.
Chair Durbin. Dr. Prinstein, your comment on that?
Dr. Prinstein. I agree. The adolescent brain is built to
develop dopamine and oxytocin receptors in an area of the brain
that makes us want to connect with peers, and it feels really
good when we do. The area of the brain that stops us from
engaging in impulsive acts, called the prefrontal cortex, does
not fully develop until the age of 25. So, from 10 to 25, kids'
brains are built in such a way to make them crave the exact
kind of content that social media can provide with like buttons
and reposts, but they are biologically incapable of stopping
themselves from incessant use of these platforms. That
vulnerability is being exploited by these platforms.
Chair Durbin. And the question is whether or not, on their
own, kids can solve the problem. Do they need help?
Dr. Prinstein. They need help.
Chair Durbin. What kind of help?
Dr. Prinstein. Reminders telling kids that they've been on
for longer than they intended; helping kids to stop--the
signals that are coming through social media in the forms of
likes, reposts, algorithms that are showing them content,
feeding them the next video, feeding them the next post--those
are all actually making things much worse, from a
neuroscientific perspective. If there were controls in place,
that were age based, to make sure that kids were being blocked
from engaging in this unbridled kind of craving for social
attention and dopamine responses, that could significantly
address the issue.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. I'm going to recognize Senator
Grassley, and then Senator Coons is going to preside as I make
a dash to vote and return. So, Senator Grassley, the floor is
yours.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all
your witnesses. I'm sorry I missed your testimony for other
reasons that's already been explained to you. I'm glad that
we're here, discussing this very important issue today. I
happen to be a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, but
regardless, we've all got to be--with this worthy cause that
we're discussing today, Congress has and will continue to play
a crucial role.
Unfortunately, Congress has had to intervene in times in
the past. I just want to remind people of the Larry Nassar
thing, dealing with young girls and the botched investigation
of the FBI. And Senator Ossoff and I got a bill passed that
would further give Federal intervention in the case of those
crimes being committed, if they're committed outside the United
States by somebody following young people to international
meets.
It's also important to hold online service providers
accountable in keeping our children safe. This EARN IT Act,
which I was an original co-sponsor of last year, ensures online
service providers that fail to crack down on certain contents
are not able to escape because of Section 230 intervention. And
also, protecting children online also means combating human
trafficking, and Senator Feinstein and I have passed
legislation in that area, as well.
Of course, it's impossible to discuss protecting children
online without pointing out the unfortunate role of social
media and the internet playing in drug overdose deaths among
our children, and I look forward to discussing that strategy to
prevent those. So, I'm going to go to Mr. Pizzuro first.
Recently, an Iowa family lost their daughter because she bought
a fake prescription pill from a drug dealer on Snapchat. It
contained fentanyl. Her family is suing to try and hold
Snapchat accountable.
One particular allegation is that Snapchat's algorithms
connected their child with a drug dealer who she did not know
previously, which I would find especially disturbing. So, for
you, to the best of your ability, can you explain to this
Committee how Snapchat's algorithms protect children against--
with drug dealers?
Mr. Pizzuro. Thank you, Mr. Grassley. As far as the
Snapchat and the algorithms, I'm not 100 percent sure on how
Snapchat is doing it, but I could talk to the broader
experience of cell phone usage as far as apps and drugs,
because whether it's narcotics, whether it's child
exploitation, whether it's pictures and videos, whether it's
emojis, everything is done through that social media. Again,
that's where children are. So, it's very easy to target them
specifically in those realms. So, I think a lot of times you're
going to have that. Again, whether it be fentanyl, whether it
be marijuana, it doesn't matter the drug, but the scope is
where I can target those individuals, and the offenders, as
well as the individuals selling that, know that.
Senator Grassley. You said you couldn't speak specifically
to Snapchat, so I was going to ask you what social media needs
to do differently to stop what's happening, but you could
answer the second part of that question: what can the
Government do better?
Mr. Pizzuro. Well, the Government can do a lot better as
far as that we're talking about today. We need a little bit
more, first of all, uniformity, age identification, identity
verification. There's a lot of times where the users--tomorrow,
I can go get a phone and be whoever I want to be. I can get a
phone, I can create an app, I can create a fake email address
and then use it for whatever reasons I need to. So, from that
perspective is that from the tech companies we need a little
bit more from that moderation and that aspect: who's on what
end of the phone?
Senator Grassley. Okay. My next and last question will be
to Ms. DeLaune, if I'm pronouncing your name right. Technology
created these problems, and technology advances will be
essential to fighting these problems in the future. So, can you
tell me about the tools available today to address the online
dangers to children? And what more should social media do and
online platforms do to protect children?
Ms. DeLaune. Thank you, Senator. There are various
initiatives and technologies that are being used by some social
media companies, certainly not all. And because of these tools,
such as searching surgically for known child sexual abuse
material, companies are able to surface it. There are other
companies that are voluntarily choosing to look for online
enticement and instances where children might be sextorted
online, where offenders target them for imagery or for
financial gain.
There's an important aspect of companies being transparent
of what tools they're using, not only for the consumer to
understand what platforms are doing, but also to share with one
another what the best practices are. When everyone is speaking
freely, we're able not only to see what works but also what
significant gaps still exist.
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Graham [presiding]. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, and thank you to Chair Durbin and
to Ranking Member Graham for both convening this hearing and
for your ongoing work to find a bipartisan path forward. Ms.
Bride and Ms. Lembke, thank you for your testimony today and
for making clear and purposeful what we all know, which is that
far too many Americans are spending time on social media and,
in particular for young Americans, it can have harmful, even
destructive or toxic impact.
We have limited research about exactly what the effects are
of the design choices that social media platforms are making on
childhood development and on children's mental health. We all
know they design their platforms to hold our attention longer
and longer, and we know, from your testimony and, many of us,
through personal exposure, that it is not helpful, but we need
to better understand why it's harmful and how it's harmful so
we can craft solutions that will move us forward.
I've worked with Senators Klobuchar and Cassidy on a
bipartisan bill, the Platform Accountability and Transparency
Act, that would make social media companies work with
independent researchers to validate and ensure that we
understand how these platforms impact our children. The Surgeon
General of the United States came and spent a day with us in
Delaware and visited a youth center and listened to some of our
youth from Delaware and some mental health professionals and
public health professionals, to talk about this nationwide
public health crisis.
Dr. Prinstein, you call in your testimony for greater
transparency and reporting requirements for social media
companies, including better data access for researchers. What
kinds of questions about children's mental health would we be
able to answer, with greater data access, and what data do
researchers need that they don't currently have access to, and
what are the barriers for their access?
Dr. Prinstein. Thank you so much for your question. There
are numerous barriers. We don't have the funding to be able to
do the research that we need to do. We actually find that the
number of academics who are pursuing a career in research on
social media are recruited by social media companies themselves
and offered salaries that make it very hard to compete in an
academic environment.
The data that social media companies have would allow for a
better exploration of exactly what it is that kids are viewing,
how they're using social media, what they're seeing, how that's
related to future behaviors, including what they log on, what
they share, how they share that information. It would be
tremendously valuable for scientists to be able to understand
those questions and link it specifically to mental health. In
fact, there is no such access right now, which is severely
hindering our ability to work scientifically in this area.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Mr. Golin, you also call for
Congress to implement transparency requirements to allow
independent researchers to better understand the impact of
social media on young Americans. The Platform Accountability
and Transparency Act would require platforms to disclose
information about how their algorithms actually operate, so
that we could conduct that research in a reliable and stable
way. Do you agree this would help parents ultimately to make
better-informed decisions about the social media products their
children consume?
Mr. Golin. I think transparency and researcher access is a
critical piece of the equation. We shouldn't have to rely on
courageous whistleblowers like Frances Haugen to understand
what the companies already understand about how these
technologies are impacting our children. So, I think it's
incredibly important that we have transparency requirements and
researcher access.
I will say, though, that we can't stop there. We need,
also, at the same time, to have a duty of care for these
platforms to limit their data collection and what they're doing
with that data, so I wouldn't want to see a transparency be,
you know, kicking the other policies down the road. We need to
limit what the platforms are doing at the same time that we get
a view into what they're doing.
Senator Coons. I agree with you. Look, many of us have the
strong sense, based on testimony we hear, based on our own
experience as parents and community leaders, that this, as
Senator Blumenthal called it, this toxic experiment on our
children is going badly wrong. I look forward to joining in
support of the Kids Online Safety Act, for example, but I also
think we need to get underway with better funded, broader
spectrum research, so we know exactly what is happening and
what isn't and how we can fine-tune our responses.
Mr. Pizzuro, if I might, I appreciate your work to protect
children by leading New Jersey's Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force. What were the biggest problems you faced
when investigating leads generated by CyberTips, and how can
Congress provide resources or improve the quality of those
investigations?
Mr. Pizzuro. Well, there's a lack of uniformity. So, what
would happen is that there's so many tips--so, like, New
Jersey, for example, I think this year had 14,000. When I was
there in 2015, it was 2,000. And the challenge is that there
are tips within that that will result in a significant arrest,
but the challenge is the volume. And the ESP and the providers
that are actually giving us that information do not give us
that information.
And if you go from a tip perspective, if I asked everyone
in here who had an iPhone--we don't get any tips from Apple,
right? So, that's, now, double that. So, I think those are the
challenges. We need to have that better information. We need to
have viability where we can actually protect witnesses.
Senator Coons. Last question, if I might. Ms. DeLaune, in
your testimony, you said most sextortion offenders are located
outside the U.S. You mention particularly Nigeria and Cote
d'Ivoir. How could we better work with international partners
and law enforcement to combat this growing problem?
Ms. DeLaune. Thank you, Senator. Yes, the problem with
sextortion--we're seeing a rapid increase of exponentially more
reports now regarding children who are being targeted for
money. It's aggressive. We talk to these victims, we talk to
their parents on the phone, and it's heartbreaking. There has
been a coordinated effort amongst law enforcement to identify
where these offenders are coming from. This is an organized
crime syndicate. Certainly, there are offenders all around the
world. We are seeing that there's a criminal component with
Nigeria and Ivory Coast in some instances.
And we're also working with the tech companies, because the
tech companies--it takes all partners, here, to be able to find
the solution. And sharing elements between companies--because
offenders and children move from platform to platform, it's
really important to be able to share that information so we can
stop, intervene, make an adequate, good report that law
enforcement would then be able to safeguard a child and
hopefully hold an offender accountable.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Thank you all very much for your
testimony.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you. Thank you all. It's been a very,
very helpful hearing. Ms. Bride, after the tragic loss of your
son, you complained to certain apps that allowed bullying
without naming who the person was. Is that correct?
Ms. Bride. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. And what response did you get?
Ms. Bride. I reached out to Yolo, the anonymous app that
was used to cyberbully my son. I told them what happened to my
son, and I asked them to follow their policies, which required
that they reveal the identity of the cyberbully. And I was
ignored all four times.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, you filed a lawsuit against these
products. Is that correct?
Ms. Bride. Yes.
Senator Graham. You're alleging they were unsafe?
Ms. Bride. Mm-hmm.
Senator Graham. Mr. Prinstein. Is that right? Thank you.
Prinstein?
Dr. Prinstein. Yes. I believe there are a number of----
Senator Graham. Wait a minute. Let me ask the question
first.
Dr. Prinstein. Sorry.
Senator Graham. Do you believe these products are unsafe,
the way they're configured today, for children?
Dr. Prinstein. The research is emerging, but we have a
number of reasons to think that some of the features that are
built into social media indeed are conferring harm directly to
children.
Senator Graham. Are you recommending to the Committee that
these social media companies put warning labels on their
products like we do with cigarettes?
Dr. Prinstein. I don't think that would hurt at all.
Senator Graham. Okay. Back to Ms. Bride. So, you sued, and
you were knocked out of court because of Section 230, right?
Ms. Bride. Yes.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, how many of you--or, Mr.
Prinstein, are you a practicing psychologist, psychiatrist?
Dr. Prinstein. I'm a clinical psychologist. I'm not
practicing at the moment.
Senator Graham. Okay. Do you have a license?
Dr. Prinstein. I do.
Senator Graham. How many of you have a driver's license?
[Witnesses raise hands.]
Now, that can be taken away from you if you do certain
things. Are any of these social media companies licensed by the
Government? The answer is no. Is it pretty clear that Section
230 prevents individual lawsuits against these social media
companies? Everybody's nodding their head.
Is there any regulatory agency in America that has the
power to change the behavior of these companies in a meaningful
way? The answer is no. Are there any statutes on the book today
that you think can address the harms you've all testified
regarding? The answer is no. You can't sue them, there's no
agency with the power to change their behavior, and there's no
laws on the books that would stop this abusive behavior. Is
that a fair summary of where we're at in 2023?
All the witnesses nodded. Do you think we can do better
than that? Isn't that the reason you're here? The question is,
why haven't we done better than that? Senator Blumenthal and I
had a bill that got 25 votes on the Judiciary Committee.
There're 25 of us. I can't think of any subject matter that
would bring all 25 of us together. So, Mr. Chairman, in spite
of all of our differences, let's make a pledge to these people.
Ms.--how do you say your last name?
Ms. Lembke. Lembke.
Senator Graham. Do you believe that your generation,
particularly, has been let down?
Ms. Lembke. Yes, Senator, I do.
Senator Graham. And you worry about future generations even
being more harmed?
Ms. Lembke. Yes, sir, every day.
Senator Graham. The behavior that we're talking about is
driven by money. In terms of social media, the more eyes, the
more money. Is that correct? So the financial incentive of the
social media companies exists today to do more of this, not
less?
Everybody nodded in the affirmative. Mr. Pizzuro, you said,
of the platforms that sexual predators use--is Twitter one of
them?
Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Mr. Pizzuro. Yes, every platform. I don't think there's a
platform that I haven't seen used.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, if we did a regulatory consumer
protection agency to hold these people to account, would that
be a step in the right direction?
Mr. Pizzuro. I believe so, yes.
Senator Graham. If we change Section 230 to allow more
consumer pushback, would that be a step in the right direction?
Everybody nodded. If we pass the Online Child Protection
Act and the EARN IT Act, would that be a step in the right
direction?
Everybody nodded. Mr. Chairman, we know what to do. Let's
just go do it.
Chair Durbin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Graham, and I
accept the invitation. I might add that the Commerce Committee
has jurisdiction on this issue, too, and I've spoken to Senator
Cantwell. She shares the sentiment. Wouldn't it be amazing if
Congress could do something on a bipartisan basis, and why not
start here? So, let's continue with this hearing and with some
resolve.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
add, again, my thanks to Senator Graham for his partnership on
the EARN IT Act. We've worked together on this measure that
recognizes the excessive breadth of Section 230, and the idea
of the EARN IT Act is very simple: that if any company wants to
have any defense or immunity against legal action, it has to
earn it. It has to earn it. That's why we named it the EARN IT
Act. And it is a beginning. It's a step, not a stride. But it
will mark major progress if we are able to pass this measure,
and I am grateful to the Chairman for his support, Senator
Grassley for his.
I'm going to embarrass myself a little bit. I began working
on this problem when Big Tech was Little Tech, and NCMEC was so
importantly helpful in this effort, and it has continued. So, I
want to thank NCMEC for your continued support and work in this
area.
And to Emma Lembke, Log Off is exactly what we need. And
I'm going to go a little bit outside my lane, here, and suggest
that we have you and a number of your supporters and members
back here and that we do a little lobbying with you talking to
my colleagues, which I think will overcome the massive number
of lobbyists and lawyers that now Big Tech has.
And, you know, Kristin, you have been such an eloquent and
moving advocate, but like you, so have been many of the other
parents. They've sat with Senator Blackburn and me, and those
conversations and meetings have been some of the most really
powerful moments, so I would invite you again to come back. I
know that, for both of you and for others in this position,
it's difficult to do, because you're reliving that pain. You
are going through that loss. And so I want to thank you for
your continuing effort, and I'd like to invite you back, too.
The EARN IT Act and the Kids Online Safety Act are the
least we can do, the very least we can do, to help begin
protecting against Big Tech. And the Chairman has suggested
that maybe we'll have Big Tech come back. Frankly, I'm less
interested in Big Tech's words than Big Tech's actions, because
they've said again and again and again, Oh, well, we're for
regulation, but just not that regulation. And if it's different
regulation, Oh, well, that's not quite it, either. So, we're
going to continue this work, and my thanks to everybody who is
here today.
I want to ask Dr. Prinstein, because this report that the
CDC came out with today talks not only about girls, and the
crisis they are going through in this country, but also about
LGBTQ+ young people and how they, particularly, are going
through this crisis. Could you describe for the Committee how
the addictive and harmful content affects them maybe more than
others, either through bullying or other kinds of toxic content
driven at them?
Dr. Prinstein. Absolutely. Thank you. The LGBT+ community
is experiencing a disproportionate amount of mental health
issues, particularly related to the stress they experience as a
marginalized or minoritized group. They are also experiencing a
much higher rate of self-harm and suicide compared to others.
The research on social media has demonstrated a remarkably
high proportion of posts that are discriminatory or hateful
either to the entire LGBT+ community or to individuals based on
their LGBTQ+ status. So, it's very important to recognize that
online discrimination does have an effect on mental health
directly. It is important, however, to recognize that the
online community also provides vital health information and
does provide social support that can be beneficial to this
community, so it's a complex situation but one that deserves
tremendous attention. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you to all the panel
for being here today. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. As I've been listening to the
testimony, it's just another reminder of how frustrating and
maddening and, frankly, infuriating it is that Congress has
been unable to deal with this in a more timely and a more
targeted manner, but I'm also reminded of the fact that
technology does not move at the speed of legislation, and it
seems like the people who profit from this technology, these
apps, are very adaptable to whatever obstacle, whatever penalty
that Congress might impose.
But, Mr. Pizzuro, I think it was you that made a comment.
It really jumped out at me. You said, ``We ought to make use of
children's data illegal.'' Did you say that?
Mr. Pizzuro. I'm sorry, Senator. No, I didn't.
Senator Cornyn. Excuse me. Doctor----
Mr. Pizzuro. Yes.
Senator Cornyn. Doctor, you said that.
Dr. Prinstein. Yes.
Senator Cornyn. Okay. And in thinking about the model, the
business model of these apps, they're primarily designed to
hoover up data, including personal data, and then use that data
then to apply algorithms to it, to provide additional
enticement or encouragement for people to continue using that
app. Is that correct, Doctor?
Dr. Prinstein. Yes, it is.
Senator Cornyn. And so if we were able to figure out how to
make use of a minor's data illegal and had appropriate
penalties, that would attack the business model and go after
the people who profit from this technology, correct?
Dr. Prinstein. I believe so.
Senator Cornyn. Well, maybe there's something fairly
straightforward we could do in that area, because as I said,
obviously legislation moves very slowly, and the people who
profit and benefit from this sort of technology are very
adaptable and move at a much different speed than we do.
Ms. Bride, we all grieve with you over your loss of your
son, but in listening to your testimony, it seems to me that
you did just about everything that a parent might do to protect
your child, but yet you weren't able to completely protect him
from the cyberbullying. Can you talk a little more about the
role of parents in protecting their children? And are there
other things that parents should do, that you weren't able to
do or didn't occur to you at the time?
Ms. Bride. Thank you for the question, Senator. Yes,
parents absolutely have a role, like we took, in talking to
their kids about online safety and managing screen time, but
we're at a situation right now where, if I can give you all a
visual, it is like a firehose of harmful content being sprayed
at our kids every day, and it's constantly changing. And I wish
I could testify and say, ``All you have to do as a parent is
these five things and you can hand the phone over and your kid
will be safe.'' But that would be irresponsible of me and this
is why we need to go back to the source.
The source of the harm is the social media companies and
their dangerous and addictive products that are designed to
keep our kids online as much as possible. And in the example of
anonymous apps, what better way to keep kids online but let
them, in a public forum, say whatever they want to each other
without their names attached?
Senator Cornyn. Dr. Prinstein, you make the point about
needing more investment in mental health studies and resources.
You're probably aware of this, but I'll just remind you and
remind all of us that, in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act
that Congress passed last summer, we made the single largest
investment in community-based mental health care in American
history, together with additional resources for schools. In
that context, it was in the wake of the shooting at Uvalde and
the obvious failure of the mental health safety net, such as it
exists, to deal with young men, in this case, who fit a
dangerous profile of self-harm or harm to others.
But could you speak briefly to the workforce challenges? If
we make these huge investments in mental health care, we need
people to be able to provide that care, trained professionals
and other associated professionals. And where are we today, in
terms of providing that sort of a trained workforce to deal
with the need?
Dr. Prinstein. Thank you so much for the investments that
you all have made so far. Unfortunately, it's just a start. The
Federal Government currently funds the training of physicians
at a number 750 times more than the amount that's invested in
mental health professionals. The CDC report that you just saw
and a number of Senators have discussed is likely a direct
product of that disparity. It's critical that we are funding
psychologists and other mental health providers with the same
commitment and at the same level that we do our physician
workforce and think about physical health.
Also, thank you for noting the importance of the slowness
by which our progress is in the social media area as compared
to the rapid way in which social media changes. This is also
why a commitment to research on the effects of social media on
mental health is so urgent now, because for us to do a study to
learn how social media will affect kids over many years, it
will take many years to do that study. So, we must start
immediately investing much more in that research. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn.
I'd also like to recognize the presence of former House
Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt and former Lieutenant Governor
Healey of Massachusetts for being here today and their work on
the bipartisan Council for Responsible Social Media. Thank you
for joining us.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, and let me double down on
that welcome to Maura Healey for her work as attorney general,
because my questions are going to be about the legal situation
here. Ms. Bride, you mentioned in your testimony that your
class action lawsuit was thrown out in large part because of
Section 230 immunity. Is that correct?
Ms. Bride. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. So, we're having kind of a bipartisan
moment here today with the Blumenthal-Blackburn legislation,
with the Durbin-Graham hearing, and I would be prepared to make
a bet that if we took a vote on a plain Section 230 repeal, it
would clear this Committee with virtually every vote. The
problem, where we bog down, is that we want 230 plus. We want
to repeal 230 and then have X, Y, Z, and we don't agree on what
the X, Y, Z are.
I would encourage each of you, if you wish, to take a
moment when the hearing is over and write down what you would
like to see with respect to Section 230. If this is not your
area, fine. Don't bother. Would you be happy with a flat
Section 230 repeal? Would you like to see Section 230 repealed
with one, two, or three other things added? What would your
recommendations be, as we look at this?
It strikes me that, when you repeal Section 230, you revert
to a body of law that has stood the test of hundreds of years
of experience, hundreds and thousands of trials in courtrooms
around the country, and we know pretty well how to deal with
it. And we've also had the experience of honest courtrooms
being very important when powerful forces full of lies need to
be brought to heel. And nobody knows better than Dick
Blumenthal the tragedy of the families of Sandy Hook and the
lies that were told about what took place that day, and it took
an honest courtroom to hold the prime liar in all of that
accountable.
And there was a lot of lying told about the Dominion
corporation, and it took an honest courtroom--trial's still
under way, discovery's still happening, but in the honest
courtroom, you have the chance to dig down and see, what were
the lies, and who should be held accountable, rather than just
have it all be fought out in the noise of the internet and the
public debate. So, to me it seems like an enormous amount of
progress would be made if we would repeal Section 230. And your
thoughts on that, from each of you, would be very compelling.
If there's something somebody would like to say right now,
I've got 2 minutes left, and you're welcome to jump in, I mean,
if you just can't hold back and you've got your answer ready.
But I'd really be interested in the considered judgment of
anybody who would care to answer about what the world would
look like if Section 230 weren't there.
Ms. Bride?
Ms. Bride. Thank you, Senator. I would like to see a
minimum of Section 230 repealed to the point where these
companies can be held accountable for their own policies that
lure kids into their products, like in the case of the
anonymous apps: We monitor for cyberbullying, and we reveal the
identities of those who do so. If you have that policy as a
company, you need to be able to follow it, like every other
industry in America.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Ms. Bride. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. Yes, the things we're
looking at, I think, most closely here are, first, the company
owns its own policies and ought to be accountable for them.
That has nothing to do with something that pops up and then
gets put on a platform, and when should they be accountable for
what's on the platform? These are the basic operating systems
designed by them, of their platform, and they should own that,
period, end of story.
And the other is when they're on notice. When something is
up on their platform and they know perfectly well that it's up
there and they know perfectly well that it's dangerous, and
they don't bother to deal with it responsibly because they know
that they won't be held accountable, they can do whatever they
please to try to generate clicks off even dangerous content--
so, those are the areas we're looking at, and I look forward to
hearing the advice from this terrific panel.
And I want to thank Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member
Graham for hosting this. Senator Blackburn had stepped out and
returned now. Let me just say thank you to her and to Senator
Blumenthal for your terrific work together.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator
Blackburn, you're next.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to each of you. We are glad you're here. For everyone on the
panel--and you can just give me a thumbs-up--and I am making
the assumption that you all support the Kids Online Safety Act.
Okay, the record will reflect y'all are all for it. And we
appreciate that. We think it is necessary. Thank you to each of
you for your testimony and also for your advocacy. We
appreciate this.
Ms. DeLaune, I want to come to you, if I may. The END Child
Exploitation Act that I had filed last Congress, and we have
this back up again--this is something that we've done because
what we realize is the necessity for child exploitation to be
reported to NCMEC's CyberTipline. And the bill unanimously
passed through the Senate last year, and we are hopeful to get
it finished. So, give me just about 30 seconds on why this bill
is so important.
Ms. DeLaune. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
leadership on this particular Act.
Senator Blackburn. Sure.
Ms. DeLaune. One of the most important components is the
extension of the retention period. Many of the ESPs obviously--
when they're making reports to us, the tech companies--from the
moment they make the report, there is a 90-day retention notice
that the companies agree to wait and hold that material if law
enforcement chooses to serve legal process and gather more
details.
As we've demonstrated with the exponential growth in
numbers and the number of law enforcement leads that we are
sending out, it is simply not enough time for law enforcement
to be able to assess a report and determine whether or not an
investigation must ensue. So, extending the data retention is
an important part of this Act.
Senator Blackburn. And that was a wonderful suggestion that
came to us from advocates, to extend that, because it takes
longer sometimes for individuals to come forward and for law
enforcement to piece that together, and the goal is to keep our
children safe.
Ms. DeLaune. Yes.
Senator Blackburn. So, we appreciate that. Ms. Bride, I
want to come to you again. And, as always, we know how you
grieve your loss, and our sympathies are with you but also our
action, to get something done. Let's talk about fentanyl and
the impact of fentanyl and the way children have met, whether
it's on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube. We have worked on
this issue about how these platforms need to be held
accountable for the illegal activity that is taking place.
And you spoke beautifully about Carson and the bullying
that was taking place with him, but we also know from other
parents that you and I have met with that the introduction to
drugs, the acquaintances they think are children and then they
find out that they're being groomed to be pulled in to using
drugs or they're being groomed to be pulled into sex
trafficking. And that is one of the dangers that are there,
that luring and that addiction of social media. And, Emma, you
spoke so well to that, and we thank you.
But let's talk a little bit about how we should be
protecting children from meeting these drug dealers and pushers
and traffickers online and how easy it has become for these
people to impersonate children and to then ruin the lives of
our children. Go ahead. I'd like for you to speak to that. I
know your advocacy is in that vein.
Ms. Bride. Thank you, Senator. When we have met with other
parents--and you've been in the room, as well--we have parents
who have lost their children to fentanyl-laced drugs, and the
frustration with them is they also can't get the drug dealers
taken off the platform. I think I would defer to somebody else
on this topic, to speak, as that's not my specific area of
expertise.
Senator Blackburn. Yes. Ms. Bride, let me ask you this, and
for any of you. For parents that have lost their kids to drug
dealers, do any of you know of a drug dealer that has been
apprehended, charged, indicted, convicted?
No. Isn't that amazing? It goes back to Senator Graham's
point that something needs to be done about this. They're using
social media as their platform.
Dr. Prinstein--oh, Mr. Chairman, my time is out. I guess I
will need to yield back to you. I had one more question, so----
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of
the panelists and everyone in the audience and those who are
watching these proceedings. What I get, of course, is the utter
frustration that you all are sharing with us, and of course I
thank my colleague for her advocacy in getting something done.
Dr. Prinstein, there is a definition for addiction, and would
you say that the millions of young people who are on social
media--that they are exhibiting what amounts to an addiction to
these platforms?
Dr. Prinstein. Within the science community, we're debating
over the use of that word a little bit right now, to depict
social media, but I do think there's agreement that there is
clearly a dependency on social media which we can see in kids
suffering from many of the same symptoms that we see in the
DSM, the diagnostic manual, for an addiction to substances. It
seems to apply quite well to the description of kids' behavior
and dependency on social media.
Senator Hirono. And the additional danger to an addiction
to social media is that this is such a negative kind of
information that they can get. They're bullied, they're
hassled, there are all kinds of horribly negative kinds of
messages that they get from this particular addiction, which
may be, you know, a little bit different. So, we do have
treatments, normally, for addiction. Do we have treatments for
addiction to social media?
Dr. Prinstein. I don't believe those have been adequately
studied.
Senator Hirono. And we probably should study it. And that
gets me to Ms. Lembke. You started on social media at sixth
grade, was it? Would you say that you were addicted to social
media?
Ms. Lembke. I will say that I exhibited--and thank you for
your question, Senator--a dependency that was stated here
today, but I do not think that I alone can define what that
addiction means. I think that other members of my generation
and other young voices should be integrated into these ongoing
conversations, into what constitutes an addiction, moving
forward.
Senator Hirono. Well, did you have a hard time not going to
social media on a regular basis, on a daily basis? You spent up
to 6 hours----
Ms. Lembke. Absolutely.
Senator Hirono [continuing]. On these platforms? So,
regardless of what the medical definition might be, that when
you're spending 6 hours on a platform that didn't make you feel
terribly good about yourself--so, how was it that you finally
broke yourself of this dependency?
Ms. Lembke. Thank you, Senator, for your question. It took
getting to a breaking point, where my anxiety was so great, my
depression was incredibly acute, and my issues with disordered
eating were rampant. It took about 3 to 4 years, getting into
the ninth grade, where one day I heard the buzz of a
notification, and I had the Pavlovian response to instantly
grab for it, and suddenly, in that moment, I asked why. Why was
I allowing these companies to have so much control over me? And
that question has led to many more and has gotten me here today
to speak up about the importance of having youth voices at the
legislative table.
Senator Hirono. So, I appreciate your mentioning that, your
sort of, the light going off in your head--is that the kind of
experience that a lot of young people who are so dependent on
these platforms--that they can, of their own will, decide, I
just can't take this anymore? Or is that one of the reasons
that you created Log Off? Can you tell us a little bit more
about what your program or the movement does to help young
people?
Ms. Lembke. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I think each young
person who struggles with this issue comes at it from a very
different angle. For me, it took reaching that breaking point.
For others, they continue to be harmed, and that was the reason
I created Log Off. It was to seek out other young people who
were frustrated, who were struggling, who were angry and wanted
to talk to each other across our generation, members who
understand the experience better than any other group of people
across this world. So, I created that body in order to have
those conversations and to work collectively to move forward in
building effective solutions and in discussing those
complexities in the online world and living through a digital
childhood.
Senator Hirono. Thank you very much for your stepping up. I
only have a little bit of time. I want to get to Ms. Bride.
There's been a lot of discussion about Section 230. A number of
us have bills to reform Section 230, as do I. I think one of
the concerns, though, is that the wholesale elimination of
Section 230, which--I mean, I do support, you know, holding
these platforms responsible for the kind of hugely harmful
content, but it does get into First Amendment freedom of speech
issues.
So, we need to be very aware that, as we reform Section 230
to enable, I would say, lawsuits like yours to proceed, that we
do it in a careful way, to avoid unintended consequences. But I
just want to share with you our deepest sympathies for what you
continue to endure, and the rest of you. Thank you very much
for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. DeLaune, I'd like
to start with you, if that's all right. NCMEC does a great job
of highlighting a lot of these problems and the pervasiveness
of CSAM, through the CyberTipline. It's my understanding that
about 32 million reports of CSAM were reported to the
CyberTipline last year, and I believe you said in your
testimony that, of those 32 million reports, only about 6
percent can be referred to U.S. Federal or U.S. local law
enforcement here in our country. Is that right?
Ms. DeLaune. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Lee. So, of the 32 million reports that we start
with, we're already down to about 3.2 million that can be
actionable here, that could be reported to law enforcement
here. Would you be comfortable estimating about how many of
those 32 million images of CSAM end up being removed from the
internet? I think you said in your testimony somewhere that it
was maybe 55 percent of those, so I'm guessing 1.7 million?
Ms. DeLaune. We have a lot of numbers. So, for 32 million
reports that are coming in the door, the reports are coming in
from the tech industry, mostly, in addition to public reports.
They are reporting users who are using U.S. platforms to
transmit child sexual abuse material. Clearly, we have global
companies here in the United States, so approximately 90
percent of the leads that are coming in are going back to other
countries where offenders are uploading child sexual abuse
material.
Senator Lee. Got you.
Ms. DeLaune. So, we're down to a smaller amount of about
3.6 million reports here in the United States that we are able
to refer to law enforcement. It goes to the point of--there is
a lot of disparity and a long line of issues that will impact
actionability of a CyberTipline report.
There are some basic key things that are necessary and are
currently voluntary for tech companies to provide. That would
be the images or videos or the content that meets the standard
of apparent child pornography; it would be baseline information
regarding the geographic location of where law enforcement
should be reviewing this lead, to determine if an investigation
should ensue; basic information on a user who uploaded the
child sexual abuse imagery; and, if a victim existed, if they
have any information. That's the baseline information that law
enforcement needs.
We estimate, of the reports that we were able to provide to
law enforcement last year, 55 percent of them may have been
actionable, meaning they meet all of those criteria, which
tells us there's a lot of improvement that can happen at the
beginning of the pipeline, that quality information coming in,
so law enforcement can make proper assessments.
Senator Lee. That makes a lot of sense. Now, Mr. Pizzuro,
you've done some fantastic work helping kids who were in actual
or imminent danger. I know that rescuing kids who are in
distress should be a priority. I'm guessing that the removal of
the CSAM images from the internet can't take quite as high of a
priority as rescuing the kids from imminent danger. Is that the
case?
Mr. Pizzuro. That's true, and one of the things is, you
know, from the investigative standpoint, is those proactive
cases where we're really targeting those egregious offenders.
Senator Lee. Got you. Yes, that makes sense. Look, bottom
line: pornography is very bad. It's especially bad for young
people. I think it's bad for everyone, but it subjects young
people to significant and somewhat unique harms. It's bad
enough that children were abused to make these images in the
first place, but every single time these images are viewed or
shared, a child's retraumatized again.
It's one of the reasons why, last year, I introduced a bill
called the PROTECT Act. This is a bill that would require any
websites hosting pornographic material on a commercial scale to
put in place a removal mechanism and remove images at the
request of the individual who appears in them. It would also
require websites to verify the age of individuals appearing in
pornographic material, and also they would have to verify
consent. They'd be also penalized for hosting CSAM and any
other items that were in there that shouldn't be, and then
their victims or their authorized representatives could
petition for those images to be removed from the website. And I
think that would help with that.
Mr. DeLaune, in your testimony you mentioned that current
law needs to be changed--Ms. DeLaune, I'm sorry--that it needs
to be changed in order to help CSAM be able to share those
images, help people be able to share those images with CSAM and
with law enforcement. And I'd be happy to work with you on
that, to get that done and to incorporate that into my bill,
the PROTECT Act.
One more thing. These things are all important, and that's
why, at the end of last year, I also introduced another bill
called the SCREEN Act. This bill would require that any
commercial website hosting pornographic images has to verify
the age of users on their site and block minors from viewing
graphic material. I look forward to working with my colleagues
and the witnesses before us today and the organizations they
represent, to get those bills across the finish line.
Finally, I just want to thank you, Ms. Bride, and you, Ms.
Lembke, for sharing your stories on difficult, heart-wrenching
circumstances. Thank you.
Senator Ossoff [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lee. I'll be
managing time for a moment while Chair Durbin votes, and I'm up
next, followed by Senator Kennedy. I want to thank our panel
for your testimony, in particular Ms. Bride, to you, for
bringing your advocacy to the Senate amidst this nightmare that
you and your family have lived and continue to live. And, Ms.
Lembke, thank you for your extraordinarily well considered and
powerful testimony.
Ms. DeLaune, as you know and as you mentioned in your
opening statement, Senator Grassley and I have legislation to
strengthen Federal protections against sexual abuse of
children, including online exploitation. And we were able to
pass that legislation through the Senate last Congress, with
bipartisan support; not yet through the House. We're hoping to
do that this Congress, with your help.
And a key aspect of this bill is to ensure that the law's
keeping up with technology and to ensure that when abusers use
webcams or online messaging platforms to target children, that
the full strength of Federal law can be brought to bear to
prosecute them and to protect children from other crimes. Can
you describe briefly, please, Ms. DeLaune, the necessity of
ensuring that relevant Federal statutes keep up with technology
and how these threats evolve?
Ms. DeLaune. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
leadership on that with Senator Grassley. We look forward to,
you know, continuing to work with you and your staff.
It is important, as we're talking about the continual
evolution of threats to our children. Technology, it was
mentioned earlier, moves much faster than the legislative
process, and it's very important and encouraging to be here
today to hear from all of you kind of leading the charge, here,
of ensuring that our legislative proposals and legislative
pieces that you're considering are actually matching the
technology.
What you mentioned, Senator, about live streaming that's
being considered in your bill--we have seen an evolution with
children being sexually exploited where there is not a physical
abuser who is actually physically touching them. And we need to
ensure that the legislation actually reflects that children are
being exploited, children are being sexually victimized by
individuals in different countries and different States and
different rooms.
And this is something that we continue to see, where
offenders are moving children from social media platforms,
maybe where they introduce and then move them to a different
platform where they would have live abuse ability, as well as
individuals who are selling children for sexual performance
online. So, thank you for recognizing that evolution of
technology needs to be reflected in the legislation.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. DeLaune. And the same
legislation that I've offered with Senator Grassley also
strengthens law enforcement as they prosecute those who cross
State lines or international lines to abuse children. What are
you seeing now in terms of trends and dynamics in so-called sex
tourism, particularly as it pertains to the abuse of children?
Ms. DeLaune. Sex tourism. Certainly, you still have people
who are traveling to other countries, taking advantage of lax
laws and poverty to sexually exploit children. We do, of
course, see now an increase--if you want to call it sex
tourism, of individuals who are virtually streaming, live
streaming, sexually exploiting children in impoverished
countries and paying them via, you know, online apps. So, this
is something that we continue to see as a problem actually
getting worse because of the new ways that people can
communicate live streaming.
Senator Ossoff. Well, our bipartisan legislation, as you
know, will help to crack down on online abusers, as well as
those who cross State lines or international lines to attack
children. I thank you for your continued support for the
legislation.
Finally, just briefly, Senator Blackburn ran out of time
and had another question that she wanted to ask. I want to make
sure to get that to Dr. Prinstein. And, Ms. Lembke, you, in a
very candid and personal way, described the impact that the use
of these technologies had on your psyche. And I know that, in
particular for other young people around the country, they've
experienced the same dynamic, the formation of dependence, the
impact on self-image and mental health. And I thank you for
sharing your story.
And I want to ask you, Dr. Prinstein, if you could just
speak for a moment about the long-term negative psychological
impact that, in particular, young people can experience as a
result of their use of social media and how we in Congress
should think about addressing that.
Dr. Prinstein. Scientists are working as fast as we can to
give you those answers. It's something that requires us to
follow kids as they mature and see how it is that they develop.
We do know that there are numerous online communities and
opportunities to engage with content that actually teaches kids
how to cut themselves, how to engage in behaviors that are
consistent with an eating disorder, how to conceal these
behaviors from their parents and adults, and they sanction
young people when they discuss the possibility of engaging in
an adaptive rather than maladaptive behaviors. Many of these
online posts and communities have no warnings, no trigger
warnings to indicate that these might be concerning for kids.
And, of course, that's something that is directly associated
with kids' likelihood of engaging in these maladaptive
behaviors themselves.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Dr. Prinstein. Deeply disturbing
and certainly warrants regulatory attention. Appreciate your
testimony. Senator Kennedy, you're next for 5 minutes.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Many of the companies
that we're talking about are American companies. Not all Big
Tech is American, but we certainly led the way. These companies
are very successful. They're very big, they're very powerful.
They're really no longer companies--they're countries. And
they're going to oppose any of this type legislation. It's why
virtually nothing with respect to Big Tech has passed in the
last 5 years.
I want to be fair. I think that social media has made our
world smaller, which is a good thing, but it has made our world
courser. And if I had to name one fault, it wouldn't be the
only one, but I would say that social media has lowered the
cost of being an A-hole. People say things on social media that
they would never say in an interpersonal exchange. Adults, even
though it's depressing sometimes, can deal with that. It's hard
for young people.
We've talked about a number of problems that are presented
by social media: data, privacy, sexual exploitation, but also
mental health and the impact that I think it's clearly having
on, particularly, young women in the Gen Z generation, 10 or 11
to 25 and 26. They're living their lives on social media, and
they're not developing interpersonal relationships. It's making
them very fragile. It's reaffirming this culture of victimhood.
They're not getting ready for the world.
So, let me cut to the chase. I'll start with Mr.--am I
saying it right? Golin?
Mr. Golin. Golin.
Senator Kennedy. Golin. I apologize. For young people
defined as people under the age of 16, should we just abolish
social media for them, don't let them access it?
Mr. Golin. You know, things are so serious that I----
Senator Kennedy. Can you give me some quick answers?
Because I'm----
Mr. Golin. Yes.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Going to go down the line.
Mr. Golin. We should consider all options, but I think we
should focus--it makes more sense to focus on a duty of care
and changing how these platforms operate. Practically, keeping
kids off, under 16, may be impossible, and I would also say
it's not just social media. A lot of these things happen on
video game platforms, as well.
Senator Kennedy. And you think it'll really be easy to
change the attitudes of these social media companies?
Mr. Golin. If you create a duty of care and you limit the
data that they can collect.
Senator Kennedy. All right. I think they have a duty to
care, already. What about you, Doctor?
Dr. Prinstein. I think we desperately need to educate
parents.
Senator Kennedy. I know we need to educate, but should we
just tell kids, ``Look, it's a lot like alcohol. This stuff is
addictive and until you're 16, you can't access social media''?
Dr. Prinstein. There are benefits that also come from
social media, and I don't know whether it's realistic to keep
kids off of it completely. I think practicing moderation, with
close parental supervision, with substantial education coming
from the school and the home---
Senator Kennedy. Here's a news flash for you. A lot of
parents don't care, Doctor. Mr. Pizzuro?
Mr. Pizzuro. Yes, Senator. Basically, there should be
something--if I bought a phone tomorrow--there should be at
least, at the very least, a terms of agreement. I can't even
access that phone until I go through a 3-minute or 5-minute
video.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Ms. DeLaune?
Ms. DeLaune. An acknowledgment that, when you build a tool
that allows adults and children to communicate with one another
or find connections, that there is a duty of care to ensure
that you're creating a safe environment for those kids.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I think there's clearly a duty of
care. The issue is how to enforce a duty of care. Go try to
pass a bill enforcing that duty of care in the United States
Congress and see what the reaction----
Ms. DeLaune. Right.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. From Big Tech is.
Ms. DeLaune. Right. Absolutely. And creating these tools,
recognizing that these incidents are going to happen and
finding ways that children----
Senator Kennedy. Well, would you----
Ms. DeLaune [continuing]. Can report them.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Support a law that says,
Okay, if you're under 16, you can't access social media?
Ms. DeLaune. I think it would be difficult. There are
positive things about social media, but there are many, many
terrible things that kids are finding themselves in bad shape.
Senator Kennedy. You say it would be hard. I know it'd be
hard. Do you think it's a wise thing to do?
Ms. DeLaune. I believe if the tools are designed properly,
there could be benefits.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. I can't have my--I don't have my
glasses on. Yes, ma'am, your answer, please?
Ms. Lembke. Yes, Senator. I have not spent a lot of time
thinking about specifically the right age to enter, because I
do not think that it addresses the fundamental question we must
answer, how to create online spaces that are safer when kids
decide to enter, because I can tell you that these age
restrictions----
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Is that a no?
Ms. Lembke. Sorry, Senator?
Senator Kennedy. Do you think we should prevent kids under
the age of 16 from accessing social media?
Ms. Lembke. I think that we should spend more time looking
at how to make those platforms safer, because kids will
circumnavigate age restrictions.
Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bride. And I agree with Ms. Lembke, as well. I think
that safeguards is the way to go. If we look historically at
the automobile industry, it was not safe, but we brought in
seat belts, air bags, and now it is much safer. And we can do
that with this industry.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you.
Chair Durbin [presiding]. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So,
thank you so much. This has been an incredible hearing. And, as
you know, I'm involved in this issue. I thank Senator
Blumenthal for his work and Senator Blackburn and so many
others.
So, I would agree we need rules of the road. We need rules
of the road for everything from what we're talking about here
for kids to privacy to competition, because there's just no
rules of the road. As Senator Kennedy has expressed, we have
tried in many ways and passed a number of bills in this
Committee. I believe one of these days they're going to start
to pass, because the social media companies have stopped
everything in their tracks that we have tried to do.
And I think it is important--I guess I would start with
that--that they are companies, and they are media corporations,
basically. And I try to explain to people that if you put
something online or put it on a--one person does it, that's
bad. That's one thing. Or if you yell, ``Fire,'' in a crowded
theater, okay, that's on you. But if the multiplex were to take
that yelling, ``Fire,'' and put it in all their theaters with
an intercom so everyone could hear it, that's a whole nother
thing. And that's a problem that hasn't been solved when it
comes to these companies. They are profiting off the repeating
of this information and the spreading of this information.
So, Mr. Golin, I'd just ask you this. In addition to
setting the rules of the road that we want to do, when we talk
about auto companies and all these other areas, at some point
people have been able to sue them for problems. And right now
these companies are completely immune. Do you want to get at
that and talk about your views on that?
Mr. Golin. Yes. I think that's a huge piece of the
equation--is the ability of parents and young people themselves
to hold these companies accountable. You know, Kristin talked
about her lawsuit being thrown out. We work with Tawainna
Anderson, whose 10-year-old daughter died after attempting the
viral choking challenge which TikTok put into her ``For You''
feed. It's not something she was searching for. TikTok's
decided that this was the piece of content that would be most
appealing to her at that time. And their case was thrown out of
court for Section 230 reasons, as well.
Senator Klobuchar. Right.
Mr. Golin. So----
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. I just want to make that clear.
The rules are good, but I'm telling you, if you just pretend
that they are a loftier-than-any-other-company class that can't
be sued for anything, we're never going to get a lot of these
things done. So, let's be honest about that.
The Respect for Child Survivors Act is something Senator
Cornyn and I passed. Mr. Prinstein, do you agree that it's
important for mental health professionals to be involved in
interviews of child survivors? This is this idea that whatever
the crime--I was a prosecutor for quite a while--sexual abuse,
whatever, it's important to have a coordinated effort when it
comes to interviewing kids.
Dr. Prinstein. Yes, absolutely. There's a clear
psychological science around how to do that in safe and
appropriate ways.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. The issue of eating
disorders--I'll go back to you, Mr. Golin. Studies have found
that the eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of
any mental illness. I think that surprises people. I led the
Anna Westin Act, and last year, of course, thanks to Senator
Blumenthal, we heard--and Senator Blackburn--from Frances
Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, about Instagram's own
internal research on eating disorders. You talk about that
connection between the internet and eating disorders. Do you
want to quickly comment on that connection and why that should
be part of our focus here?
Mr. Golin. Yes. So, what happens is when girls or anyone,
really, expresses any interest in dieting or dissatisfaction
with their body, they get barraged by content recommendations
for pro-eating-disorder content, because that's what's going to
keep them engaged. So, we need to create a duty of care that
these platforms have of, you know, a duty to prevent and
mitigate harmful eating-disorder content and not push it on
kids. I mean, I think that's one of the really important
things: to distinguish between queries, where people might be
interested in getting some information, versus what is being
actually pushed in their feed. And frequently it is the worst,
most harmful content that's being pushed in their feed.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Ms. DeLaune, Senator Cornyn and I
did a lot of work on human trafficking, as you know; passed
that original bill to create incentives for safe harbor laws.
Can you talk about how the internet has changed the way that
human traffickers target and exploit kids?
Ms. DeLaune. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Human trafficking and
child sex trafficking, in particular, has certainly been fueled
by online platforms and the connectivity between offenders and
children. Not only does it make buyers--it makes it easier for
buyers to find children who are being trafficked, but it also
allows the imagery of these children to continue to circulate,
and that often keeps the victims quiet and being silenced, in
terms of speaking up, because their images are then being
transmitted online for potential buyers to locate.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Last question. Mr. Pizzuro, thanks
for your work. I have heard heart-wrenching stories of young
people who've died after taking drugs, in one case drugs they
bought on Snapchat through messages. A child named Devin
suffering from dental pain bought what he thought was Percocet,
and it was laced with fentanyl, and this was off of Snapchat.
As his mom, Bridgette, said, ``All of the hopes and dreams we
as parents had for Devin were erased in the blink of an eye,
and no mom should have to bury their kid.'' Could you talk
about whether or not the social media companies are doing
enough to stop the sale of drugs to kids online?
Mr. Pizzuro. The social media companies aren't doing
anything, period. I think that's part of the problem, and that
comes to drugs, as well. There's no moderation. Again, they're
not looking at things specifically. They're not looking--again,
you can't, from a communications standpoint--but that's what
they're promoting, the social media, the interaction of people,
so my opinion really is that we haven't seen anything, and we
haven't seen any help from them.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of
the witnesses for being here. Ms. Bride, I want to start with
you. I want to particularly thank you for being willing to
share your story and Carson's story. I'm the father of three,
two boys, and you've lived every parent's nightmare, but thank
you for being willing to try and see some good come of that and
for being so bold in telling your family's story.
I want to ask you about one thing that I heard you say, and
you've also written it in your written testimony, about Carson.
You said, ``It wasn't until Carson was a freshman in high
school''--so, about 14, I would guess--``that we finally
allowed him to have social media, because''--this is what
caught my attention--``that was how all the students were
making new connections.''
Could you just say something about that? Because that's the
experience, I think, of every parent. My boys are 10 and 8, and
they're not on social media yet, but I know they'll want to be
soon, because they'll say, ``Well, everybody else is on it.''
So, could you just say a word about that?
Ms. Bride. Yes. Thank you. We waited as long as we possibly
could, and we were receiving a lot of pressure from our son to
be involved. And I hear this a lot from other parents. You
don't want to isolate your kid, either. And so we felt, by
waiting as long as possible, talking about the harms--``Don't
ever send anything that you don't want on a billboard with your
name and face next to it''--that we were doing all the right
things and that he was old enough. He was by far the last kid
in his class to get access to this technology, yet this still
happened to us.
Senator Hawley. Yes. That's just incredible. Well, you were
good parents, and you were a good mother, an incredibly good
mother, clearly. This is why I supported and introduced
legislation to set 16 years old as the age threshold for which
kids can get on social media and require the social media
companies to verify it.
I heard your answers, down the panel, a second ago, to
Senator Kennedy. I just have to say this. As a father, myself,
when you say things like, ``Well, the parents really ought to
be educated''--listen, the kids' ability--and I bet you had
this experience, Ms. Bride. The kids' ability to figure out how
to set what's on this phone [holding up a cell phone], my 10-
year-old knows more about this phone than I know about it,
already. What's it going to be like in another 4 years, or 5 or
6 years, like your son, Ms. Bride?
So, I just say, as a parent, it would put me much more in
the driver's seat if the law was you couldn't have a phone--or,
sorry, you couldn't get on social media until 16. I mean, that
would help me, as a parent. So, that's why I'm proposing it.
Parents are in favor of it. I got the idea from parents who
came to me and said, ``Please help us.'' You know, ``Please
help us.'' And listen, I'm all for tech training. It's great.
But I just don't think that's going to cut it. So, I've
introduced legislation to do it. Let's keep it simple. Let's
put this power in the hands of parents. I'd start there.
Second thing, Ms. Bride. You brought suit against Snapchat
and others. And I've got your lawsuit right here. And you were
barred by Section 230, and you've testified to that effect.
They just threw it all out, right?
Ms. Bride. Mm-hmm.
Senator Hawley. The court threw it all out?
Ms. Bride. Right. And it wasn't----
Senator Hawley. Go ahead.
Ms. Bride. The lawsuit was not about content. It was about
the company's own policies----
Senator Hawley. Yes.
Ms. Bride [continuing]. That lured my son in, to think that
this product, this app, was safe, this anonymous app, that they
would monitor for cyberbullying and reveal the identities of
those who do so. It had nothing to do with content.
Senator Hawley. Yes. And this is why I think it is just
absolutely vital that we change the law to allow suits like
yours to go forward. And if that means we have to repeal all of
Section 230, I'm fine with it. I'm introducing legislation that
will explicitly change Section 230 to allow suits against these
social media companies for their own product design, for their
own activities, for their own targeting of kids, for them to be
sued for that and to allow you and every other parent, Ms.
Bride, to get into Federal court.
We will create a Federal right of action, because here's
what I've decided. Listen, I'm a lawyer, former attorney
general. I believe in the power of courts. And what I've
decided is you can fine these social media companies to death.
FTC fined Facebook, what, a billion dollars or something, a
couple years ago? They didn't change their behavior at all.
They don't fear that. What they will fear, though, is they fear
your lawsuits. That's why they fought it so hard. They don't
want parents suing them. They don't want to be on the hook for
damages, double damages, treble damages. Well, they should be.
And if we give the power to parents to go into court and
say, ``We're going to sue you,'' they will fear that far more
than they fear some regulator here in Washington, DC, who, by
the way, is probably looking to get a job with that same
company when they rotate off their regulatory panel, because
that's what happens. All the regulators here in DC--they go to
work for these tech companies as soon as they're done here.
Well, enough of that. Let's put power into the hands of
parents--allow you, Ms. Bride, and every other parent in
America who has a grievance here to get into court and sue
these people and hold them accountable.
And I'd say the same thing about child sexual exploitation
material. Let's let parents sue, and I will introduce
legislation that will allow any parent in America who finds
child sexual exploitation material online to go sue the
companies for it. If they know or should've known, the
companies, that they were hosting this material, let's let them
sue them.
I tell you what, if these companies think they're going to
be on the hook for multi-hundred-million-dollar-or-more fines
and damages from multiple suits all across the country, they'll
change their act. They'll get their act together real quick.
So, my view is, enough of this complicated regulatory this,
regulatory that. Just give the American people and American
parents the right to get into court and defend their kids and
to defend their rights. And if we do that, I think we'll see
real results.
Last thing, Mr. Chairman. I know I'm going long, here, but
I just want to say this. We have these hearings every so often.
I love these hearings. They're great. Everybody talks tough on
the companies. And then, later on, watch, we'll have votes in
this Committee, real votes. And people have to put their names
to stuff, and, oh, lo and behold, when that happens, we can't
pass real tough stuff. So, I'd just say this to my colleagues:
This has been great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. This has been great, but it's time to vote. It's time
to stand up and be counted.
I've been here for 4 years. It's been 4 years of talk. The
only thing we've gotten done on Big Tech is TikTok, which we've
finally banned from all Federal devices. That's the only thing
of any significance we have done on Big Tech. That has got to
change. And I want to thank all of you for being here, to help
galvanize that change. Thanks for indulging me, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
Senator Welch.
Senator Welch. You know, this is a pretty--there's a lot of
heartache in this room, and you've lived it, and I just want to
acknowledge that. And what you've lived is every parent's fear.
And this dilemma that we have--if there's an easy solution to
it, maybe the lawsuits, as being proposed--if there was an easy
solution, we'd get it.
You know, I want to talk to you, Emma, just if I can. This
question of whether we can have an age limit--it's appealing,
but is it practical?
Ms. Lembke. Thank you, Senator, for your question. I have
not spent a lot of time thinking through specific ages that
should go on social media. I think looking at age verification
is crucial in understanding how to build a productive solution,
but to your point, I think the question we really have to ask
is, when children, who know more than most parents, enter these
online spaces, how are they protected? Because we have seen,
time and time again, that no matter the bans, kids find a way
in.
Senator Welch. Right. So, they'll find a way in. And, you
know, what we're hearing from you--you lost your son. The
childhood sex exploitation--I mean, it's horrifying. And these
are the examples of a system that has really gone amok, and
it's a system that's legal. But even those kids who are not
caught up and victimized in child prostitution or bullied into
taking their own life--there's a mental health crisis. I mean,
this is just not good for anybody. And kids--I mean, we were
all kids once, and we're vulnerable at that age to what other
people think of us.
So, I think there is a question here that is raised by
Senator Hawley, about--how do we have responsibility at the
point of entry? And that is the tech companies. And they've got
a business model where they don't necessarily publish it, and
of course that was Section 230, but they amplify it, as Senator
Klobuchar, in her own Klobucharian way, was able to express it.
And that's where the business model is sustaining this effort
on the part of Big Tech, because the more clicks they get, the
more advertising revenue they get.
You know, one question I have is whether it's time for us
to create a governmental authority. That gets dismissed,
oftentimes. But when we had previous examples like the lack of
seat belts, it was the National Highway Transportation Board
that was looking out after the public interest. When we had a
lot of securities fraud in the 1930s, we had the Securities and
Exchange Commission. It's very tough here in Congress to come
up with a one-off, especially in tech, because they just keep
moving ahead, and whatever we do to try to deal with the
behavior of kids, they're kids, and they're going to get on
that platform.
You wanted to say something, Doctor? But one of the
proposals that Senator Bennet made, and I made in the House,
was to have a digital authority that had some authorization
from Congress. Its charge was to protect the public interest,
to look at the real world about what's happening to real kids
and say, ``Hey, you know, this may be legal, but it ain't
right, and we've got to do something.'' Go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. Prinstein. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I
just wanted to mention an age limit is only going to be useful
if there's some way to make sure that kids below that age can't
get on. Remember that kids' brains are not fully matured at the
age of 16. We cannot say that everything that's happening on
social media now would be safe for kids at 16.
In fact, please be aware that this is the time when most
kids are now starting to get autonomy, driver's licenses, and
the things they're seeing online are changing the ways that
they're understanding what is risky versus not. Giving kids
free rein to that content just before they get in the car and
drive far away from their parents might actually be short
sighted.
Senator Welch. Thank you. Ms. Bride, do you want to offer
anything, after all you've been through? And thank you. I
share, I think, the sentiment all of us have. It's so inspiring
to see a parent try to turn tragedy into something good in the
memory of her son. Thank you.
Ms. Bride. Thank you, Senator. I would like to see a
combination of both. I would like to see Federal legislation so
that these products that we know are dangerous get reviewed
before they're released to American children. The example of my
son, with the anonymous apps--we saw in the past they led to
cyberbullying and suicides. Why were two other companies able
to put out the same product?
And on the other side of it, when things go wrong, yes, I
would like to see Section 230 reform so that we can hold them
accountable. But it should not take grieving parents filing
lawsuits to change what's happening, because it's too late for
us. Thank you.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Welch. Senator Blumenthal has
a question.
Senator Blumenthal. I have. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll be
very, very brief. And, again, my thanks to all the members of
the panel and all of the folks who have come to attend.
I share Senator Hawley's frustration and impatience, as you
may have gathered, and I feel that sense of outrage at
congressional inaction. And I know, Ms. Bride, you were part of
our efforts during the last session, very, very much involved,
as were many of the parents who are here today and others who
are perhaps watching. And my question to you and perhaps to
Emma Lembke is, what did that failure to act mean to you,
personally?
Ms. Bride. Thank you, Senator. It was extremely
disappointing. There was so much momentum. I made trips, along
with my fellow moms that are in the written testimony today, to
Washington several times. It is so difficult to tell our
stories of the very worst day of our lives, over and over and
over again and then not see change. We're done with the
hearings. We're done with the stories. We are looking to you
all for action, and I am confident that you can all come
together and do this for us and for America's children. Thank
you.
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Lembke, you are part of a
generation that has a right to expect more from us.
Ms. Lembke. Yes, Senator. You know, I got on Instagram at
the age of 12, and I sit in front of you all today as a 20-
year-old. But, 8 years down the line, I still see and hear of
the harms that I experienced 8 years ago. And what I will say
to this body is that those harms will only increase from here.
The mental health crisis for young people that we are
witnessing will only continue to rise. So, we cannot wait
another year. We cannot wait another month, another week, or
another day to begin to protect the next generation from the
harms that we have witnessed and heard about today.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and thanks to
the panel. I don't know if any or all of you realize what you
witnessed today, but this Judiciary Committee crosses the
political spectrum, not just from Democrats to Republicans but
from real progressives to real conservatives. And what you
heard was a unanimity of purpose, and that's rare. In fact,
it's almost unheard of. And it gives me some hope.
Now, we have our own problems that have to do with this
institution that I work in, in terms of when things are
appropriate, how to bring them up, and how to deal with the
rules of the Senate. Not an easy responsibility. A challenging
responsibility. But I think the urgency of this issue is going
to help propel us past some of these obstacles.
One of them is a jurisdictional issue which relates to the
Senate Commerce Committee, which Senator Blumenthal can tell
you has a major piece of the law that we've discussed today.
And we, of course, are on the Judiciary side, the criminal side
of it. We have a piece of it, as well. The question is whether
there is any way to build them together. I think there is.
There's certainly the will from Senator Cantwell, the Chairman
of the Commerce Committee, and I've spoken to her personally.
And what I'd like to promise you is this. We're going to
have a markup. Now, that doesn't sound like much, but it is a
big promise. It means that we are going to come together as the
Judiciary Committee and put on the table the major pieces of
legislation and try to decide, as a Committee, if we can agree
on common goals and common efforts to reach those goals. I
think we can do this, just sensing what I heard today. And I
think, as a father and grandfather, that we must do it. We must
do it.
Ms. Bronstein, Ms. Bride, and others who have come here
because of their passion for their children that they have
lost--it makes a difference. As painful as it is, it makes a
difference. And, Ms. Lembke, good luck at the Hilltop, with
Washington U, but you've done a great service to our country by
coming here today. And for the others, thank you for sharing
this information.
Now it's our turn. We've got to get down to work and roll
up our sleeves. It won't be the bill I want to write. It won't
be the bill you want to write. But if it is a step forward to
protect children, we're going to do it. We have to do it. We
have no choice.
The hearing record's going to remain open for a week, for
statements to be submitted, and you may receive some questions
which I ask you to respond to promptly.
[The information appears as submissions for the record.]
I thank you all for coming today and your patience and
determination to do well by our children. I thank the
witnesses, and the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]