The testimony of Mexican-American Arturo Béjar in the trial of social media lawsuits, which was interrupted thanks to the multimillion-dollar agreement reached by Meta with the vast majority of federal prosecutors from the coalition of involved states, was the most impactful. Just as his previous appearance in the Senate had been, which became the ammunition used by the plaintiffs against the giant. It can be said that Béjar is, along with data scientist whistleblower Frances Haugen, the most famous whistleblower in technology. And probably the employee that Mark Zuckerberg regrets hiring the most.
This former engineering director at Meta, in two different periods - between 2009 and 2015 and from 2017 to 2019 - accuses his former company of deliberately designing tools to encourage compulsive use and collect data from children under 13. Not only that, he maintains that the executives refused to address the "significant damages" detected in teenagers from the use of these platforms, despite the reports and his own warnings.
Béjar's resume, who is speaking to us from California via video conference, is fascinating and reflects the internet boom that would ultimately shape today's Silicon Valley. Trained at IBM in Mexico City, he studied at King's College London with the support of Steve Wozniak, Apple's co-founder and one of the few technology titans who has never cared much about money. He gained experience at a startup called Electric Communities before joining Yahoo! Until, in 2009, he received a call from Facebook that would change his life.
I wanted to start by asking for your assessment of Meta's extrajudicial agreement.
The agreement represents a fundamental turning point in the world. It is the first time that Meta has reached an agreement, but what is lacking, and for me is essential in this whole debate about social networks, is to measure the results. Analyzing whether these measures end up reducing the suffering of many adolescents.
In your statement, you suggested that the addiction generated in young people was not an isolated negligence, but a pattern of behavior by the company. In other words, you argue that Meta does business with minors knowing that their product is toxic. Do you believe that has been adequately proven?
Both other testimonies and mine made it clear in the Senate the high toxicity. We are talking about emotional damage regarding body image, sexual harassment, suicide cases... But this has not been reflected in the agreement. This is a public health issue, and to understand it, we do not need the company's damages. What is urgent is to ask young people about the extent of these damages, essential information that different governments can obtain through their public health tools, and thus measure the effects of the changes they want to make. Until we have access to this data, we will be in the dark and shooting arrows. The agreement will limit certain aspects of the product, although we do not know if, for example, sexual harassment on social networks will continue with those stipulated limitations. Consider that Instagram was designed to connect young people with strangers.
When did you become aware of the magnitude of the problem?
During the first month of my second stage at Instagram. I found studies about the product's harm that showed that these problems intensely affected a significant percentage of users. Not only do you have to detect the harm, but also measure the intensity of the experience. I have enough professional experience to know that when something is harmful, you cannot eliminate the risk simply by opting for moderation. I found studies showing that for almost 10 years the company knew about addiction, sexual harassment, etc. I thought that if the company did nothing about it, it was because Mark Zuckerberg was unaware, as from my past experience, Mark always responded when analyzing any kind of data. I gathered data from 200,000 people with these types of problems and sent them in a report about the different damages we have discussed.
What was your reaction?
He didn't even reply. Before writing to him, I spoke with his trusted people and those I had worked with, like Chris Cox, Product Chief, or Sheryl Sandberg [COO], who did respond immediately. People I had worked with for years. In my conversation with Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, I realized that they knew the data and had decided not to do anything about it.
Do you think you would have acted the same if you were not a parent?
In my first stage at the company, I had the positive experience of knowing that if I discovered any harm, I could investigate and act. In these cases, you not only think about your children but also about everyone else's. My daughter had suffered on Instagram from sexual harassment to compulsive use when she was about 14, and I wanted to work to solve it from within because these problems were preventable.
Is it possible for a company whose profitability depends on capturing attention to protect minors?
No. Governments must ensure, as with tobacco and cars, that companies assume their responsibility. It has been proven that in 10 years, Meta has not been willing to do so. Their priorities are these: how many people are using their product? For how long, and how much do they earn from that time? That is their way of working. There is not enough oxygen to guarantee the safety of young people. You cannot depend on the kindness of an executive, especially one who has shown no interest in these problems.
Did you face pressure from Meta when you took the step to make this information public?
Fortunately, in the US, being a witness to a public welfare issue grants great protection. In that sense, I did not face pressure. I have, however, endured many reputational attacks from Meta to undermine my credibility. When you cross the line in front of these giants as I have, you know that your life will completely change. You start from scratch.
Your work at Meta was highly paid. Have you had trouble finding a good job again?
I am living off my savings. The tech companies that could hire me do not call me. I have been very careful in trials to maintain my independence. I accept it, and what I did was not, let's say, to write a book like others do, which I respect and think is fine, but my motive was different.
What is your stance on the dilemma of banning social networks for minors? More and more states are joining this.
I support it in the current context of platforms because Instagram, TikTok, or Snapchat are not designed for the well-being and safety of minors but to extract their attention and connect them with strangers. Kids deserve safe online spaces for them. If you look at Instagram, it took them 10 years to include protection measures because they did not want to. Let me ask you: what percentage of Spanish youth has suffered sexual harassment on social networks in the past month?
I don't know.
Exactly. That's what I mean. What I want to tell you is that until we have that answer, how will we know if these measures will work? The focus on the online safety of young people must be results-based, not effort-based. That is why your country's government must know with certainty the percentage I asked about since they have public health tools to find out. Data will provide us with answers. With data, you can tell the company, 'Look, I know that there is an 8% of Spanish 11-year-olds on Instagram, your job is to find their accounts and close them.' Then you decide what the appropriate age is for any restriction. You cannot argue that it is not possible to detect minors...
But there are more difficulties. I did a report on the impact of the ban in Australia and found that parent associations had changed their minds and wanted to reverse it. They had noticed that their children, when they enter the networks with a fake profile, no longer tell them anything if they encounter, for example, a harasser. The fear of doing something illegal makes them stay silent.
When it is said that children use fake profiles to evade restrictions, one must consider that if this happens, it is the company's fault, which has the absolute capacity to detect and prevent it. That is the mistake in the debate in Australia. I managed the team that built Meta's infrastructure to detect fake accounts, created by teams with all the resources, engineers, and server systems. I'm talking about the Real Madrid or Barcelona of technology. Do you think a 13-year-old can score a goal against Real Madrid? The same goes for Meta.
The companies' strategy against regulation has been to shift responsibility to parents.
It's like a beverage manufacturer announcing that they have created a cherry-flavored drink with 30% alcohol and define it as nutritious and safe, the safest in the world. Not only that, this manufacturer tells parents that they will decide if their children will drink it, but at the same time, the manufacturer will give it for free to all children worldwide. Moreover, they do not plan to do anything if they consume it compulsively. It's like saying that parents are to blame for their children buying cigarettes. Companies and stores in these sectors have a certain responsibility in consumption, right? We have been in a world where Meta said that the blame was on your dad. That's why platforms have refused to publish these metrics. How can you assume that a percentage of Spanish children are experiencing sexual harassment on your product? What is the tolerable percentage that can be assumed? It's absurd. Imagine this is a lettuce company and you know that a number of their lettuces are bad because 30% of their customers have gotten sick from eating them. What should be done? Well, you have to withdraw the lettuce until you can prove it's not contaminated. Now we have to find out how many people are getting sick.
Are you optimistic about the future?
Yes, because I feel that more and more people are discussing how to find solutions to this problem, something that wasn't happening a couple of years ago. What has started with these agreements will change everything. In the long run, it will work, but, I repeat once again, we have to talk about results, not efforts.