Frances Haugen: “When platforms had to choose between safety and profits, they chose profits” 

During her intervention at the Global Digital Rights Forum, data expert and whistleblower behind the ‘Facebook Files’, Frances Haugen, called on brands to allocate a small percentage of their advertising investment to online platforms that comply with transparency standards. 

Giuliano da Empoli: “We already have laws and we are not applying them because of fear and geopolitical considerations. Laws can be debated. They are smart laws, so let’s start by enforcing them.” 

Carl Öhman: “People care about the land where their relatives are buried. We should now be able to tell platforms whether we want them to be shut down or not.” 

Transparency among platforms and the protection of young people in digital environments have been at the centre of discussions during the second day of the Global Digital Rights Forum, organised in Barcelona by the Government of Spain and Mobile World Capital within the framework of the Digital Rights Observatory. The event featured the participation of data expert and whistleblower behind the ‘Facebook Files’, Frances Haugen, who criticised the lack of transparency among major social media platforms and their prioritisation of profits without considering the impact of their content. In her view, “when platforms had to choose between public safety and profits, they chose profits”. 

Haugen recalled that “for a time, it seemed that things had changed and that platforms were aware of the negative effects of their services, but those lessons did not last”. The expert lamented that this is no longer the case and argued that “we can now appear before a judge with documents explaining how these tools operate and demand full information about what our children are consuming”. 

Haugen defended the use of legal action, referring to a recent Los Angeles jury ruling in favour of a class action lawsuit alleging that platforms designed addictive and harmful algorithms targeting minors. “A penalty of six million dollars in compensation for harm caused to a single person may seem irrelevant, but it matters, because if there are 150,000 affected children in the United States, the figure rises to a trillion dollars. These are numbers that create consequences.” 

Regarding the current functioning of platforms, Haugen stated that “they are focused on the attention economy: people provide attention, platforms sell it, and advertisers buy it. That means they can worsen the user experience and still continue to generate profits, provided they improve the way they retain attention.” 

To change this paradigm, the expert called for progress towards “a digital business model that prioritises user trust”. In order to encourage this shift, Haugen presented an initiative urging brands to allocate 10% of their advertising investment to platforms and social networks that comply with certain transparency standards, such as publishing metrics on their real impact on users. 

Among the measures proposed is the implementation of regular user surveys, particularly involving minors, in order to assess the real impact of social media on issues such as addiction, sleep, academic performance and exposure to unwanted content. She also called for a genuine commitment from platforms to share the results of these surveys “to promote transparency with users”. 

Within this context, Haugen highlighted regulatory initiatives such as those promoted by the European Union, which have made progress in demanding greater transparency, although they continue to face resistance from major platforms. 

Digital rights in the face of the new “digital chaos” 

Giuliano da Empoli, president of the Volta think tank and author of the bestselling novel The Wizard of the Kremlin, explored in his keynote speech how political actors use data and algorithms to influence entire societies. Through his analysis, he examined the logic of “digital chaos”, an environment in which virality and polarisation become instruments of power, redefining the rules of democratic engagement. 

Referring to the regulation of the digital environment, Da Empoli cited “the American model, where they are powerful, but incredibly dystopian”. He also referred to the Chinese model, “where they have understood that this is fundamentally a question of power, not merely something political or economic”. Finally, regarding the European model, he concluded that it represents “a democratic model for digital technology and AI, which is entirely possible but does not yet truly exist”. 

Da Empoli contributed to the debate on whether digital rights can establish effective limits to these forms of influence in order to rebalance power between citizens, platforms and governments in the digital age. “There is an alliance between populists who want to return to the past and post-human visionaries who want to move beyond the human condition. You do not need to agree on the final objective, only on what you want to get rid of — namely, whatever limits your power,” he explained. 

Data and post-mortem privacy 

During the second day of the 1st Global Digital Rights Forum, Oxford Internet Institute researcher and digital legacy specialist Carl Öhman took part, alongside Simona Levi, activist and promoter of the digital rights advocacy platform Xnet, in a discussion on how to protect our digital legacy — including social media profiles, images, recordings and biometric traces — after death. 

Among the issues addressed during the session were the management of digital identity after death, the monetisation of digital memory, and the role of platforms, families and institutions in decision-making. 

“Over the next three decades, 2.2 billion people will die and leave behind vast amounts of data. By 2060, there will be more deceased Facebook users than living ones. This data constitutes the digital heritage of societies. Whoever controls that data will control how societies relate to their collective past,” explained Öhman. 

The session highlighted the need for a legal framework capable of guaranteeing privacy limits beyond life itself.