GOOG Alphabet Inc

By Ryan Tracy and John D. McKinnon 

WASHINGTON -- Chief executives of the largest social-media companies testified Wednesday before the Senate Commerce Committee in a hearing examining their platforms' role in shaping political discourse.

Appearing via video streaming before the panel -- less than a week before Election Day -- were Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter Inc. Chief Executive Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and YouTube owner Alphabet Inc.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the panel's chairman, opened the hearing by accusing the companies of censoring conservative views -- a charge the executives dispute. He decried what he said are unintended consequences of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law that gives online companies broad immunity from legal liability for user-generated content and wide latitude to control what does or doesn't appear on their platforms.

Mr. Wicker said the liability shield has protected companies from "potentially ruinous lawsuits. But it has also given these internet platforms the ability to control, stifle and even censor content in whatever manner meets their respective 'standards.' The time has come for that free pass to end."

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), the panel's top Democrat, urged Republicans on the panel not to use the hearing to create a "chilling effect" on internet platforms' current efforts to block misinformation and hate speech. "We all know what happened in 2016," she added, recalling widespread Russian efforts to meddle online in the last presidential election. The big tech companies have stepped up their efforts to limit abuses since then.

In testimony delivered to the Senate panel, Messrs. Zuckerberg and Dorsey said they strive to balance users' right to free expression with the need to protect public safety. They argued Section 230 gives them the tools to strike that balance, though they appeared to signal openness to moderate changes.

Mr. Zuckerberg initially had technical difficulties connecting to the hearing to deliver his opening statement, causing Mr. Wicker to call a brief recess. Mr. Wicker said the tech billionaire's technical difficulties were a "most interesting development."

Once his connection worked, the Facebook founder said the debate about Section 230 shows the status quo isn't acceptable to members of both parties.

"I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it's working as intended," Mr. Zuckerberg said. "When a private company is making these calls, we need a more accountable process that people feel is legitimate and that gives platforms certainty."

Mr. Dorsey expressed openness to requiring more transparency around company practices, a change that the Trump administration also has advocated. But he warned against changes that would impose burdens on smaller tech firms. "We mustn't entrench the largest companies any further," he said, hinting at Twitter's relatively small size compared with Facebook.

Mr. Pichai didn't close the door to change but warned against unintended consequences. "As you think about how to shape policy in this important area, I would urge the Committee to be very thoughtful about any changes to Section 230 and to be very aware of the consequences those changes might have on businesses and consumers," he said.

He also pushed back on accusations of bias, saying: "Let me be clear, we approach our work without political bias. Full stop. To do otherwise would be contrary to both our business interests and our mission."

Some see Google's YouTube unit as a significant source of election-related misinformation, and many conservatives contend that Google's ubiquitous search function is often biased against their points of view.

As the hearing unfolds, Democrats are expected to ask about other topics, such as the spread of false information on social media and platforms' efforts to contain it.

Sen. Cantwell is expected to ask the CEOs about a report her office issued on Tuesday arguing the companies are endangering local news organizations.

Republicans are likely to focus on Twitter's blocking and Facebook's limiting of recent New York Post articles that made allegations about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, which his campaign has denied.

The Post said the articles were based on email exchanges with Hunter Biden, the Democratic candidate's son, provided by allies of President Trump.

The Justice Department weighed in Tuesday, writing to the Senate panel that the episodes show the need for Congress to pare back Section 230 immunity.

Twitter blocked users from posting links to the articles, initially citing a potential violation of its rules regarding hacked materials. The company later said the articles violated its policies on displaying private information like email addresses and phone numbers without a person's permission. Mr. Dorsey has said the company's failure to give context around its actions was "unacceptable."

Twitter's move came after Facebook also limited the distribution of the articles on its platform, saying it was awaiting guidance from its third-party fact-checking partners -- independent organizations that routinely review the accuracy of viral content. Facebook slowed the spread of the Post articles pending a decision by those partners. Facebook says such restrictions expire after a week if no fact-check is produced, which is what happened in the case of the Post's story.

A company spokesman said the action was in keeping with rules Facebook announced last year to prevent election interference. Facebook said in a blog post last October it would temporarily reduce distribution of certain content until the facts were better established to stem misinformation.

Mr. Wicker, the committee chairman, has recently introduced legislation along with two other influential GOP senators to curb the reach of Section 230. The bill's main provisions would narrow the scope of the companies' latitude to police content by tightening standards for material that can be removed or restricted while still maintaining the protection.

Companies would still be free to remove content that is considered lewd or harassing, for example. But the legislation would restrict the ability of companies to censor content that is considered "otherwise objectionable" under Section 230. Critics say that provision of the law has given the companies too much latitude. Instead, content could only be removed under the law for more specific findings of unsuitability, such as being excessively violent.

Write to Ryan Tracy at ryan.tracy@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

October 28, 2020 11:17 ET (15:17 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.