By Ryan Tracy and John D. McKinnon
WASHINGTON -- Chiefs of the largest social-media companies
tangled with U.S. senators over their role in public discourse six
days before the end of an election that has made the executives the
target of bipartisan criticism.
Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter Inc. CEO
Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and YouTube owner
Alphabet Inc., have spent the years since the 2016 election
rewriting their policies and taking a more active role in
moderating online speech -- in part to avoid a spotlight like the
one placed on them Wednesday.
Instead, the Senate Commerce Committee hearing reflected deep
discontent with social-media platforms' power and equally deep
divisions about how to address it.
Republicans are pushing to update part of a 1996 law known as
Section 230 that helps shield internet platforms from liability for
user-generated content, claiming it has been misused to censor
conservative views.
Democrats also want to review Section 230 but on Wednesday
raised differing concerns about the platforms, including asking
whether the companies are taking adequate steps to guard against
disinformation campaigns in what could be a chaotic aftermath to
next Tuesday's election.
"The issue is not that these companies before us today are
taking too many posts down. The issue is that they are leaving too
many dangerous posts up," said Sen. Ed Markey (D., Mass.).
In a series of testy exchanges with senators over the nearly
four-hour hearing, which was conducted via webcast, the CEOs
expressed varying degrees of openness toward changing Section 230
but denied any political bias.
Mr. Dorsey faced perhaps the harshest questions, including about
Twitter's labeling some of President Trump's tweets as misleading
and its decision to block users from linking to recent New York
Post articles concerning allegations against Democratic
presidential nominee Joe Biden, which his campaign has denied.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) accused Twitter of acting as a
"Democratic Super PAC" when it decided to block tweets of the
articles, including by the Post.
"Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the
media are allowed to report?" Mr. Cruz asked.
"I hear the concerns and acknowledge them," Mr. Dorsey said, but
he denied Twitter was favoring Democratic causes.
The company will now allow posts about the disputed Post
articles, though the newspaper's Twitter account remains blocked.
Twitter has told the Post its account will be reactivated once it
deletes the tweets, as others who posted about the articles have
done, Mr. Dorsey said. Upon reactivation, the outlet can post the
Biden stories without penalty, he said.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R., Colo.) questioned Twitter's decisions to
put labels on some posts by Mr. Trump but not others by Iran's
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatening Israel and
denying the Holocaust.
"I just don't understand how Twitter can claim to want a world
of less hate and misinformation while you simultaneously let the
kind of content that the ayatollah has tweeted out to flourish,"
Mr. Gardner said.
Mr. Dorsey said Twitter has policies against certain types of
false information, including "manipulated media, public health --
specifically Covid[-19] -- and civic integrity." Mr. Trump's
labeled tweets addressed mail-in voting, violent protests and the
coronavirus.
The Twitter chief said the company also has policies against the
incitement of violence, but he characterized the Iranian leader's
statements as newsworthy "sabre-rattling, which is part of the
speech of world leaders."
"Speech against a country's own citizens, we believe, is
different and could cause immediate harm," Mr. Dorsey said.
Democrats largely focused on other issues, including how the
tech companies share advertising revenue with local news publishers
that rely on the platforms to reach readers.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) questioned Mr. Zuckerberg over
studies suggesting Facebook's algorithms contribute to political
polarization.
"The way I look at it [is] more divisiveness, more time on the
platform -- more time on the platform, the company makes more
money," she said.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) warned that foreign powers
including Iran and Russia are "making 2016 look like child's play,"
referring to Moscow's widespread online interference efforts to
help elect Mr. Trump. Mr. Blumenthal asked whether the companies
have taken enough steps to prepare for curbing misinformation and
disinformation in a potentially volatile postelection period.
The CEOs said they have changed the way the handled
election-related content and worked with publishers. Mr. Zuckerberg
said most content on Facebook is positive, such as updates on
family events.
Some Democrats said the hearing could have a chilling effect on
tech companies' efforts to block misinformation and hate speech,
and accused Republicans of holding it for political purposes in the
final days of the race.
Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.) dismissed the hearing as a "cheap
stunt" aimed at pushing the platforms to allow misinformation to
remain online and to raise doubts about the election. He charged
that the directive to hold the hearing came "straight from the
White House." The White House didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.
A committee source said the panel authorized subpoenas for CEOs
two weeks before the New York Post articles were published. The
panel first asked the executives to testify in September and
threatened to subpoena them six days later.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, the
hearing's focus, gives online companies broad immunity from legal
liability for user-generated content and wide latitude to control
what appears on their platforms.
Senate Republicans are pushing legislation to rewrite the law,
and the GOP-led Federal Communications Commission has begun a
rule-making review that could lead to scaling back liability
protections for internet platforms.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the panel's chairman, opened the
hearing by saying the liability shield has "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."
The tech executives defended Section 230 but signaled some
openness to changes in the law. 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 expressed willingness
to consider moderate changes, particularly around transparency and
accountability.
"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."
While Mr. Dorsey backed improving transparency around company
practices, he cautioned against changes that could burden smaller
tech firms.
"We mustn't entrench the largest companies any further," he
said, hinting at Twitter's smaller size relative to Facebook's.
Mr. Pichai didn't close the door to change but warned of
unintended consequences for businesses and consumers.
He also pushed back on accusations of bias, saying, "Let me be
clear: We approach our work without political bias, full stop."
Some see Google's YouTube video unit as a significant source of
election-related misinformation, and many conservatives contend
that Google's ubiquitous search function is biased against their
points of view.
Republicans focused on Twitter's blocking and Facebook's
limiting of the disputed New York Post articles, which the outlet
said were based on email exchanges with Hunter Biden, the
Democratic candidate's son, and provided by allies of Mr. 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.
Mr. Wicker recently introduced legislation with two other
Republican senators to curb Section 230's reach. Their bill's main
provisions would reduce the companies' latitude to police content
by tightening standards for material that can be removed or
restricted but would still maintain the protection.
Companies would be free to remove content that is considered
lewd or harassing, for example. But the measure would limit the
platforms' ability to censor material deemed "otherwise
objectionable" under Section 230. Critics say that provision of the
law has given the companies too much leeway. Instead, content could
be removed under the GOP bill only 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 17:40 ET (21:40 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024