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.
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024