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 them the target of
criticism across the political spectrum.
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 hearing reflected deep discontent with social-media
platforms' power -- and equally deep divisions about how to address
it. The session featured partisan charges and countercharges as
well as frequent testy exchanges between senators and the CEOs.
Mr. Dorsey faced perhaps the harshest questions, including
queries about Twitter's decisions to label President Trumps' tweets
and to temporarily block users from linking to recent New York Post
articles that made allegations about 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,
adding that the answer is better transparency about platforms'
decision making. He denied that Twitter was favoring Democratic
causes and said the company reversed its decision about the Post
articles after recognizing it had been made in error.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R., Colo.) questioned Twitter's decisions to
label 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 limited categories
of false information, including "manipulated media, public health,
specifically Covid[-19], and civic integrity." Mr. Trump's labeled
tweets addressed mail-in voting and the coronavirus.
He said Twitter also has policies against the incitement of
violence but characterized the Iranian leader's statements as
newsworthy "sabre-rattling, which is part of the speech of world
leaders," adding "speech against a country's own citizens we
believe is different and could cause immediate harm."
Democrats on the panel termed the pre-election hearing a "sham"
and an "embarrassment." Some accused Republicans of trying to "work
the refs" by pressuring the CEOs to ease their content
restrictions.
"I'm not going to use my time to ask any questions, because this
is nonsense," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D., Hawaii). He cast the
hearing as part of a Republican effort "to bully the CEOs of
private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential
candidate."
The hearing's nominal topic was Section 230 of the 1996
Communications Decency Act, which gives online companies broad
immunity from legal liability for user-generated content and wide
latitude to control what appears on their platforms.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the panel's chairman, opened the
hearing by accusing the companies of censoring conservative views
-- a long-running charge by Republican lawmakers as well as the
president that the executives dispute. The liability shield, he
said, 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."
The tech executives defended Section 230, with Messrs.
Zuckerberg and Dorsey saying 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 said the debate showed 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," he 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, which the Trump administration also has
advocated. But he cautioned against imposing burdens on 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 outcomes. "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.
Democrats asked the CEOs about the spread of false information
on social media and platforms' efforts to contain it, as well as
how they share advertising revenue with local news publishers that
rely on the platforms to reach readers.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), the panel's top Democrat, urged
Republicans not to use the hearing to create a "chilling effect" on
internet platforms' attempts to block misinformation and hate
speech. "We all know what happened in 2016," she added, recalling
Russia's widespread online interference to help elect Mr. Trump.
The big tech companies have stepped up their efforts to limit
abuses since then.
"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.).
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.
In blocking users from linking to the articles, Twitter
initially cited a potential violation of its rules regarding hacked
materials. It 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 initial move came after Facebook also limited the
articles' distribution 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. The company says such restrictions expire after
a week if no fact-check is produced, which is what happened in the
case of the Post's content.
A Facebook spokesman said the action was in keeping with rules
announced last year to prevent election interference. Facebook said
in a blog post last October that it would temporarily reduce
distribution of certain content until the facts were better
established to stem misinformation.
Mr. Wicker recently introduced legislation along with two other
influential Republican senators to curb the reach of Section 230.
The bill's main provisions would reduce the companies' latitude to
police content by tightening standards for material that can be
removed or restricted while 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 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 law 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 14:04 ET (18:04 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024