Social Media CEOs to Come Under Senate Scrutiny
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 4 years ago • 52 commentsBy: Ryan Tracy and John D. McKinnon (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON—Chief executives of the largest social media companies will testify Wednesday before the Senate Commerce Committee in a hearing examining their platforms' role in shaping political discourse.
Less than a week before Election Day, members of the Republican-led panel are expected to question Facebook Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter Inc. CEO Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and YouTube owner Alphabet Inc., about their treatment of politically charged content, from advertising to news to candidates' posts.
The high-profile stage reflects bipartisan concern about the companies' increasingly central role in public debate and the distribution of news, although Republicans and Democrats are coming at the issue from different perspectives.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the panel's chairman, has accused the companies of censoring conservative views—a charge the executives dispute. The hearing will focus on what he calls the "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.
In testimony submitted to the Senate panel and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Zuckerberg said he supported changing Section 230, noting that "the debate about Section 230 shows that people of all political persuasions are unhappy with the status quo."
"I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it's working as intended," Mr. Zuckerberg is expected to say. "We support the ideas around transparency and industry collaboration that are being discussed in some of the current bipartisan proposals."
Mr. Wicker, in his opening statement, will say 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."
Democrats questioned Mr. Wicker's push to hold the hearing before next Tuesday's election but didn't object to calling the CEOs to testify. They are likely to ask about other topics, such as the spread of false information on social media and platforms' efforts to contain it.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), the top Democrat on the panel, 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 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.
As text messages, digital ads and social media continue to embed themselves deeper into our pandemic days and lives, an unprecedented amount of political mis- and disinformation threatens to disrupt the 2020 election. Illustration: Preston Jessee for The Wall Street Journal
In testimony submitted to the Senate panel and viewed by the Journal, 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. Dorsey also said more transparency around company practices should be required, a change that the Trump administration also has advocated. "I believe the best way to address our mutually-held concerns is to require the publication of moderation processes and practices, a straightforward process to appeal decisions, and best efforts around algorithmic choice," he said in prepared testimony.
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.
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.
Some on the right also have criticized YouTube's content moderation practices as well.
Mr. Pichai pushed back on those accusations. "We approach our work without political bias, full stop. To do otherwise would be contrary to both our business interests and our mission," he said.
—Jeff Horwitz contributed to this article.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
437 visitors
10 AM EST
Damn, someone tell Zuckerberg to get a little sun .........
I see that and i'm looking for a wooden stake and a hammer ....
Both sold on Amazon.
private business in america is under no obligation to lend credence to right wing conspiracy bullshit and fake news by allowing it on their platforms. don't like it? tough shit. set the wayback machine to 1939, destination berlin.
When it comes to free speech, neither private enterprise nor the university shall deny it
owners are allowed to exert control over the content displayed on their platforms, just like this one. don't like it? leave. I'll even help with the name of the new right wing free speech social media platform, 2facebook.
They were given special protections in their infancy by congress. They have used them with bias and Section 230 is most likely going to be radically reformed.
In other words a group of unelected elites can't decide what is or isn't hate speech. Their liability protections are now in jeopardy.
As they should be. No different than any other mass media source out there.
There are arguably bigger than any of the other more traditional media sources
Have you ever heard of Freedom of the Press?
This involves freedom of speech. Twitter is not putting out a story, they are acting as arbiters of other's speech.
Twitter has exactly the same rights as all other sites and publications to exercise editorial control of their own content. I cannot force the conservative press or conservative sites to publish liberal opinion or decide for them what are credible stories to publish any more than you can force the New York Times to publish Rush Limbaugh's opinions or stories from Storm Front, The John Birch Society or The Federalists.
It seems that you want different standards for liberal media than for conservatives...
There are other platforms. Editorial control of content is not censorship. You cannot have it both ways. I don't understand you thinking...
they're controlling the content in their own domain, just like you do in here, and yet you seem to have a problem with that. please explain.
Scroll down and see what I said in comment # 7
Private businesses can't discriminate.
Not when exercising editorial control of content which is not discrimination. Does the Daily Caller have to publish liberal opinions? Of course not. Freedom of the press includes freedom to decide what content to and what opinions not to publish.
That only counts for gay wedding cakes and such ......
No, it counts for all content in all privately owned media. Just like Fox News has control of its content so do social media sites...
The media is not a public accommodation...
Anyone else seen the latest Trump ad?
Prepare to laugh................
Lol
Hilarious
Over half of the people Trump hits with the hat in the video are named Hillary Clinton.
It's a loser in 2020.
There is not a single swing voter in this country that will vote for Trump this year because Hillary Clinton.
Please do try to lighten up a bit huh John?
It's funny as slapstick.
As a political ad it's worthless.
You can still chuckle a bit at the creativity...............one would hope.
It is a creative video.
I do not use social media .. it was something that I never understood - who gives a fuck if I had a onion bagel with cream cheese for brunch ... ? I went looking for an X from college - found him on Facebook ... never even had to contact him, his life was revealed on his home page. [still shaking head] banned Twitter from my home - all that said ... is the censorship of news articles for political content / disinformation (conspiracy will ALWAYS exist .. censorship on Facebook will not stop it) as important as finding a way to stop the horrible abuse many individuals have experienced / continue to experience on social media?
If one is to think back to 2016 ... the H. campaign spent a million + on Facebook political ads .. Russia spent somewhere around a 100k - yet it was Russia that supposedly influenced an election with disinformation ... ? Yes Russia meddled in the 2016 election - but I still wonder how much we would have heard about said meddling if H. had been elected instead of Trump .. Russia and Putin have been given soooo much power over the media and the American people - counterintelligence investigations / FISA warrants in search of a crime ... it would appear that white supremacist and Russia Russia Russia lurk around every corner ... just ask the main stream media disinformation machine.......!
I recommend watching The Social Dilemma .......
Peace!
Newsflash - The News Talkers is a social media site!
Newsflash? Yes dear...
P.s.... Perrie does not allow bullying anymore than she does disinformation .. but she respects the individual and their rights as members of the community .. as a good Republic should
So, out of curiosity, does that make us all public figures to an extent? And be careful how you reply. There is a reason for my query
Then you do participate on social media...
Don't be ridiculous!
I'm not. It is a serious question.
So what? Can I sue TNT for discrimination?
Am I illegally denied free speech if deleted?
Yes dear....
No, merely participating on social media sites does not make a person a public figure...
Hahaha.. an anonymous community of individuals being public figures .. interesting thought process
It was more of a lack of a thought process!
yes dear....
Uh huh..censorship alright...
The bottom line is that, once again, Conservatives are going to have to construct their own social media platform or they will be censorded.
gee, like no conservatives have ever thought of that before. can you show any successful examples? nope. what's the conservative plan B? buying it would be way too expensive and it would be abandoned by the primary targeted demographic of advertisers and consumers. better yet, intimidate the ownership to toss their control and brand of integrity aside and force them to legitimize unfounded bullshit that appeals to a diminishing demographic with less economic impact on their platform, without compensation. sorry, journalistic integrity is earned, not purchased.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Priceless!