Tweet CEO Jack Dorsey testifies during a remote video hearing held by subcommittees of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Merchandising Committee on “Social Media’s Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation” in Washington, March 25, 2021.
U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Mercantilism | Handout | via Reuters
In what has become a regular occurrence in Congress, lawmakers faced off with the CEOs of three of the most significant tech platforms on Thursday in a five-and-a-half-hour hearing about misinformation.
The key legislative focus of the discussion was Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the judicial shield that protects platforms from liability for their users’ posts and allows them to moderate pleasure as they see fit. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey were the three substantiates before two subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee at the joint hearing.
At points, the exchanges took a tense modulation. Several times throughout the hearing, lawmakers attempted to conserve their time by asking “yes or no” questions, to which the CEOs firmly answered in full sentences. Dorsey sent a tweet during the testimony that seemed to mock the mode of confusion: A poll where users could simply choose either “yes” or “no.”
“Your multitasking skills are quite impressive,” suggested Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., after asking him which answer was winning.
There were still a few moments where lawmakers surfaced out of step. Several lawmakers mispronounced Pichai’s name and one misstated Zuckerberg’s as “Zuckerman.” One lawmaker initially confused Zuckerberg by inquiring about his family’s use of YouTube, a Google-owned service. When Zuckerberg clarified that was really what was being asked, it harked remote to the infamous moment when he had to explain to a senator how Facebook makes money by selling ads.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says during a remote video hearing held by subcommittees of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on “Social Media’s Place in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation” in Washington, March 25, 2021.
U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee | Handout | via Reuters
Even so, it appeared that lawmakers are itching to hold the major tech platforms accountable, and many are eager to do so through remedies to Section 230.
That prospect worries many tech advocates, including groups that are often critical of the larger platforms.
They fear that limitations of Section 230 protections will harm the smallest players by creating it more difficult to fight lawsuits, while well-resourced tech companies will be able to foot the bill. Evan Greer, numero uno of the progressive digital rights group Fight for the Future, said at an event ahead of Thursday’s hearing that hating Section 230 as a lever to incentivize behavior “is inherently a monopoly maker.”
Some lawmakers have expressed skepticism about Zuckerberg’s express willingness to see some reforms to Section 230, although the CEO emphasized at Thursday’s hearing that greater accountability should failure only on the largest platforms. Dorsey, who represented the smallest company on the witness stand Thursday, expressed concern that it wish be difficult to distinguish between what should count as a small and large platform for the purposes of such legislation.
What adjacent to the children?
Protecting children was a prominent theme in Republicans’ questioning on Thursday, suggesting how the two sides could come together to obsolete changes.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the ranking member of the full committee, set the tone in her opening remarks.
“I must two daughters and a son with a disability. Let me be clear,” she said in her written remarks. “I do not want you defining what is true for them. I do not pine for their future manipulated by your algorithms.”
McMorris Rodgers and several other Republicans talked about the bent health implications of social media on kids and how their safety could be jeopardized on the platforms. Some lawmakers questioned Zuckerberg on an Instagram-for-kids serving his company has been exploring for children under 13, who would not otherwise be eligible for Facebook’s services. Zuckerberg conjectured the project is in an early stage but that part of the goal is to give kids an alternative platform to sign up for so they don’t lie close by their age to access the regular service.
Some Democrats also expressed interest in the issue. Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., asked the CEOs about features of their kids-focused services that she implied could be harmful, such as endless scrolling, commendations and unnatural face filters. She also said it’s not enough to put the onus on parents to set up controls for their children.
“The last predilection overworked parents need right now, especially right now, are more complex to-dos, which is what parental leaderships are,” she said. “They need child-centric design by default.”
Sundar Pichai, Google testifies at congressional hearing, Walk 25, 2021.
There were other, more divisive issues as well. Some Republicans resurfaced allegations that the programmes systematically censor conservative voices, which the CEOs have all denied, and Democrats tried to assess the platforms’ impersonations in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
By the end of the hearing it was still unclear whether lawmakers have moved any closer to passing substantive reform. But the have a hunch of urgency among members was palpable.
As Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., told the CEOs at the start of the hearing, “Self-regulation has come to the end of its pike.”
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.