By Ryan Tracy
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers in both parties said social media
platforms hold too much sway over the information Americans see,
blaming them for an array of social problems at a hearing with the
chief executive officers of Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and
Alphabet Inc., which owns Google and YouTube.
The CEOs are appearing via video before a House panel Thursday
for the first time since the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, facing questions
about social media's role in fomenting the discord and their
subsequent decisions to suspend or ban former President Donald
Trump.
"We fled as a mob desecrated the Capitol," Rep. Mike Doyle (D.,
Pa.) recalled as he opened the hearing. "That attack and the
movement that motivated it started and was nourished on your
platforms. Your platforms suggested groups for people to join,
videos they should view and posts they should like, driving this
movement forward with terrifying speed and efficiency."
The government needs regulations and "audit authority of your
technologies," Mr. Doyle added. "We will legislate to stop this.
The stakes are just too high."
"I am deeply concerned about your decisions to operate your
companies in a vague and biased manner with little to no
accountability," said Rep. Robert Latta (R., Ohio). Americans, he
said, have "little to no recourse to appeal the decision" when
social-media platforms moderate content.
The hearing is a repeat performance for the executives. Facebook
Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg is making his fourth appearance
before Congress since last July, and it is the third for both
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai.
Those previous appearances exposed bipartisan unease about the
companies' power over American discourse, but also disagreement
among lawmakers about how to address it.
In written testimony submitted ahead of the committee hearing
Thursday, Mr. Zuckerberg said Congress should consider forcing
digital platforms to earn the legal immunity they enjoy hosting
third-party content, a legal change that could affect a range of
online businesses.
Mr. Zuckerberg suggested changes to Section 230, the law that
says platforms such as Facebook generally aren't liable for what
their users post.
"Instead of being granted immunity, platforms should be required
to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying
unlawful content and removing it," he said.
The comments were the most detailed yet from Mr. Zuckerberg on
the issue. He had previously signaled openness to changing Section
230 in more general terms.
Both Democrats and Republicans are concerned that Section 230
gives large tech companies too much leeway to decide what
information Americans see, though the parties have different
concerns.
The law, an element of the 1996 Communications Decency Act,
helped fuel the growth of social media by giving internet platforms
immunity for comments that users, reviewers, consumers and others
post on their sites.
Evan Greer, deputy director of the advocacy group Fight for the
Future, said her group opposes scaling back 230 protections on
grounds that doing so could devastate smaller platforms and
internet startups that don't have the resources of tech giants.
"Of course Facebook wants to see changes to Section 230," Ms.
Greer said. "Because they know it will simply serve to solidify
their monopoly power and crush competition from smaller and more
decentralized platforms."
Many Republicans think social-media platforms are removing too
much content under Section 230, while Democrats see them not
removing enough and allowing harmful content to spread.
To date, those divisions have stood in the way of any consensus
on how to change Section 230, and no bill to do so has gained
significant traction on Capitol Hill. Facebook has been publicly
supporting internet regulations for months, as it faces scrutiny
over alleged antitrust violations and its content-moderation
practices.
Twitter and Google have indicated that they are open to
discussing legal changes with Congress, but they have been less
specific than Facebook about what Section 230 changes they would
support.
"Regulation has an important role to play in ensuring that we
protect what is great about the open web," Mr. Pichai said in an
advance copy of his written testimony. "We are, however, concerned
that many recent proposals to change Section 230 -- including calls
to repeal it altogether -- would not serve that objective
well."
In his advance testimony, Mr. Dorsey said he agreed that
"technology companies have work to do to earn trust from those who
use our services."
His testimony didn't mention Section 230, but he has previously
cautioned lawmakers that some proposed changes could end up
favoring large companies with the budgets to navigate a more
complex regulatory environment.
Mr. Zuckerberg said Section 230 protection could be made
"conditional on companies' ability to meet best practices to combat
the spread of this content," referring to unlawful content.
"Platforms should not be held liable if a particular piece of
content evades its detection -- that would be impractical for
platforms with billions of posts per day -- but they should be
required to have adequate systems in place," he added. An "adequate
system" could be defined by a third party and could be
proportionate to a platform's size, he said.
Write to Ryan Tracy at ryan.tracy@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
March 25, 2021 13:04 ET (17:04 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2024 to Oct 2024
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Oct 2023 to Oct 2024