Section 230 hearings live: Twitter, Facebook and Google CEOs testify before Congress | Technology
John Thune, Republican Senator of South Dakota is up now. He is taking issue with a metaphor apparently used by Democrats that lawmakers are “working the ref” when complaining about the censorship of conservative content, asking each executive if they are a referee.
All three say no. Zuckerberg repeats his old “we do not want to be the arbiters of truth” line.
Uh, what does this have to do with Section 230 again?
Democrat Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is now speaking. She said she believes Republicans are politicizing voter suppression ahead of the election – “an issue that should not be a partisan topic”.
Klobuchar said Facebook has made $2bn on political ads since 2018. She asks if these ads are reviewed by humans, Zuckerberg says no. She accuses Facebook of stoking divisiveness, citing studies that say the algorithms push people towards more polarized contentent.
“One of you researchers warned senior executives that our algorithms exploit the human brains attraction to divisiveness,” she said. “The way I look at it more divisiveness more time on the platform or time on the platform, the company makes more money. Does that bother you?”
Zuckerberg says he disagrees with that characterization.
The questioning so far has focused on forcing tech executives to answer to criticisms on the removal of specific content.
It is maybe worth noting that these executives do not personally moderate content.
Cory Gardner, Republican Senator of Colorado is coming out of the gates with a plain question for Dorsey: “Do you believe the Holocaust happened?”
Dorsey, of course, answers yes. Gardner would like to know why Twitter has not, then, removed Holocaust denial tweets from world leaders.
The Twitter CEO said misinformation on Twitter is not banned outright. Only three categories of misinformation are not allowed on the platform:
1) manipulated media
2) public health misinformation, specifically surrounding Covid
3) election interference and voter suppression.
So Holocaust denial, he said, is misleading information but “we don’t have a policy against that type of misleading information”.
Updated
Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan is videoing in now, he asks Zuckerberg if he believes Facebook has “a responsibility to offer app users who are on the path to radicalization by violent extremist groups.”
The question is particularly relevant for Peters, whose home state governor was the target of a thwarted kidnapping plot organized on Facebook.
Zuckerberg highlights that white supremacist organizations on Facebook are treated as terrorist organizations and enforced as such.
He said Facebook has created more partnerships with law enforcement to flag cases like that with the governor of Michigan earlier.
Wicker is rambling about which of Trump’s tweets have been labeled as misinformation and demanding to know why.
Dorsey noted that the company has special policies for global leaders, attempting to leave up content that is relevant to voters while labeling falsehoods.
“We want to make sure that we are respecting their right to speak and to publish what they need,” he said.But if there’s a violation of our terms of service, we want to label it.”
Already the hearing has become highly politicized, Republicans focusing on supposed censorship of conservative speech and leaders.
Now the tech CEOs are answering to questioning.
To start, Wicker is getting into specific details, asking Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey why a tweet from Trump casting doubt on mail-in ballots were labeled as potential misinformation while others were not. Specifically he wants to know why a Chinese Communist Party tweet “falsely accusing US military” of causing the coronavirus epidemic was left up for two months.
Dorsey is standing by the decision to flag Trump’s tweet.
“There are certainly things that we can do much faster,” he said. “But generally, we believe that the policy was enforced in a timely manner, and in the right regard.”
Updated
Zuckerberg talks about the struggle to set the “limits of online speech.”
“People can reasonably disagree about where to draw the lines,” he said. “We need a more accountable process that people feel is legitimate.”
Zuckerberg said he supports Congress to update Section 230 to “make sure it is working as intended”.
To do so he suggests the following:
- Make content moderation more transparent
- Separate bad actors from good actors by “making sure that companies can’t hide behind section 230, to avoid responsibility for intentionally facilitating the illegal activity on their platform”.
He goes on to talk about all the good things Facebook has done regarding content moderation and preparing for the elections.
OK Zuck is back. Understandably a lot of people think it is ridiculous that he couldn’t figure out how to get online for the hearing he was subpoenaed to appear.
Mark Zuckerberg is apparently MIA! The Facebook executive is reportedly having trouble connecting with the hearing.
The irony is probably not lost on anyone that the tech hearing is delayed because the tech executive can’t get his tech to work.
“This is a most unusual development,” Wicker said, before calling a 5 minute recess for Zuck to get his video chat figured out.
Now we have Sundar Pichai of Google, touting the company’s mission to improve access to information. He said Google is aware of the benefits and risks this brings.
“The internet has been one of the world’s most important equalizers,” he said. “Information can be shared and knowledge can flow from anyone, anywhere. The same low barriers to entry also make it possible for bad actors to cause harm.”
He touches on the Google’s efforts to support local journalism and defends the company’s practices.
“We approach our work without political bias. Full stop,” he said.
Dorsey leads with Twitter’s suggestions to improve section 230.
1) Requiring social media companies make the moderation process and the tools used to enforce policies be made public.
2) Requiring they make a straightforward appeal process available for users to call on companies to fix mistakes.
3) More transparency into algorithms
We are headed now to the opening statements. Each tech executive has five minutes to talk about their platform and Section 230. Jack Dorsey of Twitter is up first.
Now we have Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell giving her opening statements.
Cantwell spearheaded a report released on Tuesday outlining the ways social media firms have eroded local news coverage and led to the defunding of small publications over the years.
She said platforms haven’t done enough to prevent election interference, and criticized them for allowing users (presumably a reference to Trump) use their services to cast doubt on the election process and vote by mail system.
“We have to show that the United States of America stands behind our principles and that our principles do also transfer to the responsibility of communication online,” she said.
Wicker does not take long to get into the New York Post story that Twitter controversially reduced the reach of due to concerns over its content.
He said Twitter’s policy against “hacked materials” is overly broad and unfairly enforced. The company said it did not allow the Biden story to circulate because it contained hacked materials, but didn’t do the same when Donald Trump’s tax returns were leaked.
Some have criticized Wicker’s record on privacy in light of his demands today.
Good morning, we are off! Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker is opening the hearing with a pointed speech about ending the “free pass” tech companies get due to Section 230.
Hello and welcome to today’s Senate hearings, which will interrogate how the internet in the US is fundamentally regulated – fun!
I am one of the Guardian’s West Coast technology reporters and I will be providing you with live updates throughout the day.
You can catch up on everything you need to know about section 230 and today’s hearing with our preview story from yesterday.
In summary, the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, and Google will be answering to Congress about protections they are granted under Section 230, a law underpinning US internet regulation that exempts platforms from legal liability for content generated by its users.
Republicans (inaccurately) think this law is being used to censor conservative speech. Thus there will likely be a lot of focus on how these platforms moderate content. Other lawmakers have raised questions about Big Tech ahead of the hearings, including its effects on local news.
Stay tuned for updates.
Shared From Source link Breaking News