Tech CEOs Face Congress Over Section 230, But Members Mostly Pick Partisan Fights

The CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, and Google faced off against the Senate Commerce Committee today, ostensibly over whether they should be held liable for the content their users post.

But the discourse fell along party lines, with Republicans pushing the companies on whether they censor conservatives and several Democrats arguing that the hearing itself was inappropriate given its proximity to Election Day.

When the discussion did turn to what's known as Section 230, the CEOs issued cautious support for an evaluation of the law, but urged lawmakers to consider the unintended consequences of stripping Section 230 protection entirely.

Some background: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act holds that internet platforms are not responsible for the content posted by their users, as long as they make a good faith effort to remove anything that might run afoul of the law. It's made headlines in the last year amid complaints from President Trump and other conservatives that their posts are being fact-checked, labeled, or not featured as prominently in search results or recommendations.

In May, Trump signed an executive order intended to prevent US social media companies from censoring conservative viewpoints. Earlier this month, the FCC said it has the power to interpret Section 230 and intends on clarifying the law’s scope. The least legally dubious route to changing or updating Section 230, however, is via Congress.

'Collapse How We Communicate on the Internet'

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey forcefully backed Section 230 protections, calling it "the internet’s most important law for free speech and safety.

"Weakening Section 230 protections will remove critical speech from the internet," he said, "leaving only a small number of giant and well-funded technology companies."

He backed building "upon the foundational framework of Section 230" with things like publishing details about Twitter's moderation process, a straightforward appeals process, and better algorithm choice (like choosing between the "home" and "most recent tweets" feed).

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was a little more open to Section 230 changes. "Section 230 made it possible for every major internet service to be built and ensured important values like free expression and openness were part of how platforms operate," he said. "Changing it is a significant decision. However, I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended.

"I would encourage this committee and other stakeholders to make sure that any changes do not have unintended consequences that stifle expression or impede innovation," he said.

Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, meanwhile, argued that Section 230 "has been foundational to US leadership in the tech sector." He too asked Congress to "be very aware of the consequences those changes might have on businesses and consumers.

"At the end of the day, we all share the same goal: free access to information for everyone and responsible protections for people and their data," Pichai said. "We support legal frameworks that achieve these goals."

Public Harm vs. Saber-Rattling

The bulk of the back and forth between the CEOs and GOP committee members, however, concerned if and how the companies censor conservatives online.

Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi took issue with how Twitter waited two months to label a tweet from a Chinese official who accused the US military of creating COVID-19, while it quickly applied a fact-check label to a President Trump tweet that called mail-in ballots "substantially fraudulent." (A "statement I agree with," Wicker said of Trump's tweet, which later drew a fiery rebuke from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell of Washington state, where mail-in ballots are the norm.) The Chinese official posted his tweet on March 12; Trump's tweet was posted on May 26.

"We’ve created these policies recently," Dorsey said. "There are certainly things we can do much faster, but generally, we believe the policy was enforced in a timely manner."

Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, meanwhile, asked Dorsey why a tweet from Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei of Iran that denied the Holocaust was allowed to remain online.

"We found it to be saber-rattling," Dorsey said. Speech directed at average citizens, however, like Trump's election- and COVID-related tweets, "is different and can cause harm."

Recommended by Our Editors

When Trump Takes on Twitter, We All Lose

FCC Moves to 'Clarify' Law That Trump Wants to Change to Regulate Big Tech

GOP Wants to Let You Sue Social Media Firms for $5,000 Over Censored Posts

The Chinese and Iranian officials have less than 1 million Twitter followers, while Trump has more than 87.3 million.

GOP members suggested that fact-checking or labeling President Trump's tweets are tantamount to censorship. All three companies maintained that they do not censor content, but provide context. In general, Dorsey said, Twitter takes action on tweets that include manipulated media, or include incorrect information about public health or civic integrity, like election interference. Twitter does not have a list of accounts that it monitors for offensive tweets and largely relies on people reporting posts they think run afoul of its terms.

"Even the people who believe in the strongest possible interpretation of the First Amendment still believe that there should be some limits on speech when it could cause immiment risk of physical harm," Zuckerberg argued, pointing to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example.

'A Hit Job on a Presidential Candidate'

The line of questioning from several Democrats focused on the whether the social networks, in particular Facebook, are doing enough to crack down on extremist groups and limit their reach. But most also took issue with the fact that the hearing was happening at all, calling it a sham event intended to drum up pro-Trump headlines days ahead of a presidential election.

"I have never seen a hearing so close to an election on any topic, let alone on something that is so obviously a violation of our obligation under the law and the rules of the Senate to stay out of electioneering," said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii. "What we are seeing today is an attempt to bully the CEOs of private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential candidate by making sure they push out foreign and domestic misinformation meant to influence."

Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois accused her GOP colleagues of "sink[ing] down to the level of Donald Trump...by placing [his] selfish interests...ahead of the health of our democracy."

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana called big tech companies "the unregulated Wild West that needs to be held accountable" and called on them to answer questions about data privacy, antitrust, and misinformation, but said it should happen next year. "My Republican colleagues arranged this hearing less than a week from Election Day for one specific reason: to make a last-ditch case based on shoddy evidence that these companies are censoring conservative voices.

"It is a stunt, and it is a cheap stunt at that," Tester added. "It is crystal clear that this hearing is designed to cast doubt on the fairness of the upcoming election, and to work with the platforms to allow bad information to stay up as Nov. 3 approaches."