Here’s what you need to know:
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai appear at a hearing for the House’s Energy and Trade Committee on how disinformation is spreading across their platforms.
VideoFacebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey remotely testify ahead of the congress about “misinformation and disinformation plaguing online platforms”.recognitionRecognition…Pool photo by Greg Nash
Recognition…Energy and Trade Committee on YouTube
Democratic lawmakers accused the executives of spreading disinformation online, reflecting their growing frustration with the spread of extremism, conspiracy theories and lies on the Internet after the January 6 riot at the Capitol.
Her comments opened the first hearing since President Biden’s inauguration with Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook, Sundar Pichai from Google and Jack Dorsey from Twitter. They were a signal that the review of Silicon Valley business practices with the Democrats in the White House and the leadership of both chambers of congressional will not let up, and may even intensify.
The January uprising made the issue of disinformation very personal to many lawmakers. Some participants have been linked to online conspiracies like QAnon, which the platforms have been trying to contain for the past few months.
“We fled when a mob desecrated the Capitol, the floor of the house and our democratic process,” said Pennsylvania Democrat Mike Doyle. “This attack and the movement that motivated it began and was nurtured on your platforms.”
Legislators argued that the platforms would also have enabled misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic.
Legislators ‘growing frustration comes when they consider whether the platforms’ business models should be more strictly regulated. Some have proposed changing a legal shield protecting websites from complaints about content posted by their users, arguing that it will allow companies to avoid negligence in monitoring their products.
Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said Thursday that executives should take away that “self-regulation is at the end of its path”.
Recognition…Energy and Trade Committee on YouTube
Republican lawmakers came to the hearing to dampen the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but their animus focused on the platforms’ decisions to ban right-wing figures, including former President Donald J. Trump, for incitement to violence.
The decision to ban Mr. Trump, many of his employees and other conservatives, is a liberal bias and censorship.
“We are all aware of Big Tech’s increasing censorship of conservative voices and their commitment to the radical progressive agenda,” said Bob Latta, senior Republican on the House’s communications and technology subcommittee.
Following the riot at the Capitol, Mr. Trump and some of his top aides were temporarily or indefinitely banned from major social media sites.
Mr Latta’s comments are expected to be repeated by many Republicans in the hearing. They say the platforms have become information gatekeepers and they accuse companies of suppressing conservative views. The claims have been consistently refuted by scientists.
Mr. Latta discussed the legal shield known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and whether the big tech companies deserve regulatory protection.
“Section 230 gives you liability protection for decisions to moderate content that are made in good faith,” said Latta. But he said the companies appear to have used their moderation powers to censor points of view that the companies disagree with. “I find that very worrying.”
The executives of Facebook, Alphabet and Twitter are expected to face tough questions from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Democrats have focused on disinformation, especially after the Capitol uprising. Republicans have already questioned companies about their decisions to remove conservative personalities and stories from their platforms.
New York Times reporters have covered many of the examples that may come up. Here are the facts you should know about them:
How a knife stab reverberates in Israel through the battle for online language
After his son was stabbed to death by a member of the Hamas militant group in Israel in 2016, Stuart Force ruled that Facebook was partially responsible for the death as the algorithms that power the social network helped spread Hamas’ content. He, along with relatives of other victims of terrorism, sued the company, arguing that its algorithms aided the crimes by regularly reinforcing posts that encouraged terrorist attacks. Arguments about the performance of the algorithms have reverberated in Washington.
What is Section 230? Legal shield for websites is targeted by lawmakers
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has helped Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and countless other Internet companies thrive. However, Section 230 liability coverage extends to marginal websites known for their hate speech, anti-Semitic content, and racist tropes. As the scrutiny of large technology companies in Washington intensified on a variety of topics, including how to deal with the spread of police disinformation or hate speech, Section 230 came back into focus.
Facebook is voting down the policy for users
After sparking political discourse around the world, Facebook is trying to lower the temperature. The social network began changing its algorithm to reduce the political content in users’ newsfeeds. Facebook previewed the change earlier this year when Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s executive director, said the company was experimenting with ways to curb divisive political debates among users. “One of the most important feedback we are hearing from our community right now is that people don’t want politics and struggles to take over their experience of our services,” he said.
From electoral fraud to vaccine flights: misinformation peddlers shift gears
When the electoral college confirmed the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr., misinformation about electoral fraud subsided. But online lie dealers have been spreading lies about the Covid-19 vaccines. Republican Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, as well as far-right websites like ZeroHedge have started posting fake vaccine reports, researchers said. Their efforts were reinforced by a robust network of anti-vaccination campaigners like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
In Pulling Trump’s megaphone, Twitter and Facebook show where power lies now
In the end, two billionaires from California did what legions of politicians, prosecutors and brokers had tried and failed for years: They pulled the plug on President Trump. Journalists and historians will spend years unpacking the improvisational nature of the bans and examining why they arrived when Mr. Trump lost his power and the Democrats were ready to take control of Congress and the White House. The bans have also fueled a debate about freedom of expression that has simmered for years.
Recognition…Pool photo by Almond Ngan
In the fall of 2017, when Congress asked Google, Facebook and Twitter to testify about their role in Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the companies did not send their directors – as required by law – and instead called their lawyers to stand up to the fire .
During the hearings, politicians complained that the General Counsel was answering questions about whether corporations had helped undermine the democratic process, rather than “the top people who actually make the decisions,” like Senator Angus King more independent of Maine, it put it.
It was clear that Capitol Hill wanted its pound of CEO meat and that hiding behind lawyers wouldn’t work for long. That initial concern about how Silicon Valley chiefs would deal with the grilling of lawmakers is no longer a concern. After a number of virtual and face-to-face hearings over the past few years, executives have had a lot of practice.
Since 2018, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, has testified three times. Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, has made four appearances, and Mark Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook, has testified six times.
And if the three men are interviewed again on Thursday, they will do so now as seasoned veterans to deflect the most vicious attacks and then redirect them to their carefully trained topics of conversation.
In general, Mr Pichai tends to politely and quickly disagree with the sharpest nudges of lawmakers – for example, when Mr Pichai was asked last year why Google steals content from honest companies – but no harp. Often times, when a politician tries to pin him down on a particular issue, he relies on a well-known delaying tactic: my staff will get back to you.
Mr. Pichai is not a dynamic tech leader with a personality cult like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, but his low-key demeanor and seriousness lend itself well to the congressional spotlight.
Mr. Zuckerberg has also become more comfortable with the hearings over time and emphasized what the company is doing to combat misinformation. When he first appeared in 2018, Mr. Zuckerberg was contrite and promised to do better if he didn’t protect user data and prevent Russian interference in elections.
Since then, he has spread the message that Facebook is a platform forever, carefully outlining the steps the company is taking to stamp out disinformation online.
Since the sessions were virtual during the pandemic, Mr. Dorsey’s appearances, bent over a laptop camera, have a completely different zoom character compared to the dimly lit, neutral backdrops for the Google and Facebook bosses.
Mr. Dorsey tends to be extremely calm – almost zen-like – when pushed with aggressive questions, and is often concerned with technical issues that are rarely forbidden from follow-up.
Video
recognitionRecognition…By Sean Dong
In today’s On Tech newsletter, Shira Ovide explains that the debate in section 230 reflects our unease about the power of big tech and our desire to hold someone accountable.
Comments are closed.