Srs Bsns: Dorsey And Zuckerberg Face Harsh Questions Over Social Media’s Battle With Moderation, And The Possible Fate Of Section 230

Yesterday marked the second congressional appearance for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in less than a month, and though the ultimate conclusion to these hearings has yet to be determined, potential revisions of Section 230 discussed by senators could mean big changes are on the horizon for the internet and social media.

At the end of October, both Zuckerberg and Dorsey (as well as Google’s Sundar Pichai) met with congress at a highly partisan hearing that had Republicans clamoring for a more hands-off approach to online free speech and Democrats pushing for more aggressive patrolling — demonstrating a stark contrast between the two parties and their views on the role of big tech and social media companies.

Though this week’s hearing was a bit more hospitable than October’s, lawmakers seemed even more determined to crack down on social media platforms, including frequent discussions about addressing Section 230 that shields such internet companies from liability over user-generated content. Other key topics of conversation revolved around misinformation, primarily surrounding the recent 2020 election, and political bias against conservatives stemming from the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If you’re still not sure what all of this means for the future of the web, social media and how it could impact you personally, here’s a quick breakdown of how this could affect the online world in the years to come … assuming that something actually does come from all of these hearings in the end.

Over the course of the four-hour session, which included upwards of 130 questions, over half of the time spent revolved around the issue of content moderation. Senators from both sides of the aisle grilled Zuckerberg and Dorsey over how their platforms carried out this process, but the two political parties seemed split on what was most important.

For much of their discussion, Democrats honed in on how increasing content moderation might prevent the spread of violence, misinformation and hate speech. Democratic senators like Richard Blumenthal cited recent events such as Steve Bannon’s Facebook account remaining active despite his suggestion of violence against Dr. Anthony Fauci, alleging that the companies weren’t going far enough to moderate such harmful content.

On the other hand, Republicans heavily dominated this topic in terms of the sheer number of questions asked, mostly regarding the process of how Facebook and Twitter determined what content to moderate. Republican senators, such as Ted Cruz, also insistently questioned the two CEOs about how they could scale back their moderation due to concerns over censoring conservative voices.

Though no official study or investigation into the censorship bias perceived by conservative voices on either platform has ever confirmed this, the topic has been perhaps the largest point of focus for Republicans during these hearings. According to them, most of the social media giants or big tech companies spend an uneven amount of effort labeling or outright removing posts from conservatives vs. that of liberals. Once again, both CEOs doubled down on maintaining that their political affiliations have no connection to how they enforce policies or rules.

Republicans aren’t alone in their claims of social media sites censoring political viewpoints either. In August, the Pew Research Center published a study of how Americans perceived this issue, and its findings concluded that roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults say it is “very” or “somewhat likely” that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable.

This viewpoint is most commonly held by Americans who identify themselves as Republicans, mirroring the claims addressed in this week’s hearing, with nine-in-ten who lean toward the Republican Party responding that “it’s at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.”

Curiously, after Twitter fact-checking parodies have become a noteworthy trend in the last couple of weeks, Dorsey came under fire from both parties regarding his platform’s labeling of tweets. During the 2020 election, Twitter decided to add labels to certain tweets if they included false or misleading information. President Donald Trump himself even had several of his own tweets labeled as such during election week, inspiring other users around the web to create a series of memes that spread to sites from 4chan to Twitter.

While Republicans stated this practice displayed a bias against conservatives, Democrats hammered Twitter for not going far enough. Dorsey responded to these accusations by defending Twitter’s decision in an attempt to remove himself from the debate between the two sides, but conceded that some of the tweets were mistakenly labeled when no policies were violated. About this issue, Dorsey added that moderation was challenging and “something that feels impossible.”

In the end, Democrats and Republicans did agree on one thing: both Twitter and Facebook have been inconsistent in how they enforce their policies, as well as the need for more regulation and oversight of the industry as a whole. Expressing concerns over past instances where the two platforms have chosen to moderate user content, politicians agreed that more visibility is needed as to why they take steps to remove or label posts and how they ultimately determine where to aim the banhammer.

These calls for more regulation could, quite possibly, allude to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act being reevaluated in the near future. Both parties brought up 230 during the hearing, which isn’t the first time its faced scrutiny this year, citing claims that platforms like Twitter and Facebook are publishers and shouldn’t be protected.

As a potential target for reform by lawmakers seeking to break this key legal shield of online platforms, Section 230 coming under increasingly adamant fire from Democrats and Republicans alike would undoubtedly have some massive repercussions for the internet. That being said, hearings so far haven’t produced any concrete plans for reform of 230, but it does appear to be a growing possibility … and one that could drastically change the internet as we currently know it.

If you want to check out the full Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for yourself, view it in all its exhilarating four-hour glory below.