Section 230 Hearing

Of course the big Section 230 hearing was a total disaster

What did you expect? A substantive policy discussion of the law that underpins the entire internet?

Of course the big Section 230 hearing was a total disaster

Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai testified virtually before the Senate Commerce Committee on Section 230.

Photo: Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images

Even before the Senate Commerce Committee's big Section 230 hearing kicked off on Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was promoting it like a WWE matchup between a hero and a heel. "The free speech champion takes on the czar of censorship," Cruz crowed Tuesday night in a tweet pushing a "Cruz v. Dorsey Free Speech Showdown."

It didn't take long Wednesday for the pro wrestling analogy to pan out: The hearing, featuring the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Google, was just as messy and about as intellectually stimulating. There was shouting. There were props. There was talk of strangling dogs and working refs and at least one excessively unkempt beard.

But over the course of the entire four-hour flogging, there was not much by way of substantive discussion of Section 230.

The hearing was, like so many hearings before it, just another opportunity for Republicans on the committee to accuse the tech leaders before them of liberal bias and for the Democrats on the committee to accuse the Republicans of partisan bullying. It also seemed like a great opportunity for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to put to use what he's learned on all of those silent meditation retreats.

Though he was accompanied, virtually, by Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai, Dorsey bore the brunt of the committee's questions. That was no accident. Twitter has been the most aggressive tech company in moderating President Trump's social media activity recently. Over the summer, Twitter took its first step toward reining in the president's tweets when it put warning labels on his tweets about mail-in ballots and shooting looters in Minnesota. That prompted President Trump to rush through an executive order, instructing various government agencies to rethink Section 230 protections.

Earlier this month, Twitter took a more heavy-handed approach to a viral New York Post story about Vice President Joe Biden's son, temporarily blocking anyone from so much as posting the story to Twitter. Twitter later reversed its stance on the Post story, and Dorsey acknowledged the company's mistake. That didn't stop the Republicans on the committee from repeatedly skewering that and other content moderation decisions Twitter has made recently.

But Dorsey, who in past appearances before Congress has repeatedly copped to Twitter's mistakes, instead defended many of Twitter's recent decisions that the committee's members raised. In one instance, committee chair Roger Wicker asked Dorsey why Twitter took action on President Trump's tweets before labeling another tweet from a Chinese communist party spokesperson, which falsely claimed that COVID-19 was being spread by the U.S. military.

Dorsey calmly stated that while the company did eventually label the COVID-19 tweet, Twitter prioritizes enforcement based on the "severity" of potential offline harm. "There are certainly things that we can do much faster," Dorsey said. "But generally, we believe that the policy was enforced in a timely manner, and in the right regard."

Dorsey similarly defended the company's decision not to take action on violently anti-Semitic tweets by Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei, in which he called for the removal of the "Zionist regime" through "armed resistance." "We did not find those to violate our terms of service, because we consider them saber rattling, which is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries," Dorsey said.

He added that the company had labeled President Trump's tweets about shooting looters in Minnesota, however, because "speech against our own people, or a country's own citizens, we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm."

The attention on Dorsey and on Twitter shielded Zuckerberg and Pichai from much scrutiny, save for a few tense moments when members pushed all three witnesses to say which newspapers they've fact-checked, which Democrats' posts have been suppressed and whether their employees were mostly conservative or liberal. The three CEOs mostly hedged or promised to follow up, though Zuckerberg conceded that his staff "skews left-leaning."

None of these cherry-picked examples from Republicans or questions designed to cast tech companies as arms of the Democratic Party did much to shed light on Section 230 or the updates that both parties agree it needs. Not that Democrats added much more to the discourse. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii declined to ask any questions at all, calling the hearing "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 the election."

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana called some of the Republicans' accusations "baloney, folks."

That may be true. But it doesn't mean there aren't lots of real, hard questions about Section 230 to be asked of these powerful men. With a handful of exceptions, questions about the actual law were scarce.

In fact, the most substantive proposals for how to update Section 230 came from Dorsey himself, who laid out a three-point plan for expanding Section 230, including requiring tech platforms to publish their moderation guidelines, institute an appeals process and create a system by which people could choose the algorithms that filter and rank content on their feeds.

These, of course, would be relatively easy for Twitter, Facebook and Google to comply with, as all of those companies already publish their guidelines and allow for appeals. And none of those updates would address the problem of, say, revenge porn sites being protected from liability under Section 230 or dating apps willfully ignoring the offline harassment their users are facing as a result of their online connections.

But after four hours of fighting, those proposals are as far as anyone got. And who could be surprised? Cruz, after all, didn't promise solutions. He only promised a show.

Protocol | Workplace

This startup will fire unvaxxed workers. Big Tech won’t say the same.

In an industry built for remote work, will companies fire workers who refuse to get vaccinated?

Several big tech companies stopped short of saying whether they would fire workers for not getting vaccinated.

Illustration: simplehappyart via Getty Images

As employers wait for the Department of Labor to issue a new rule requiring employee vaccine mandates, a big question looms: Will companies fire workers who don't comply?

Many of the tech giants won't say. A couple of companies have confirmed that they won't: Both Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Pure Storage said vaccination is not a condition of employment, though it's required to come to the office.

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.


Keep Reading Show less
Nasdaq
A technology company reimagining global capital markets and economies.

With Andrew Bosworth, Facebook just appointed a metaverse CTO

The AR/VR executive isn't just putting a focus on Facebook's hardware efforts, but on a future without the big blue app.

Andrew Bosworth has led Facebook's hardware efforts. As the company's CTO, he's expected to put a major focus on the metaverse.

Photo: Christian Charisius/Getty Images

Facebook is getting ready for the metaverse: The company's decision to replace outgoing CTO Mike "Schrep" Schroepfer with hardware SVP Andrew "Boz" Bosworth is not only a signal that the company is committed to AR and VR for years to come; it also shows that Facebook execs see the metaverse as a foundational technology, with the potential to eventually replace current cash cows like the company's core "big blue" Facebook app.

Bosworth has been with Facebook since 2006 and is among Mark Zuckerberg's closest allies, but he's arguably gotten the most attention for leading the company's AR/VR and consumer hardware efforts.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Protocol | Fintech

Here’s everything going wrong at Binance

Binance trades far more crypto than rivals like Coinbase and FTX. Its regulatory challenges and legal issues in the U.S., EU and China loom just as large.

Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao is overseeing a global crypto empire with global problems.

Photo: Akio Kon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Binance, the largest global crypto exchange, has been hit by a raft of regulatory challenges worldwide that only seem to increase.

It's the biggest example of what worries regulators in crypto: unfettered investor access to a range of digital tokens finance officials have never heard of, without the traditional investor protections of regulated markets.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Protocol | Policy

Facebook’s scandals have obliterated any goodwill left in Congress

Lawmakers were supposed to wade into questions about Big Data's effect on competition. Instead, their vitriol at Facebook was unending.

Image: Alexander Shatov/Unsplash

In the wake of last week's damning series of reports about Facebook, senators at a hearing that was initially supposed to be about competition instead unleashed their ire on the firm, comparing it to Big Tobacco, suggesting it lied to Congress and all but accusing the social network of profiting off teens' anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

The bipartisan parade of fury on a politically salient issue lasted hours on Tuesday. Senators focused particularly on a Wall Street Journal report about the company's careful research into the corrosive effect of Instagram on young users' mental health. But the show, coming during a hearing that was supposed to examine the impact of Big Data on competition, was also the latest evidence that Congress' periodic fits of anger at tech companies and the way Facebook obsessively deflects can create a loop that gets in the way of what Washington actually wants to do.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories