Politics

The hardest questions tech CEOs could be asked at the Section 230 hearing

There will be plenty of political point-scoring on Wednesday. But here's what senators should actually ask if they're serious about fixing the internet's favorite law.

The hardest questions tech CEOs could be asked at the Section 230 hearing

Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey are all set to testify before the Senate on issues related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Photo: Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images

Mark Zuckerberg, are your views on freedom of expression hypocritical? Sundar Pichai, are you ready for collective responsibility for online harm? Jack Dorsey, should revenge porn sites really have the same legal protections as Twitter?

Those are the kinds of hard questions that top experts on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act think could stop the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter in their tracks on Wednesday, when they're due to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation about how the law has enabled "bad behavior" by Big Tech.

In the past, when Zuckerberg, Pichai and Dorsey have appeared before Congress, they've been faced with a deluge of questions from lawmakers about how their companies favor or suppress various viewpoints, using cherry-picked examples of controversial content that was either taken down or left online. With Election Day just one week away and tensions about tech platforms' treatment of political discourse at an all-time high, Wednesday's hearing will surely feature plenty of that.

But this is the first Congressional hearing featuring these CEOs to focus on Section 230, and could provide lawmakers with the opportunity to develop their understanding of how Section 230 really ought to be updated. In case they're willing to look beyond partisan quarrels, Protocol asked some of the top experts on Section 230 the toughest questions they'd ask Zuckerberg, Pichai and Dorsey. Here's what they had to say:

There's bipartisan support for the PACT Act, which would mean that you couldn't use Section 230 as a defense if you leave content up after a judge orders you to remove it. Do you support this reform?

— Matt Perault, former Facebook director of public policy and current director of Duke University's Center on Science and Technology policy

This bipartisan bill, sponsored by Sens. Brian Schatz and John Thune, would make relatively light-touch changes to Section 230, including requiring platforms to explain their moderation policies, issue quarterly reports on moderation decisions and take down content deemed illegal in court within 24 hours. Facebook, Google and Twitter already comply with many of the provisions in the bill, but the Internet Association, which represents all three companies, has expressed concerns about it. Pinning these powerful CEOs down on their personal feelings about the legislation would be a meaningful contribution to the debate.

Let's say Congress repeals Section 230 tomorrow. How does that change your content moderation practices?

Jeff Kosseff, assistant professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department

Because Section 230 protects companies from liability for filtering out offensive or objectionable content, one concern is that by removing Section 230 protection altogether, tech companies would stop filtering content altogether. Kosseff posits the opposite is true: that companies would filter even more to limit their liability for whatever might be left up. What the CEOs might say in response could be telling.

How should the platforms address false statements and disinformation camouflaged as opinion? A statement that "I believe all Blacks are lazy" is not on its face an assertion of fact, but could be considered hate speech. What safeguards can ensure that any restrictions levied against such speech will be employed in the interest of public safety, and not merely to stifle a viewpoint with which a platform simply disagrees?

Lateef Mtima, professor of law at Howard University

Tech platforms are under increasingly intense pressure to crack down on hate speech against minority groups, particularly as research shows that Facebook, Twitter and Google have fanned the flames of racism in the U.S. and abroad. The platforms have recently taken action against speech that promotes real-world violence, but they're still working out how aggressively they should act against bigoted opinions. "There's not yet a perfect tool or system that can reliably find and distinguish posts that cross the line from expressive opinion into unacceptable hate speech," a Facebook executive wrote in 2017. This is an area where the platforms' stances are changing quickly, and it will be important to hear the executives' thoughts on it now.

In the physical world, collective responsibility is a familiar concept: A person can be partly responsible for harm even if he did not intend for it to happen and was not its direct cause. Do you believe that tech companies should continue to be granted a special exemption from the rules of collective responsibility? Why?

Mary Anne Franks, professor of law at University of Miami School of Law and president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative

There's an ongoing debate over why tech platforms aren't subject to the same liability that brick-and-mortar businesses face in the offline world. Steering the conversation toward addressing the actual harms that tech platforms facilitate, and not baseless accusations of political bias, would be one way to facilitate a more substantive conversation.

Would you support an amendment to Section 230 that excludes from protection any interactive computer service provider that manifests deliberate indifference to harmful content? Why or why not?

Franks

Though they often fail, Facebook, Google and Twitter arguably at least attempt to make their platforms safe for users. But Section 230 doesn't just protect companies that are trying to do the right thing and sometimes get it wrong; It also shields companies that either invite or completely ignore bad behavior. Tech companies spend so much time answering for their own misdeeds, they rarely get asked how the law ought to handle explicitly bad actors.

Narrowing Section 230 immunity doesn't mean platforms will automatically be held liable. Victims still must prove their case. If they have a credible claim they've been harmed at the hands of platforms, why should victims be denied an opportunity for justice?

— Neil Fried, founder of DigitalFrontiers Advocacy, former chief counsel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and SVP of the Motion Picture Association

Twitter, Facebook and Google have argued that reforming Section 230 could unleash a barrage of frivolous lawsuits against any company with an online footprint. But Section 230 has also been a major obstacle in court for very real victims of crimes facilitated by tech platforms, including genocide and online impersonation. Most judges throw out cases against the platforms immediately because Section 230 makes them so difficult to try. Section 230 reformers want to make it easier for victims to sue major online platforms for those harms. Tech giants have fought these cases vigorously in court but have rarely addressed them publicly.

Should a business that is knowingly facilitating an illegal activity be exempt from state and local criminal laws?

— Rick Lane, former 21st Century Fox SVP currently advising victim's advocacy groups on Section 230

Section 230 defenders often point out that the law doesn't protect companies from being charged with federal crimes. The subtext: If the feds are so concerned about criminal activity happening online, they should enforce the law themselves. But the counter-argument boils down to a lack of resources at the federal level. Opening platforms up to state and local criminal liability would essentially expand the number of cops on the beat. It could also invite more activist enforcement from politically appointed attorneys general.

How consistent are your defenses of 230 with the rest of your views around maintaining freedom of expression and preventing a chilling effect? Those values seem to vanish into the ether when it comes to removing NDAs that keep employees from exercising that same freedom of expression. Where is the fear of a chilling effect when company whistleblowers are intimidated, retaliated against, then fired without recourse?

— Ifeoma Ozoma, First Draft board member, former public policy and social impact manager at Pinterest

The tech executives will likely argue that reforming Section 230 could limit free expression online, potentially forcing the companies to more aggressively remove content posted by their billions of users. But their companies have been accused of silencing criticism by maintaining restrictive NDAs and firing employees who speak out. It could be revealing to hear Pichai and Zuckerberg in particular talk about their recent employee unrest and how they plan to navigate future internal dissent.

Your services enable users to treat each other awfully. However, people also treat each other awfully in the offline world. What specific steps does/will your service take to reduce the quantum of awful behavior on your service so that it is lower than the offline baseline of awfulness?

Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law

This question feels tailor-made for Dorsey, who has spoken at length about creating "healthier" conversations on Twitter. Tech CEOs are used to being grilled about all the ways they punish people for the bad things they do online, but there's often less of a focus on whether anything can be done to discourage people from doing so many bad things online in the first place.

The fast-growing paychecks of Big Tech’s biggest names

Tech giants had a huge pandemic, and their execs are getting paid.

TIm Cook received $82 million in stock awards on top of his $3 million salary as Apple's CEO.

Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Tech leaders are making more than ever.

As tech giants thrive amid the pandemic, companies like Meta, Alphabet and Microsoft have continued to pay their leaders accordingly: Big Tech CEO pay is higher than ever. In the coming months, we’ll begin seeing a lot of companies release their executive compensation from the past year as fiscal 2022 begins.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht
Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

COVID-19 accelerated what many CEOs and CTOs have struggled to do for the past decade: It forced organizations to be agile and adjust quickly to change. For all the talk about digital transformation over the past decade, when push came to shove, many organizations realized they had made far less progress than they thought.

Now with the genie of rapid change out of the bottle, we will never go back to accepting slow and steady progress from our organizations. To survive and thrive in times of disruption, you need to build a resilient, adaptable business with systems and processes that will keep you nimble for years to come. An essential part of business agility is responding to change by quickly developing new applications and adapting old ones. IT faces an unprecedented demand for new applications. According to IDC, by 2023, more than 500 million digital applications and services will be developed and deployed — the same number of apps that were developed in the last 40 years.[1]

Keep Reading Show less
Denise Broady, CMO, Appian
Denise oversees the Marketing and Communications organization where she is responsible for accelerating the marketing strategy and brand recognition across the globe. Denise has over 24+ years of experience as a change agent scaling businesses from startups, turnarounds and complex software companies. Prior to Appian, Denise worked at SAP, WorkForce Software, TopTier and Clarkston Group. She is also a two-time published author of “GRC for Dummies” and “Driven to Perform.” Denise holds a double degree in marketing and production and operations from Virginia Tech.

Hybrid work has some distinct advantages when it comes to onboarding.

Photo: LogMeIn

Jo Deal is the chief human resources officer at LogMeIn. She is responsible for leading global people strategy with a focus on attracting, developing and engaging talent.

The desire for change that sprung up during the pandemic resulted in the highest attrition levels in decades and a fierce war for talent playing out in the market. The Great Resignation forced managers to suddenly make hiring their top priority, and recruitment partners became everyone’s best friend as leaders scrambled to replace key roles within their teams.

Keep Reading Show less
Jo Deal
Jo Deal serves as LogMeIn’s Chief Human Resources Officer. She is responsible for leading global people strategy with a focus on attracting, developing and engaging world class talent by expanding LogMeIn’s reputation as one of tech’s most desirable career destinations, and by providing a collaborative learning environment where employees can grow their careers.
Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Entertainment

Peloton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year

2022 just started, and Peloton has already halted bike production and is talking about mass layoffs. How did the pandemic darling get here?

How did Peloton go from pandemic star to sinking ship? One answer is the classic problem of supply and demand.

Image: Peloton; Protocol

It’s been a hell of a ride for Peloton. The headlines have been practically nonstop, from 2019’s cringey wife ad to 2021’s series of unfortunate “Sex and The City” events. But in 2020, Peloton could do no wrong. The at-home fitness company saw a 172% spike in sales over the course of that year, buoyed by the pandemic forcing wealthy gym-goers to stay home.

But nothing is ever easy or certain when it comes to Peloton. In the past week, Business Insider reported that Peloton is considering laying off 41% of its sales and marketing staff and closing down stores. CNBC learned that the company has hired McKinsey & Co. to help cut costs. And yesterday, CNBC reported that Peloton is temporarily halting production of its bikes. Peloton shares promptly plunged 24%.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Entertainment

Netflix looks to expand gaming with major IP deals, Fortnite-like updates

Remarks made to investors and recent job postings hint at big ambitions for Netflix’s nascent gaming efforts.

Netflix may be taking some cues from games like Fortnite and Apex: Legends for its own video game initiative.

Photo: Cameron Venti/Unsplash

Two months after launching mobile games to all of its members, Netflix is looking to double down on gaming: The company told investors Thursday that it wants to expand its portfolio of games “across both casual and core gaming genres.” Recent job offers suggest that this could include both live services games as well as an expansion to PC and console gaming, and the company's COO hinted at major licensing deals ahead.

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.

Latest Stories
Bulletins