Happy tech CEOs hearing day (again)!
As we wait for Senate Judiciary to kick things off at 10 ET, let’s look at Airbnb’s IPO filing.
There, the company cites possible changes to #Section230 as a risk factor for investors. sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
There, the company cites possible changes to #Section230 as a risk factor for investors. sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
For those just joining, you can watch the proceedings here: judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/break…
And don’t forget to follow our liveblog here for reporting and analysis: cnn.com/business/live-…
Crap. I overcaffeinated.
Just preemptively: Be wary of any claims today that Section 230 somehow requires platforms to be politically neutral. It does not.
The law gives platforms wide latitude to manage their sites as they see fit. That includes decisions on political content. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47…
The law gives platforms wide latitude to manage their sites as they see fit. That includes decisions on political content. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47…
Expect @jack to repeat familiar themes today, including expressing a commitment to greater transparency and warning Congress not to entrench the power of large tech platforms (in what could be read as a jab at Facebook): cnn.com/business/live-…
Spending most of my hearing doing updates to the liveblog instead of tweeting but my quick take here is that so far, this hearing has been more substantive than last month’s.
We’re getting a clearer idea of both where lawmakers and executives stand on important questions.
We’re getting a clearer idea of both where lawmakers and executives stand on important questions.
Sen. Feinstein not knowing that Twitter has been labeling misleading tweets about the election is the “Senator, we sell ads” of this hearing
Dorsey patiently explaining what you see on Twitter’s label, and how it is a link and not just text, has a very strong “tech support at Thanksgiving” vibe
Especially when Dorsey already explains this in his opening remarks and written testimony and his prior congressional appearance…
Sen. Lee used his question time to spread the unfounded narrative of voter fraud, which election officials have routinely debunked and rejected.
He said Facebook’s labeling is “editorializing [that] insulates people from the truth and it insinuates that anyone concerned about voter fraud must be crazy.”
This dangerous attack line normalizes the idea that it is appropriate to suspect a conspiracy to deny election fraud.
This dangerous attack line normalizes the idea that it is appropriate to suspect a conspiracy to deny election fraud.
We’re in a break for Senate votes.
Lots of lip service so far to keeping the government out of direct content moderation while lawmakers issue calls for tech companies to do better… which is about where we were before all this began.
Lots of lip service so far to keeping the government out of direct content moderation while lawmakers issue calls for tech companies to do better… which is about where we were before all this began.
On election security, here’s the Trump administration's own CISA director reminding people of the extremely dubious nature of election fraud claims
https://twitter.com/CISAKrebs/status/1328741106624901120
And we’re back. Hearing has begun again.
We’ve heard Zuckerberg repeatedly invoke Facebook’s approach toward terrorist or child-exploitation content. It’s a rhetorical crutch and also something of a deflection. Here’s why: cnn.com/business/live-…
One of the takeaways from this hearing is that Twitter and Facebook are increasingly staking out diverging positions on federal policies for content moderation: cnn.com/business/live-…
Facebook wants federal policy to basically incentivize algorithmic decisionmaking; Twitter wants users to be able to opt out of algorithms.
Here are the implications of that.
Here are the implications of that.
One is a centralized approach, the other is decentralized.
One favors a company with a vested interest in building proprietary algorithms and making users dependent on them; the other gives platforms a plausible excuse for offloading responsibility onto third parties.
One favors a company with a vested interest in building proprietary algorithms and making users dependent on them; the other gives platforms a plausible excuse for offloading responsibility onto third parties.
They each have their tradeoffs and reflect the respective strengths of Facebook and Twitter.
This explains why Jack is so adamant that federal policy not “entrench” large, established social media platforms.
This explains why Jack is so adamant that federal policy not “entrench” large, established social media platforms.
This is big: President Trump’s social media accounts could face even greater enforcement when he leaves office, Dorsey and Zuckerberg both said, citing company policies that protect his conduct.
Of course, this raises the same question for Trump that applies to Bannon: How many times can a normal user violate Facebook’s policies before being banned?
Zuckerberg has been rather evasive about this.
Zuckerberg has been rather evasive about this.
Sen. Graham is wrapping up now.
“To the two witnesses, you made it through! … I want to thank you for appearing.”
And teases future hearings on tech regulation in the next Congress.
“To the two witnesses, you made it through! … I want to thank you for appearing.”
And teases future hearings on tech regulation in the next Congress.
There are a couple people who replied to this saying that Zuck meant the opposite. Just a couple of clarifying points:
https://twitter.com/b_fung/status/1328776874512818176
Zuckerberg was saying that for any category of violation that does not have a newsworthiness exception, Trump will continue to be treated the same as he is now, and the same as anyone else.
But there are other policies where Facebook *does* have a newsworthiness exemption.
But there are other policies where Facebook *does* have a newsworthiness exemption.
Trump currently benefits from this. He may soon no longer.
But that, of course, raises the question of whether Facebook will continue to view Trump as a newsworthy individual eligible for protection under this exemption even after he departs the White House.
But that, of course, raises the question of whether Facebook will continue to view Trump as a newsworthy individual eligible for protection under this exemption even after he departs the White House.
But the implication is clear that as a former president, Trump could face expanded enforcement.
Facebook’s @andymstone points me to this policy page, which says that while sitting politicians aren't eligible for fact-checking by partners, content by *former* politicians is.
When a fact-checker throws a red flag, the content is restricted on FB.
facebook.com/business/help/…
When a fact-checker throws a red flag, the content is restricted on FB.
facebook.com/business/help/…
Reflecting on today’s hearing, some early first impressions.
Today’s hearing seemed more substantive and/or illluminating compared to the last, and we now have a clearer idea where some lawmakers and the companies stand on certain questions.
Today’s hearing seemed more substantive and/or illluminating compared to the last, and we now have a clearer idea where some lawmakers and the companies stand on certain questions.
On a bipartisan basis, leading senators swore up and down that they don’t believe government has a role in direct content moderation.
The companies articulated their respective visions for the future.
Facebook seems to want (or at least not oppose) clear categories of unacceptable content that algorithms can be told to seek out and enforce against — importing the terrorism/exploitation regulatory regime.
Facebook seems to want (or at least not oppose) clear categories of unacceptable content that algorithms can be told to seek out and enforce against — importing the terrorism/exploitation regulatory regime.
Twitter seems to want more competition in algorithms, including the ability for users to opt-out of algorithmic content ranking altogether. Whatever is put in place shouldn’t entrench the power of incumbent platforms, in Jack’s view.
Conservatives are still mad about perceived anti-conservative bias, though at least from where I sit, the last hearing seemed much more intensely focused on this topic.
And the CEOs hinted at what may be in store for @realDonaldTrump in his post-presidency years.
Those I think are the main highlights.
Those I think are the main highlights.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
