Election LIVE NEWS — Senators Grill Twitter, Facebook on Handling of — (2020) Election, Misinformation
NEWS — Senators Grill Twitter, Facebook on Handling of — (2020) Election, Misinformation
WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) — Social media companies marshaled an aggressive response during the presidential election to crack down on the spread of misinformation and incendiary posts. Those efforts are largely why Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook were called before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.
Republicans and Democrats disagreed on how the social media platforms handled the election. Republicans claimed that Twitter and Facebook exceeded their role as neutral internet platforms by labeling, blocking or downgrading posts that made false claims about the election or attempted to incite violence. Democrats, meanwhile, questioned why the companies did not go further in preventing the spread of disinformation, particularly by President Donald Trump and his allies.
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS AGREE: SOCIAL MEDIA NEEDS TO BE REGULATED
There were at least two things that both sides agreed on. First, that social media companies have accrued immense power and influence. Second, Congress must reform the law that shields social media companies from being held liable for the content shared on their platforms, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
https://steemit.com/news/@moonhd/news-senators-grill-twitter-facebook-on-handling-of-2020-election-misinformation
https://iamfo8769rk.medium.com/news-senators-grill-twitter-facebook-on-handling-of-2020-election-misinformation-d8e643d465d5
https://movielovers.substack.com/p/election-news-senators-grill-twitter
https://lifenewstime.blogspot.com/2020/11/election-live-newssenators-grill.html
https://sites.google.com/view/electio-nne-ws-senat-orsgri
“They’re literally trying to engage in telling us what’s reliable and what’s not,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “Nobody in a free society has had that responsibility before. And the question is: how do you control that responsibility?”
Graham’s answer: rewrite or reform Section 230 to allow the public more oversight in how social media companies are curating content and making judgments about the accuracy of what users see. “That’s the purpose of this hearing, is to find a way forward to bring about change. And when it comes to social media platforms and Section 230, change is gonna come.”
Ranking Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut agreed, suggesting a repeal of Section 230. He warned that Twitter and Facebook had built “terrifying tools of persuasion and manipulation” and “profited hugely” from mining users’ personal data, promoting hate speech, misinformation and voter suppression.
“Change is going to come. Change is on its way,” Blumenthal stated, adding, “I intend to bring aggressive and targeted reform to Section 230.”
Like previous hearings, both Dorsey and Zuckerberg said they were open to possible government regulations. Zuckerberg said the time was “well overdue” to update rules for internet platforms and both CEOs said they would accept reforms to Section 230.
They also discussed the need for industry standards. For Facebook, that meant transparency around the impact of content moderation policies. For Twitter, Dorsey suggested users should have the option to select algorithms to curate their news feeds.
Zuckerberg appealed for lawmakers to treat social media platforms as distinct from other entities, like newspaper publishers or telecommunications companies. “These platforms are a new industry and should have a different regulatory model that is distinct from either of those other two,” he told lawmakers. “I think it deserves and needs its own regulatory framework to get build here.”
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was skeptical about “a new government regulatory agency to police online speech.” He questioned whether an intervention by Congress would create even more problems, arguing the new rules would be written under the incoming Biden administration.
TRUMP TWEETS WILL NOT BE PROTECTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE
As part of their policies to protect the integrity of the 2020 election, Facebook and Twitter limited the visibility of more than a dozen of President Trump’s posts alleging voter fraud and claiming he won the election.
The policies prompted outrage on the left and right. Trump’s defenders accused Big Tech of “election interference.” Democrats at the Tuesday hearing, argued that social media companies should have taken bolder actions to stop the president from casting doubt on the election.
Twitter’s CEO explained that the president’s tweets were protected under its public interest exemption. The rule allows tweets of world leaders and elected officials to be seen on the platform with warning labels.
Once Trump steps down, he will no longer be protected by that policy, according to Dorsey. “If an account…is no longer a world leader anymore that particular policy goes away,” he said, suggesting that Trump’s future tweets could be removed, instead of labeled as disputed content.
Zuckerberg was less clear. Facebook has a few policies protecting the posts of elected officials. “If the president or anyone else is spreading hate speech or inciting violence, or delegitimizing the election…those will receive the same treatment as anyone else saying those things,” Zuckerberg told lawmakers.
Several Democratic senators Democratic pressed Twitter and Facebook to do more to stop President Trump from “spreading misinformation” in the final weeks of his presidency.
“You have the tools to prevent him from weaponizing these platforms to degrade our democracy,” argued Sen. Corey Booker of New Jersey. He asked Dorsey and Zuckerberg if they were taking “any additional steps” in the coming weeks to “address the misinformation” coming from the president’s accounts.
Twitter pledged to “remain vigilant” around its enforcement of election misinformation and incitement but did not announce any new measures.
Zuckerberg said the president’s refusal to acknowledge the election results was an eventuality the social media giant planned for as early as September. The company instituted more rigorous fact-checking, paused political ads because of the risk of inflaming tensions or violence and other measures Facebook has taken “in other countries when there’s risk of civil unrest.”
DEMOCRATS SAY SOCIAL MEDIA SHOULD DO MORE, REPUBLICANS SAY LESS
The impetus for the Tuesday hearing came before the election when Facebook and Twitter allegedly “censored” a New York Post story dealing with the foreign business entanglements of Hunter Biden, President-elect Joe Biden’s son.
For Republicans, Tuesday’s hearing was a chance to recount not only the New York Post incident, but others where GOP senators, members of the Trump administration, anti-abortion advocates were blocked for violating the social media platforms community rules or terms of service.
Most Democrats took a different approach, arguing the companies were not doing enough to stop the spread of incitement, hate speech and misinformation about the election. Others chided Facebook and Twitter for not expanding their misinformation policies to false claims about climate change.
“Our security, I think even our democracy, our understanding of basic truth depends on you doing a better job,” said Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont addressing the social media giants. Twitter and Facebook shied away from the role as arbiters of truth.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois cited a new FBI report showing violent hate crimes reached a peak in 2019. He questioned whether Twitter and Facebook were “looking the other way” amid the rising threats. Facebook cracked down on militia groups on its platform starting in September. However, it was faulted for not removing a page by the “Kenosha Guard” promoting an armed protest that led to two shooting fatalities.
According to Zuckerberg, Facebook eliminates 98% of all terrorist content and 94% of hate speech before it is seen by users relying on artificial intelligence and content reviewers. It’s still not perfect, he acknowledged. “In the same way as a city will never eliminate all crime, you try to reduce and have it be as little as possible and that’s what we try to do,” Zuckerberg explained.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut pressed Facebook continued to allow former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on the platform after he recently posted a video suggesting the beheading of FBI Director Christopher Wray and the top U.S. infectious diseases expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci. “How many times is Steve Bannon allowed to call for the murder of government officials before Facebook suspends his account?” Blumenthal asked.
Facebook removed the threatening video but did not suspend Bannon’s account. According to Zuckerberg, the policy violation did not meet Facebook’s standards for taking down an account. Last week, Twitter permanently banned Bannon for the remarks.
While Democrats voiced concerns that social media companies were doing too little to contain misinformation of online threats, Republicans saw a push to give Big Tech companies more influence over public discourse.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argued that Democrats wanted Facebook and Twitter to “censor more” and curtail free speech. “There is a demand to use even more power to silence dissent and that’s a totalitarian instinct that I think is very dangerous,” Cruz charged.
The accusations were followed by a testy exchange where Cruz attacked Dorsey for saying he didn’t know if voter fraud existed. In the questioning, Dorsey said Twitter would have likely put a warning label on statements about election fraud taken verbatim taken from a 2004 bipartisan commission on federal election reform.
In the end, both side of the aisle found fault with Twitter and Facebook’s handling of the 2020 election and more.
“You have both Democrats and Republicans upset at you,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “You’re censoring right and left, trying to make both sides happy and you’re making neither side happy…I know it’s not the intention but it is the result.”
Facebook and Twitter said they would be analyzing their handling of the U.S. presidential election. The companies pledged to make data available to academics and researchers to study how effective various policies were and ways to improve in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment