Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai appear at a hearing The House is organized by the Energy and Commerce Committee on how disintegration spreads across their platforms.
Chief executives of Google, Facebook and Twitter are testifying in the House on Thursday how Propaganda Spread across their platform, an issue that tech companies were investigated during and after the presidential election 6 January Riot in the Capitol.
The hearing, hosted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, marked the first time Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai Biden are appearing before Congress during the administration. President Biden has indicated that he is likely to be tough on the tech industry. That situation, combined with congressional democratic control, has raised liberal expectations that Washington will take steps to rein in Big Tech’s power and reach it in the next few years.
The hearing is the first time since the 6th referendum when MPs questioned the three men on what role their companies played in the incident. The attack has made the issue of devolution personal for lawmakers as participants in the riot have been linked to online conspiracy theories such as QAnon.
Before the hearing, the Democrats Indicated in a memo That they were interested in questioning authorities about the January 6 attacks, efforts to mitigate the results of the 2020 election, and misinformation related to the Kovid-19 epidemic.
Republicans sent out this month’s executive papers asking for decisions to remove conservative personalities and stories from their platforms, including one October article in New York Post About President Biden’s son Hunter.
MPs have debated whether the social media platform’s business models encourage the spread of hate and disengagement from prioritizing content, which would remove user engagement by often emphasizing abusive or divisive posts.
Some law practitioners will be stressed for change Section 230 of the Communication Mitigation Act, A 1996 law that shields platforms from lawsuits over the positions of their users. Lawists are trying to snatch security in cases where The algorithms of the companies increased some illegal content. Others believe the proliferation of devolution may be coupled with strong anti-incumbency laws, as platforms have so far been the major outlets for communicating publicly online.
“So far it is fairly clear that neither the market nor public pressure will prevent social media companies from disrupting and preventing extremism, so we have no choice but to enact legislation, and now it is a question that this How to do the best, ”said Rep. Frank Wallone, a New Jersey Democrat who is the chairman of the committee.
Technical officers are expected to carry out their efforts to limit misinformation and redirection to more reliable sources of information. They may also entertain the possibility of greater regulation, which is in an effort to shape rapid legislative changes that occur rather than directly oppose them.
The CEOs of Facebook, Alphabet and Twitter are expected to face tough questions from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Democrats have focused on devolution, especially in the wake of the capital riot. Republicans, meanwhile, have already questioned companies about their decision to remove conservative personalities and stories from their platforms.
New York Times reporters have covered a number of examples that may come to the fore. Here are the facts to know about them:
After his son was killed in Israel by a member of the terrorist group Hamas in 2016, Stuart Force decided that Facebook was partly to blame for the death, as the algorithm that empowered the social network allowed Hamas content Helped to spread. He joined relatives of other terrorist victims in suing the company, arguing that its algorithm regularly promoted crimes by encouraging posts that encourage terrorist attacks. Arguments about the power of algorithms have changed in Washington.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has helped Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and countless other Internet companies thrive. But Section 230’s liability protection also extends to fringe sites, anti-Semitic content and racist tropes known for hate speeches. Investigations of large technology companies in Washington have intensified on a range of issues, including how they handle disinformation or police hate speech, with Section 230 facing a new focus.
After delivering political discourse around the world, Facebook Trying to reduce the temperature. The social network began changing its algorithm to reduce political content in users’ news feeds. Facebook previewed the change earlier this year when Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said The company was experimenting with methods To end divisive political debate among users. “One of the top pieces of feedback that we are hearing from our community right now is that people don’t want politics and fighting to take their experience on our services,” he said.
As did Electoral College Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election confirmed, voter fraud misinformation halted. But pedestrians lying online lied about Kovid-19 vaccines. Researchers said Republicans in Georgia, as well as far-flung websites such as Zerohead, have begun to pursue false vaccine narratives. His efforts have been incorporated on the platform by a strong network of anti-vaccination activists such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
Finally, two California billionaires tried politicians, prosecutors, and power brokers who had failed to do so for years: they pulled the plug on President Trump. Journalists and historians spent years unpacking the inappropriate nature of the sanctions, and investigated why they arrived as soon as Mr. Trump was losing his power, and Democrats were ready to take control of Congress and the White House. Sanctions over a free-speech debate that has been provoking over the years have also increased heat.
In the fall of 2017, when Congress made calls on Google, Facebook and Twitter to testify about their role in Russia’s interference with the 2016 presidential election, the companies did not send their chief executives – as did the lawmakers Had requested – and instead Called their lawyers To withstand the fire.
During the hearing, politicians complained that the General Counsel was answering questions about whether companies contributed to weakening the democratic process rather than “top people who are actually making decisions,” as Senator Angus King casts as a free man with Maine. .
It was clear that Capitol Hill wanted its CEO’s pound of flesh and hiding behind lawyers was not going to work for long. The initial concern about how the Silicon Valley chieftains will handle grilling is no longer a concern. after a Hearing sleep In recent years, both virtual and in-person, officers have practiced a lot.
Since 2018, Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive officer, has testified on three separate occasions. Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, has recorded four appearances, and Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has testified six times.
And when the three men interrogate again on Thursday, they will do so as veteran veterans in the art of ignoring the most experienced attacks so far and then redirect to their attention-to-talk points.
In general, Mr. Pichai politely disagrees and hurriedly lashes out at the MPs as quickly as possible – such as why Mr. Pichai was asked last year? Google steals content From honest businesses – but not harp on it. When a politician tries to pin him down on a particular issue, he often relies on a familiar delaying tactic: My employee will return to you.
Mr. Pichai is not a dynamic cult-like personality leader like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, but his reserved demeanor and honesty are well-suited to congressional headlines.
Mr. Zuckerberg has also become more comfortable hearing over time and the company is more empowered to deal with misinformation. On His first appearance in 2018, Mr. Zuckerberg contradicted and promised to do better to protect users’ data and fail to prevent Russian interference in elections.
Since then, he has pushed the message that Facebook is a platform for good, while cautiously completing the steps the company is taking to seal online disinfection.
As sessions during the epidemic have become virtual, Mr. Dorsey’s appearances, hinged on the laptop’s camera, take a more-on-zoom-on vibe than the softly lit backdrops for the heads of Google and Facebook.
Mr. Dorsey tends to remain very quiet – almost Zen-like – when pressed with aggressive questions and often engage in technical issues that rarely uncover any follow-up.