Where do we draw the line on freedom of speech in the online world? Should social media restrict discussion of controversial topics? Although the U.S. election is drawing to a close, these issues continue to spark heated discussions between Democratic and Republican members of Congress and U.S. social media giants. Some Republican lawmakers have launched a direct Twitter test to test how California’s Silicon Valley tech companies handle the content, pointing out that “election fraud” is a fact.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned the double standard of censorship and filtering of speech on social media platforms during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday (Nov. 17).
Cruz pointed the seedlings at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
“Mr. Dorsey, does voter fraud exist?” Cruz asked.
“I’m not sure,” Dorsey answered.
“Are you an expert on voter fraud?” Cruz continued to ask.
“No, I’m not,” said Dorsey.
“Then why is Twitter now marking almost every statement about voter fraud with the so-called warning label?” Cruz asked further.
“We’re just going to link to a broader conversation so that people can be more informed,” replied Dorsey.
Dorsey’s answer immediately drew strong backlash from Congressman Cruz, “No, you’re not. You put up a page that says, ‘Voter fraud of any kind is extremely rare in the United States.’ That has nothing to do with trying to lead to a broader discussion, it’s taking a position on a controversial policy.”
“When you do that, you’re a publisher,” Cruz continued, “and you’re entitled to take a policy position, but you can’t pretend that you’re not a publisher and therefore entitled to the special benefits under Section 230.”
Cruz later said at the hearing that he would post a series of three Twitter Tests on his Twitter account related to the “voter fraud” issue, along with the content or source, to see if Twitter would censor his tweets and statements. The content of these “Twitter Tests” is consistent with Twitter’s policy of labeling tweets that contain “controversial and potentially misleading” content.
As of Tuesday night’s press deadline, however, Cruz’s tweets had not been labeled with a warning label by Twitter.
Republican lawmakers question Twitter, Facebook personas beyond Section 230 protections
Congressman Cruz also asked Twitter’s Dorsey directly, “Is Twitter the publisher? What is a publisher?”
Dorsey claims that Twitter is not a publisher, “only a publisher of information.” Dorsey went on to say that he believes “publisher means an entity that publishes under the direction and at the discretion of the editor.”
“Your answer is inconsistent with the text of the federal statute, specifically Section 230, which defines a content provider as any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information over a network or other interactive computing service,” said Dorsey, who holds a law degree from Harvard University and has served as a director of the Texas Department of State. Attorney General Cruz, who continues to harshly rebuke, said, “Twitter is now doing exactly what publishers would do to adjust their content.”
“Section 230” refers to the Communications Decency Act (CDA), an attempt by the Clinton administration to regulate Web content through legislation in 1996, when the Internet was just beginning to emerge in the United States. However, the following year the CRA was ruled unconstitutional by a unanimous vote of the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the anti-coloring provisions of the CRA conflicted with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech.
Although the Supreme Court struck down the core of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), it retained Section 230, making it an “umbrella” provision in the Internet boom era.
Section 230 stated that Internet community platforms could not be held liable for the content of speech posted by third-party users. But more importantly and more controversially today, it also allows Internet platforms to block and block offensive content for “bona fide reasons,” making it a powerful shield for U.S. social media platforms and online forums.
Bipartisan Consensus on “Section 230” Must Be Revised
“Section 230 has to be changed,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is retiring as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of the year or will move on to lead other committees, in his opening statement at the hearing.
“There will be change, there is no doubt about it, change is coming, and I will bring significant and clear reform to Section 230,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a Democratic federal senator.
Under the current framework, social media platforms and online forums attempt to characterize themselves as non-publishing companies in order to enjoy an umbrella exemption from liability. However, there is a bipartisan consensus to revise Section 230 to align it with current online trends.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Dorsey have both pledged to increase transparency in their businesses.
Republicans Criticize Silicon Valley Businesses for Leftist Stance, Inability to Impartially Judge Political Rhetoric
During the nearly five-hour hearing, a number of Republican lawmakers questioned the ideological leanings of employees at the two U.S. social media giants. Republican federal Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) questioned how the social media companies, whose employees’ political positions lean significantly toward the Democratic Party, implement policies of content censorship in a nonpartisan and neutral manner, and even criticized the social media platforms for unequal and differential treatment of Democratic and Republican speech standards.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that many of Facebook’s employees are pro-Democratic in their positions and lean left on many policies. However, he emphasized that Facebook has been careful not to let political bias infiltrate its decision making. In addition, he mentioned that many of Facebook’s content moderators are located around the world. “The geographic diversity of these community moderators is more representative of the communities we serve, not just the full-time employees at our San Francisco Bay Area headquarters.”
For his part, Dorsey responded that political leanings and positions are never something they would ask about. He said that while Twitter’s current decisions and outcomes seem somewhat opaque, they are working to improve the transparency issue.
President Trump fears censorship of speech on social media platforms after he leaves office
In addition, several Democratic lawmakers have criticized President Trump’s occasional tweets for spreading misinformation, yet these social media platforms have not taken aggressive action to restrict the current president’s statements.
Sen. Keiko Mazie Hirono (D-HI), a Democratic federal senator from Hawaii, locked the spotlight on Twitter. “What will you be prepared to do about Trump’s use of your platform after he leaves the presidency? Would he still be considered newsworthy? Can he still use your platform to spread misinformation?”
Dorsey began by explaining the company’s existing policies and how it allows elected officials to post content that violates its corporate policies.
“We do have policies that involve the public interest, and we do make exceptions for global leaders if their tweets violate our terms of service,” said Dorsey, “We’ll let that (content) go online, but it will stay in a space where people are not allowed to share that seat widely. ”
“If the person to whom the account belongs is suddenly no longer a world leader, then naturally this particular policy doesn’t apply,” Dorsey went on to explain.
For his part, Facebook CEO Zuckerberg did not respond to the question directly.
“If the president spreads hate speech or advocates violence,” said Zuckerberg, “those people will be treated the same as anyone else who says those things, and that will continue.”
Recent Comments