Jim Jordan listing out a bunch of misleading anecdotes to prove the "fact" that internet companies "censor conservatives." Nearly every one of these anecdotes has details that suggest he's wrong. But he doesn't want you to hear the details.

So Jordan claims Google has to be stopped from helping Democrats win elections. Meanwhile, a bunch of folks are mad that (they claim) FB helps Republicans win elections.

This hearing has gone off the rails fast, thanks to Jim Jordan.

Can Congress really not figure out how to focus in on which panelist is speaking? They've had months to figure this stuff out. And these are the people who want to regulate technology.

Apparently by the time they got to Pichai, they figured out how to get speaker view to work. Bezos had to be in the Hollywood Squares version, but Pichai gets to fill the screen. We'll see about the others.

Should I say that Congress is biased against Bezos?

What a bizarre question from @RepCicilline.

This hearing is so silly. @RepCicilline is repeatedly misrepresenting situations to make Google look bad. I mean, it's par for the grandstanding course, but it's hellishly misleading.

"Anti-competitive." Every example that @RepCicilline uses has a clear, non-nefarious explanation, almost all of which involve making search *better for its users.* So... does @RepCicilline want companies to make products worse?

And now we're back to "anti-conservative bias." Unclear what that has to do with antitrust, but hey, it's Congress!

Good job @JimPressOffice, asking Mark Zuckerberg about content that @twitter took down... Wrong company, guy.

Wow. So @JimPressOffice wants to double down on "internet platforms should leave up blatant health misinfo that puts people at risk." That's a take.

So @RepJerryNadler is saying that FB knows it can just acquire any competitor. Yet... it failed to acquire both @Snapchat and @tiktok_us so... weird talking point.

Also weird. @RepJerryNadler seems to be suggesting that Facebook shouldn't be concerned about competition? Huh?

It violates antitrust laws to buy competitors? Since when?

I am getting dumber watching @RepKenBuck argue that Google is working for the Chinese gov't against the US.

Now @RepKenBuck is totally misrepresenting this story: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190617/13335342414/dumbest-gotcha-story-week-google-genius-copying-licensed-lyrics.shtml

Are there going to be *any* Reps who don't misrepresent stuff in this hearing? This is a bipartisan dumpster fire. Literally every question has been silly and misleading.

So, earlier in the hearing @Jim_Jordan complained that Google supported Democrats winning elections. Now @RepRaskin is complaining that FB helped Republicans win elections. Each asked the company to "address" this "problem"

So @RepArmstrongND claims that Google tried to defund The Federalist to suppress its conservative viewpoint. Will he also defend us? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/17375644791/google-threatens-to-defund-techdirt-where-are-all-politicians-complaining.shtml

Oooh. Finally a question I agree with. @RepArmstrongND is against reverse warrants. He's right. Of course, for @sundarpichai to agree with him would piss off @RepMattGaetz who wanted Pichai to ensure that Google would assist police.

So @RepGregSteube is asking about his specific search results showed up the way they did.

Hahahahahahah. @RepGregSteube is complaining that his campaign emails are going to spam (which he thinks only happens to Republicans). Uh, no dude. YOUR RECIPIENTS MARKED THEM AS SPAM.

Summary of the hearing so far:

Congressional rep: [Disingenuous, misleading question that misrepresents reality in a really ridiculous way.] "Is that so?"

CEO: "That's not exactly..."

Rep: "YES OR NO!"

CEO: "Let me..."

Rep: "So you admit you're evil!"

*sigh*

So @Jim_Jordan is saying that Google needs to promise that nothing it does will help Biden, which... what? What if Google does something that helps Trump? Does he care about that? Google is a tool. It depends on how campaigns use it.

So, if I understand @jim_jordan correctly: Google's market power allowed it to tilt the election to Clinton in 2016. And she didn't win. So does that mean he's admitting Google doesn't have such power?

Hahah. @jim_jordan wants @sundarpichai to "promise" not to "silence conservatives" in search results. WTF does that even mean?

And off the rails again thanks to @jim_jordan, after @RepMGS says "moving on from fringe conspiracy theories..." and Jordan threw a shit fit.

Congress gets to change antitrust law if it feels it's not effective. Has a *single* question at this hearing been about how Congress might more effectively change the law?

None of these Reps seems to want to let the witnesses actually answer the question.

So @RepCicilline seems to have undermined his own argument here, saying why would any company list on Amazon if they think that Amazon might undercut them? If Amazon exploits those sellers, then... won't they go elsewhere? (And don't say there's no where else to go).

So, as we're reaching the end @JimPressOffice is the first to actually mention antitrust laws...

Over and over again:

"Congress(wo)man... I'm not sure I agree with the premise..."

Rep cuts off witness: "Thank you, let me ask another disingenuous question."

Why does Congress keep complaining about internet companies improving their products? It's an odd choice.

If these companies were truly monopolies, then they wouldn't have to keep changing their products to keep the market happy. Yet over and over the Reps seem mad that these companies keep innovating to keep up with the market...

And now we get @mattgaetz misrepresenting a report from the @DailyCaller that also misrepresented reality, all because they don't understand how search or content moderation actually works. This is so stupid.

When Gaetz resorts to using Project Veritas as his evidence, you know he's got nothing.

So @RepJerryNadler is blaming Facebook because stupid news orgs went chasing after video. Yes, FB misrepresented stats, but many of us knew better. Just because some news orgs fucked up, not sure that's FB's fault.

News orgs were in trouble from the overall structural changes from the internet. It's silly to blame Google and Facebook for news orgs bad decisions.

So now @RepGregSteube, who before couldn't figure out why his campaign emails went to spam, is now furious that Youtube has decided to take down blatant dangerous disinfo about covid treatments. Sheesh.

So @RepHankJohnson wants Amazon to wave a magic wand and disappear counterfeit goods. I'm sure Amazon would if it could. But no one has that magic wand.

Um. Does @RepHankJohnson think that endcaps in physical grocery stores are illegal? He seemed to argue that Amazon can't let sellers advertise their products in listings.

After a quick break (was finally able to grab lunch), the hearing is back on. It will apparently never ever end.

Oh great, copyright issues! ( @RepArmstrongND is asking about DMCA notices on Twitch). He apparently thinks Twitch should be required to license, rather than adhering to DMCA 512 (as per the EU's new copyright directive, which is not US law...)

The witnesses have all collectively agreed to start saying "Congress(wo)man, I'm going to have to get back to you on that."

Guess what? @mattgaetz is misrepresenting again.

Content moderation does not work the way most people think they do. And, remember, @mattgaetz brought a Holocaust denier to the State of the Union. And now he's complaining about Facebook's content moderation practices as being unfair to his friends.

Gaetz implies that Facebook fired Palmer Luckey (oculus founder, who was a big trump supporter) for his political views.

Now Congress is asking about Google's acquisition of YouTube in 2006. At that time, ALL OF THE PRESS was laughing about it, saying that YouTube would never make money. To argue that's an antitrust issue is... wtf?

So @RepJoeNeguse asks some questions about the supposed "kill zone." I actually think this is an important area to explore (and the questions were thoughtful), but haven't seen any evidence that such a kill zone actually exists.

Now @RepLucyMcBath is accusing @tim_cook of anticompetitively removing parental control apps when it launched ScreenTime (which others in congress demanded Apple add...). Cook says there were privacy issues with those other apps. McBath says it was for anti-competitive reasons.

Here we go, one more round of questions...

Oh no no no no. @RepCicilline just pulled out "fire in a crowded theater" and asked Zuck if he agreed with that line (cc: @Popehat). Rep. Cicilline, do you know what that quote is actually from?

Honestly, @RepCicilline is coming off as the Democrat's version of @jim_jordan in this hearing. Both are screaming incendiary nonsense.

So @RepCicilline is demanding Facebook take down the content that @mattgaetz earlier was demanding that Facebook keep up.

I wonder how many times "thanks for the opportunity to address that" was used to eat up the few seconds the witnesses are given to speak.

Almost every thing that Reps are saying "you made this choice and it resulted in this bad thing" involved tradeoffs where if the companies had made the opposite decision, the Reps would be accusing them for the other choice as well.

Like a few times, now, the companies are getting slammed for protecting user privacy, claiming that they're doing something anticompetitive. At other times, these companies get accused of being bad for privacy.

Heh. @RepRaskin calls out the "endless whining" and "victimology" of the GOPers on the committee, and notes that the most popular FB posts are almost all GOP supporters, and that the takedowns that were cited were dangerous disinfo. Finally.

And then @RepRaskin points out that if the GOP is upset about these companies supporting certain political candidates, they should be against Citizens United, but since they've always been so supportive of it...

WTF. @jim_jordan just made @tim_cook laugh. "Is the cancel culture mob a problem?"

And now he's quoting Bari Weiss's nonsense resignation letter (and calls her "center left"). WTF does this have to do with antitrust?

So @jim_jordan is making each CEO give their opinion on cancel culture. Specifically asks @JeffBezos if he agrees with Bari Weiss that it's a "digital thunderdome." Now demands that all 4 CEOs speak out against cancel culture. WTF is this?!?

Just in case you were wondering, these 4 CEOs don't like cancel culture. Phew.

We're almost at 5.5 hours into this hearing. I probably shouldn't have decided to do the standing desk thing today.

Uh. Just to close out this hearing we have @RepLucyMcBath misunderstanding what cookies do and how they work. How hard is it to inform Congressional reps not to spew nonsense.

And then @RepLucyMcBath tries to pull a gotcha on @jeffbezos because some sellers have sold counterfeit goods on the platform. This is so ridiculous. Amazon has a massive program to try to stop counterfeits.

The hearing is now over with more @RepCicilline grandstanding, saying that the hearing proved monopoly power (it did not) and that companies need to be broken up (which was not even remotely addressed over 5.5 hours). Sheesh. What fucking nonsense.

Worst of the hearing awards go to @Jim_Jordan and @RepCicilline (bipartisan!) with just inane grandstanding disconnected from reality ( @mattgaetz and @RepGregSteube get honorable mentions).

What can we conclude from the hearing? Pretty much all of Congress hates the big 4 tech companies. I'm sure that plays well for voters. But the hatred is for wildly divergent, and often contradictory reasons.

Also, much of the hatred is based on myths or misunderstanding. But I don't see how Congress comes to any sort of consensus about what to do about their hatred. That doesn't mean they won't make a mess of things, because they probably will.