Read on Twitter
Here I am, awake in the early morning to watch @LindseyGrahamSC hold a hearing on "suppression and the 2020 election" a day after it was revealed that *he* was demanding Georgia's Secretary of State throw out *legal* votes. The hearing's not about Graham, though, but "big tech."
And we're off with @LindseyGrahamSC misrepresenting #Section230 (though not as badly as I expected). Followed by "think of the children!" moral panic stuff about kids using social media a lot.
Graham is all over the place. It's like a random unconnected and misleading series of grievances. https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/1328716894963191809
Now he's claiming that Twitter/FB limiting the spread of NY Post sketchy nonsense, is "overriding" the editorial independence of the NY Post. Which is nonsense. If a newsstand refuses to carry the NY Post... @LindseyGrahamSC isn't holding a hearing.
Now he's mad that Twitter/FB won't allow debunked conspiracy theories about mail-in ballots. Highlights @NikkiHaley posting such a debunked conspiracy theory and says "but that's just her opinion!" as if that's a reason sites should be COMPELLED to host debunked nonsense.
The thing that @LindseyGrahamSC is misleading everyone about right now is that it's not #Section230 he's mad at, it's the 1st Amendment. And that's why this whole hearing is so damn stupid.
Lol. @LindseyGrahamSC saying Congress needs to set up "standards" for content moderation "that are transparent and opaque." Transparent... and opaque? Dude.
So, seconds after saying that the government needs to change #Section230 to make sure there are standards for content moderation, he says he thinks the government needs to stay out of their content moderation practices. He's just throwing out words.
The entire opening was @LindseyGrahamSC saying something dumb, then contradicting himself with something even dumber. https://twitter.com/M_feeney/status/1328719021324308480
And now we're on to @SenBlumenthal, who has hated #Section230 since before it was cool, to blame #Section230 (and Twitter & FB) for Donald Trump. Again, Blumenthal seems to hate the 1st Amendment, not #Section230
Blumenthal is blaming Twitter & FB (and Google) for the fact that some people are bad people.
Lol. After @SenBlumenthal attacks Twitter/Google/FB for the actions of its users, he then whines that this whole hearing is a dog & pony show to attack these companies. Yeah, which you contributed to dipshit.
It's the 1st Amendment you hate, not #Section230. https://twitter.com/CathyGellis/status/1328720249831776259
Blumenthal taking credit for FOSTA & EARN IT Act, both dreadful and dangerous bills (and FOSTA, which became law, has put tons of people in danger). And now he's whining that 230 "creates real harms and real victims." Dude, no, that was FOSTA.
Opening speeches by @jack and @finkd are basically exactly what you'd expect about content moderation. Not much worth writing about. All the details and nuances will shortly be ignored by basically every Senator at this hearing.
Yes. My entire thread should probably just be Keith's tweet over and over every 20 seconds or so. https://twitter.com/KeithChu/status/1328722802892025857
Weird opening question from @LindseyGrahamSC. "When you heard @SenBlumenthal and my opening speeches, what did you think of them?" Really?
Whoohoo. @jack saying that there should be "more choice in choosing algorithms" (protocols, not platforms!) and immediately @LindseyGrahamSC cuts him off with a bored "Ok" and moves on to Zuck.
Zuckerberg saying we need government to help regulate, while @jack saying that government regulation over content moderation would be a problem (Jack is right, Zuck is just cementing FB's dominance).
It seems like @LindseyGrahamSC isn't even listening. "Can you name who fact checks?" Zuck: "Yes. [reads list of fact checking patners." Graham: "Well, that's the kind of information the public should know about!" Uh, it's public. It's been public.
Heh. @LindseyGrahamSC asks both Jack & Zuck to watch the laughably misleading documentary "The Social Dilemma" and compares social media to tobacco. As noted above, that analogy means he's saying free speech is poison. That's a 1st Amendment issue...
Both Jack & Zuck say they support reform to #Section230. As we detailed last month, they haven't given details beyond "transparency." And that's got its own problems and goes nowhere near the issues Senators are grandstanding about. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201028/17461945607/transparency-is-important-mandated-transparency-is-dangerous-will-stifle-innovation-competition.shtml
This is scary. @SenBlumenthal is DEMANDING that Jack & Zuck commit to taking down 1st Amendment protected speech. They *can* do that, but no politician should ever demand that. It's a huge 1st Amendment problem.
Also, Blumenthal is claiming that the companies are "backsliding" and not moderating enough. He seems to ignore how well they did during the Presidential election in responding to disinfo.
Senator @SenBlumenthal is demanding FB commit to kicking Steve Bannon off its service. Again, this is a HUGE 1st Amendment problem. There's no place for an elected official demanding someone be removed from a private service.
For not the 1st time, @SenBlumenthal is reading out a list of misleading grievances about FB. There are MANY legit concerns, of course, but Blumenthal is misrepresenting nearly everything to present reasonable decisions in the most nefarious of ways.
The synopsis of @SenBlumenthal's segment: https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/1328728478716407813
This whole hearing is a tug of war with the companies as the rope, and the Senators pulling for moderation practices that help themselves and their team. https://twitter.com/ChrisMarchese9/status/1328728619561127941
Senator @JohnCornyn demonstrating that he doesn't understand the basics of content moderation, or the differences between private companies and government. That does not inspire confidence.
And... we're back to discussing how Twitter/FB handled the NY Post story. @JohnCornyn (without calling it that) notes how the takedowns led to a Streisand Effect for the story.
Cornyn says "why not encourage more speech, rather than taking down speech." @jack gives the right answer: "All our policies ARE about encouraging more speech. Abuse, harassment, etc, lead to less speech."
Hearing so far:
GOP Senators: "why did you take down NY Post content?"
Dem Senators: "why *aren't* you taking down Trump/Bannon content?"
*Sigh*
GOP Senators: "why did you take down NY Post content?"
Dem Senators: "why *aren't* you taking down Trump/Bannon content?"
*Sigh*
Great. Now we're down to @SenFeinstein nitpicking the exact language Twitter uses to add context to President Trump's tweets. Senators nitpicking editorial choices is... again... a 1st Amendment issue.
Feinstein is asking @jack over and over again, in different variations, how come Twitter won't take down Trump tweets. Jack is explaining, over and over again, the policies they have and why. And Feinstein is not listening to him at all.
Yup. This is how many will cover this hearing. https://twitter.com/wexler/status/1328731030438735872?s=21
He means "we have a massive compliance team that can handle whatever nonsense, but I know most of my competitors do not." https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/1328730755279638530
Now @SenFeinstein is mad that FB didn't remove a "stop the steal" group *fast enough*. Every Senator basically thinks that if only THEY ran the Trust & Safety team they'd magically do it perfectly & instantly.
So now we have @SenMikeLee ridiculously claiming that Twitter/FB moderation practices violate FTC regulations because they claim "neutrality" (they don't) & they moderate unfairly based on ideology (they also don't). This is idiotic, Senator.
The fact that both Dems and Republicans on this committee are debating specific content moderation choices about specific tweets (either up or down) is a real problem. This is not the job of politicians.
Now @SenMikeLee is lying, and claiming that while he understands "mistakes" happen in moderation, they only happen on one side of the aisle. This is wrong. It just reveals that Lee lives in a bubble where he doesn't hear about the mistakes on the other side.
JFC. @SenMikeLee complaining about the political ideology of employees at a particular company is a huge fucking problem. Lee used to be considered the "libertarian" Senator and now he's pulling McCarth-esque ideological purity bullshit.
So just as @LindseyGrahamSC is hosting a hearing on the "suppression" in the election from content moderation, more news comes out about Graham himself demanding valid votes be thrown out. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1328735419756929026
Why does @SenMikeLee keep lying and saying that Twitter & FB promised to be "neutral"? They did no such thing. And if it's true that Trumpists get moderated more than others, perhaps... and I'm just spitballing here... it's because they're more prone to lying & trolling.
AKA Karen Day. https://twitter.com/emtgray/status/1328735079502405633
BTW, the hearing is in a brief recess for votes. Meanwhile Senator Leahy seems grumpy that he's been waiting for over an hour to get to ask his questions and all the other senators have been going on at great length about their own complaints about social media.
Yes, this entire hearing is an affront to the 1st Amendment. Imagine how the press would respond to an entire hearing that nitpicked every editorial choice of the NY Times & Washington Post. That's what this hearing is. https://twitter.com/evelyndouek/status/1328737115698552833
Bipartisan support for ignoring the 1st Amendment, though in opposite directions. https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1328740809655676930
Yes, this. The labels have fuck all to do with #Section230, but this hearing isn't *really* about 230. It's about "why won't you operate the way *I* want?" https://twitter.com/issielapowsky/status/1328742269931958280
Realizing I should have done this whole thread in Fleets instead of Tweets.
And we're back with @SenatorLeahy finally getting to ask his questions. He also is demanding that Twitter/FB "do more" to stop disinformation. And so the tug o' war continues.
I am, no joke, having some sort of allergic reaction, and I'm just going to say it's in response to this stupid #Section230 hearing.
My brain has now finely tuned into Zuck's voice modulation so I can tell which versions of him starting out an answer with "Senator..." are dripping with more sarcasm than others.
Zuck points out: "In the same way as a city will never eliminate all crime" FB will never be able to stop all hate/disinfo/etc.
Ugh. Time for another idiotic @tedcruz grandstand. He's complaining about Democrats asking social media to deal with disinformation. He calls it "dangerous" because Senator Cruz is a grandstanding asshole.
Yo. @tedcruz, no one is asking social media to "censor dissent." They're asking them to stop *disinformation*. If you can't tell the difference between "dissent" and "disinformation" maybe it's you who is the idiot.
And it gets dumber. @tedcruz asks @jack "are you a publisher?" Then quotes #Section230 while misrepresenting what it says. JFC.
Ted Cruz knows this is bullshit, but he's falsely pretending that #Section230 distinguishes between a publisher and a platform. And then lies and says that Twitter targets based on ideology.
Now @tedcruz is not even allowing @jack to explain to him how he's completely misrepresenting how Twitter has implemented its policies.
Ted Cruz is the fucking worst.
Also Twitter's hacked materials policy was put in place many years later. https://twitter.com/M_feeney/status/1328748605423955970
So now @tedcruz is misleadingly demanding that Twitter say how many times they've moderated Republican content, but that would require them to determine the ideology of their users. That's insane.
I hope @tedcruz got all the social media clips he wanted out of that nonsense in which he falsely attacked social media for not being the social media he wants.
One of the first sensible things said during this entire hearing 2.5 hours in. https://twitter.com/jrhuddles/status/1328750317715017730
Good on @jack for pointing out that without #Section230, Twitter likely wouldn't exist, because the liability would have been overwhelming.
I've never noticed before that @SenatorDurbin's voice is rather soothing. I'd listen to a meditation app with him leading a mindfulness session.
Now @BenSasse notes that he doesn't see a regulatory fix for content moderation! And even calls out Senators on both sides of the aisle, highlighting both is own GOP colleagues as well as Democrats for stupid demands. I agree.
...but then immediately starts asking questions about the ideological viewpoints of employees of both companies. Dude.
Zuck points out that they have 35,000 content moderators, most of whom are not in Silicon Valley and it's stupid to focus on the political ideology of people in the Valley.
And @jack highlights that they do not hire based on ideology. They don't ask employees about their political ideology, but they focus on their content moderation policies, and the outcomes of those policies.
So far @BenSasse has been the best at recognizing this whole hearing is stupid and that content moderation is impossible to do well. But he still gets hung up on "consistency" without realizing that when you're moderating so much content consistency is impossible as well.
Also, his diversion into the ideological viewpoints of employees of these companies is ridiculous. He'd be up in arms if the Senate held a hearing about the ideological make up of News Corp. employees (as he should!).
And @jack goes back to moving to protocols, to avoid having a centralized content moderation system, and pushing choice and control to the end users, more or less paraphrasing my paper (neat): https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech
Ugh. Now @SenWhitehouse picks up the same idiotic line of @LindseyGrahamSC, comparing social media to tobacco. Again: in this analogy that means that speech is poison. This is a bad analogy, Senator(s).
Weird question from @SenWhitehouse asking @jack to say that bots don't belong on Twitter. Jack points out that there are plenty of useful bots on Twitter. (e.g., @choochoobot <-- Jack didn't point that one out, I am).
Jack also points out to @SenWhitehouse that real names policies aren't great, because there's value in enabling pseudonymous users (such as activists/whistleblowers).
And... @LindseyGrahamSC goes back to the tobacco line, and asks for research showing that social media platforms are "addictive."
And now it's time for @HawleyMO to grandstand with nonsense. Starts out by comparing Twitter & FB to robber barons from a century ago.
Hawley claims that he got a call from a FB whistleblower, and is asking specific questions about an internal "tasks" platform that Hawley claims is used to "censor" people. He literally calls them "Facebook censorship teams" which is bullshit.
Lol. He's arguing that FB/Twitter/Google "collude" in their content moderation decisions. Zuck points out that they communicate on a narrow slice of content: security issues. Notes that's distinct from content moderation policies.
Hawley is being so ridiculous.
Hawley is arguing, falsely, that the 3 companies coordinate banning hashtags. That's not how any of this works.
Hawley is demanding Facebook hand over all sorts of private and likely sensitive information, and then grandstanding about how Zuck is "refusing" even though all he said was he wanted to check to see if there was any sensitive data before he shared anything.
Hawley now showing a blurry screenshot of some sort of internal Facebook tool. Zuck notes he's never even heard of this tool so he has no idea what Hawley is talking about.
WTF @HawleyMO? He concludes with a screaming rant that literally lies and misrepresents everything that just happened. Hawley is a fucking embarrassment.
Now we have @SenAmyKlobuchar focusing on competition, not content moderation, and discussing interoperability. Zuck claims that Chinese firms tried to abuse interoperability.
Klobuchar now trying to play Dorsey against Zuck, asking Dorsey to talk about how FB's actions harmed Vine, causing Twitter to shut that service down.
And... again... a Senator (in this case @SenAmyKlobuchar) is asking about moderation choices on SPECIFIC content. And now demanding that FB not use algorithms to help moderate political ads. Demands a human review. This is dumb.
It's truly stunning how not a single Senator in this hearing seems to understand the nature (and especially the scale) of content moderation.
So... @SenThomTillis argues that if you buy something 30 minutes after seeing an ad on social media that's proof of addictiveness. The entire ad industry (TV, newspaper, magazines, radio, billboards, etc) might want to have a word...
Tillis is like the light beer version of Senator Hawley.
Tillis and Hawley really want to imply that because trust & safety people at different companies know each other, that's evidence that they're scheming on how to block certain content they have ideological disagreements with.
Oh god. Tillis is asking Zuck and Dorsey to come back FOR ANOTHER HEARING next month. Make it stop. I can't do this every few weeks.
It's not like this is the first time he's said this. https://twitter.com/WillOremus/status/1328759020509913088
Here's what a glutton for punishment I am. I'd watch this. https://twitter.com/alexfeerst/status/1328767789750947840
For every legit point raised in this hearing, it's immediately followed by absolutely dangerous nonsense. https://twitter.com/Will_Duffield/status/1328767994126807041
Now @SenJoniErnst trots out the silly "but... anti-conservative bias" claims, and then asks if Facebook & Twitter will commit to hire more Republicans.
Imagine a Democrat demanding Fox News hire more Dems.
Imagine a Democrat demanding Fox News hire more Dems.
Zuck points out the obvious problem of asking people interviewing for jobs what their political affiliation is. Yet that's exactly what @SenJoniErnst is demanding.
Is she also going to demand that Parler hire more Dems?
Is she also going to demand that Parler hire more Dems?
And... now @SenJoniErnst is asking Zuck to agree to backdoors to encryption (i.e., breaking encryption).
Finally @maziehirono steps up to point out that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of anti-conservative bias in content moderation decisions. Says the hearing is a "transparent effort" by GOP to get platforms to bend over backwards to HELP the GOP.
Meanwhile, while live tweeting this insane hearing on content moderation in the US, I've also posted how UK MP @DamianCollins is demanding the impossible over in the UK. Leave up political speech, but take down any disinfo. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201116/02212745712/uk-politician-demands-impossible-social-media-companies-must-not-take-down-political-speech-must-block-disinformation.shtml
Ugh. Now @SenJohnKennedy says Twitter/FB are not companies, but "countries."
Now @SenJohnKennedy is walking down a stupid path, getting Jack & Zuck to admit they don't believe everything they read, and don't employ people to make sure no fake info gets to them (implying a stupid equivalence to content moderation).
Kennedy asks companies what would happen if they adopted a rule saying anyone can read anything... but then immediately lists a bunch of exceptions (bullying, harassment, promoting violence, etc.)
So @jack points out that basically IS Twitter's rule, and Kennedy falsely says "no, you're censoring left and right." Jack: "I can see what you might think that" and explains how it's simply wrong.
Kennedy calls Zuck "Mr. Zuck."
Oh no no no no Zuck. He just pulled out the "even ardent 1st Amendment supporters, recognize you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." Please, someone at FB, please explain to Zuck why this is a dumb and dangerous line.
So Zuck explains how content moderation is complex and has many nuances and facets, and @SenJohnKennedy says "well that makes you a publisher, and that creates problems for #Section230" which is... not how any of this works.
Shorter @SenJohnKennedy "Please stop censoring content, except for this list of content I demand you censor." *sigh*
This is the problem. Every Senator seems to think that it's obvious how to moderate content, and none recognize that it's not. https://twitter.com/noUpside/status/1328776705238986753
So right after @SenJohnKennedy says Twitter/FB shouldn't remove any political content, @CoryBooker warns that Trump is likely to incite dangerous activities over the next few months and wants to know how the sites will deal with it.
So after @HawleyMO complains about the companies coordinating moderation decisions, @CoryBooker demands to know why Twitter & FB have made different choices on how to moderate Steve Bannon (again highlighting how the complaints here contradict one another).
And, to close this out we have @MarshaBlackburn saying that FB/Twitter are contributing to violence against women and children... and... what?!?
Huh. @MarshaBlackburn claims that Twitter & Facebook employees believe they're "the invincible gods of Silicon Valley." Which um... no?
So now @MarshaBlackburn says that she has to regulate Facebook & Twitter to take away Section 230. As a reminder, a few years ago she put out a video highlighting both companies as leading lights of private innovation & warning *against* regulating them.
So apparently @MarshaBlackburn is mad that Chinese companies buy ads on Facebook & Twitter. And somehow this is a scandal?
This makes no sense at all.
Zuck points out that it would be a bad idea to ban people based on their political affiliation, and @MarshaBlackburn says "well that's a good 1st step" as if... it's a step in any direction.
Lol. @MarshaBlackburn is mad that her own content got moderated, and says there must be "a list" with her on it. OMG. "Why am I always censored." Because you post blatant disinfo.
Now it's @MarshaBlackburn who has no fucking clue what the 1st Amendment is and how it works. This is grandstanding nonsense.
. @MarshaBlackburn blames Twitter/FB for "cancel culture." Remember, a few years ago, Blackburn demanded that social media sites take down "fake news." https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161207/17051436222/rep-marsha-blackburn-says-internet-service-providers-have-obligation-to-censor-fake-news.shtml
Now @SenBlumenthal literally jokes about how Dorsey & Zuckerberg "will be back" before Congress next year. This is all political theater and nonsense.
Ugh. @SenBlumenthal and @LindseyGrahamSC promote the EARN IT Act, which is a terrible and dangerous bill that won't actually fix any of the alleged "problems" with CSAM, but will create all sorts of new problems.
And with that, the hearing is over. Blech. What a fucking waste. Partial kudos to @BenSasse and @DickDurbin who were the least horrible. The worst list would be: @tedcruz, @HawleyMO and @MarshaBlackburn who all used their time to spread blatant misinformation.
