This article is more than 1 year old

Not so much changing their tune as enabling autotune: Facebook, Twitter bigwigs nod and smile to US senators

Google slammed for no-show

Fake news

Pushed on Facebook's widely publicized failures to tackle fake news, Sandberg noted several times the goliath's efforts to limit it by allowing third parties to tag such information as false, and then warn users that seek to spread that information that it is false, as well as promote "related stories" with correct information.

Unintentionally reflecting the infamous argument by the National Rifle Association that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Sandberg assured senators that "bad speech can be countered by good speech."

This was a huge change in tone and attitude to just a few years ago when social media companies was dismissive of any suggestions that they needed to revise their policies to tackle potential abuse of their systems.

Back then, the same executives confidently told lawmakers that they should be exempt from any such controls because of the enormous societal and financial value they offered. Any laws would damage that and stifle innovation, they complained.

But that was before the series of scandals over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, with a vast and successful effort to use social media to spread divisive and false messages direct to US voters.

As one senator noted, Facebook initially mocked any suggestion that its systems had been maliciously leveraged by foreign government agents to sow doubt and anger. Senator Warner pointedly referred to "some initial false starts" from Twitter before welcoming what he said looks like a "commitment to moving the culture."

But there are still ideas and proposals that both Facebook and Twitter are clearly opposed to.

Side-stepping

Sandberg took a specific approach to not directly conflicting with any committee members – one that grew increasingly obvious the more she employed it. In each case, she made a vague statement reflecting agreement with whatever the lawmaker had just proposed, assuring them that Facebook agreed with their view.

If pushed further, Sandberg fell back on carefully worded statements. But when pressed on specifics – such as when Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) asked how much money Facebook had made from advertisements surrounding fake Russian content – Sandberg claimed not to have the information with a promise to get back "as soon as possible" with an answer. Senator Wyden's questions about political advertisements were similarly pushed off to a future response.

Dorsey was more straightforward with his answers, but went out of his way to acknowledge fault each time. Twitter would work more with law enforcement, it would keep making changes, it was open to any and all conversations.

The only place where the execs pushed back was on the suggestion that the blanket legal protection afforded both companies – Section 230 of the Communications Act – be opened up still further to make them liable for fake pharmaceutical ads and posts.

Just a year ago, such a proposal – made very bluntly this time by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) – would have elicited a firm refusal from social media execs. Today, Dorsey said he was "open to dialogue" about it while noting that Twitter "benefits from the protections" and that any changes would have to be "finely balanced." Sandberg gave a similar response, saying Facebook would be open to discussions but stressing that it would be "important to look at" the impact of any changes to liability.

Time will tell

The session closed with the chair and ranking member thanking the execs for attending and being open to constructive dialogue. But both made it clear that the issue was not over. The hearing may have bought the companies some time but all eyes are likely to be turned to the US mid-term elections later this year and how effective Facebook and Twitter will be when it comes to preventing manipulation, meddling, and deliberately divisive messaging on their systems by foreign powers.

How well they fare in that task will likely define how aggressive lawmakers are in future and how hard they will push for further reforms and/or legislation.

One thing that the committee members were unanimous on however was the "failure" of Google to send its CEO Larry Page to the hearing. Google offered its general counsel in his place – a request that was turned down by the committee chair, who requested a more senior executive. Google refused.

That interaction resulted in an empty chair being placed at the witness with a Google name tag. And several senators went out of their way to express their annoyance at the failure of Google to answer questions. It remains to be seen what impact that snub will have, but given that the ball is very much in Congress' court right now when it comes to concerns over social media abuse, it was a risky strategy that Google and Page may live to regret. ®

More about

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like