After more than five hours of questioning, we learned very little about the state of chaos from today’s marathon hearings with Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and the beautiful Pichai. Democrats pressured the CEO to respond to the misinformation and extreme failure of vaccines on their platforms. Republicans wanted to talk about child protection. Everyone wanted a simple “yes” or “no” answer, although a few were given. What is clear is that both sides are more than ready to impose new rules on Facebook, Twitter and Google.
The hearing was supposed to be about the management of the platforms Misinformation and extremism. During the coronavirus epidemic and in the American people. The riots have taken on a new meaning in the US capital since January. “This attack and movement inspired it and it nurtured your platform,” Rep. Mike Doyle said in his opening statement. “Your platforms have suggested groups for people to join, videos they should watch, and posts they like – they’ve moved this movement forward with tremendous speed and efficiency.”
Doyle and other Democratic lawmakers forced officials to acknowledge that their platforms were somewhat responsible for the January events. Only. Only Dorsey would admit to any. Both Zuckerberg and Pichai have avoided addressing the question directly, although the CEO of Facebook will later admit that his platform hosted some rioters with “problematic” content.
Like other recent hearings, the format has made it almost impossible to find meaningful answers. Many MPs used their allotted five minutes to demand “yes or no” answers, which executives were reluctant to give. A particular , Anna Eshu of California was questioning Zuckerberg about Facebook’s algorithm when he interrupted her saying “we don’t do filibuster at home.”
These organizations are not doing enough to protect their users and our democracy. They must be held accountable. pic.twitter.com/YyNDoBDkS0
– Rep. Anna Ji Eshu (@RipannaEshu) March 25, 2021
“I think it’s bothering us all and no one seems to know the word yes or no,” he said. “Congress women, these are minimal issues,” Zuckerberg told her before the breakup. “Well, it’s not one,” he said.
Later, Rep. Billy Long took this feeling a step further and asked each CEO individually, “Do you know the difference between ‘yes’ and ‘no’?”
Darcy, who said in his inaugural statement that he “would rather focus on policies and approaches to solving these problems”, seemed impatient. During the hearing, he liked a number of tweets, including a question about why so many lawyers don’t think they’re learning to pronounce “pichai”. . After questioning Long, he posted a Twitter poll that simply said “?” Said (later raped Dorsey. Kathleen Rice was strongly congratulated for her “multitasking” skills.)
As the hearing dragged on, the lawmakers themselves began to repeat themselves. Inevitably, when a new issue or angle was raised like when rap. David McKinley shows Zugerberg copies of Instagram posts – Executives had very little time to respond meaningfully. The result was that the CEO’s opening statements provided more details on more issues than they were able to say in the five hours that followed.
This is certainly nothing new. Over the past few years, Congress has convened several hearings involving Big Tech executives, and most of them have acted in the same vein. What is increasingly clear, however, is that both sides of the aisle are interested in imposing new regulations on technology platforms.
We still don’t know exactly what these rules will look like but they can come on several fronts. President Joe Biden has indicated that he supports it Section 230 And both Congress and the White House have hinted at openness for incredible action against these agencies. (In Congress, Rep. David Cecilin says he wants to pass a number of bills that could prevent Big Tech from dominating. And Joe Biden has tapped two prominent incredible scholars for key roles) And .)
Elsewhere, the Senate may soon bring Dorsey and Zuckerberg back for another hearing on misinformation, algorithms and privacy, recently Senator Chris Kuns said. Politico. And there is little reason to believe that a few more hours of long hearings will give more new insights into these issues, but Congress seems interested in forcing the agency to change.
Another idea was proposed: the creation of a new federal agency that would “have the power to rule these Internet platforms and have real teeth,” Rep. Doyle said. Following the hearing, “members of both sides of the aisle are ready to sit down and talk about what can be put forward, and this is happening in the Senate as well.”