Name: 5 fact-checks from the Senate’s hearing on social media
Brand: vox.com
SKU: vox-com-327
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

5 fact-checks from the Senate’s hearing on social media

preview

We took a closer look at the unproven claims lawmakers made about Facebook, Google, and Twitter.Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing — and changing us.Six days ahead of a historic presidential election whose outcome is expected to shape the and as to aid millions of unemployed Americans affected by the ongoing , the Senate talking about something else: how social media companies handle controversial speech on the internet.Wednesday’s hearing was supposed to focus on nuanced reforms to a — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms. Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.But instead of talking about reforming the actual law, most Republican Senators — with notable exceptions such as Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) — used their time to press the CEOs about specific content moderation decisions that have been controversial with Republicans. Namely, Twitter blocking an unverified story in the New York Post making damning earlier this month, or why the company fact-checks Trump more often than Iran’s or the Chinese Communist Party’s leaders.at the hearing — and — have written off the hearing as political theater orchestrated by conservatives days ahead of the election to intimidate these companies so they avoid fact-checking Trump or conservative disinformation campaigns.But Republicans argued that allegations of bias are critical and valid, and that they need to be swiftly addressed.Many Senators used assumptions and cherry-picked evidence to try to prove their points. And in response, the tech CEOs effectively skirted more serious discussions about their actual shortcomings in content moderation.Here are the fact-checks on the five most head-scratching claims senators — and tech CEOs — made at the hearing.1) Though Republicans say social media companies are broadly censoring conservative speech, the evidence doesn’t support the claim.Many conservative lawmakers, encouraged by President Trump, have long alleged that tech companies are censoring Republicans on social media. And today’s hearing was no exception.Citing social media companies’ handling of the Hunter Biden New York Post story, as well as Google’s threats to over allegedly racist content, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) said in his opening remarks: “These recent incidents are only the latest in a long trail of censorship and suppression of conservative voices on the internet.”While it’s true that Twitter and Facebook have made some controversial and at times questionable decisions to limit false or unverified speech by conservative politicians and news outlets (Twitter the Hunter Biden story, Facebook did not), these are individual examples.On the whole, data shows that . Conservative pundits like rank among the most shared news sources on Facebook based on the company’s data aggregation tool, CrowdTangle. And despite all the hoopla about Twitter’s alleged censoring of Trump, the president still uses the platform every day to reach tens of millions more followers than Joe Biden does.In fact, Trump himself has that, without social media, he wouldn’t be able to “get the word out” to the people.Republican senators asked why tech companies haven’t fact-checked high-profile Democratic leaders like Biden as much as they have Trump, but they ignored the very obvious answer: that Trump, unlike Biden, has more frequently promoted false and misleading statements on social media. If Biden were to or the , as Trump has, he would likely face the same kind of moderation.To Republicans’ credit, an underlying tension here is that many people who work at tech companies lean liberal (more on that later). And, back in 2016, Gizmodo reported that into low-level employee content moderation decisions via the disastrous “Facebook Trending” section. But a lot has changed since then (for one, Facebook has done away with that its trending section entirely). If anything, the evidence now seems to suggest that Facebook has adjusted in the other direction to please Republicans and fend off claims of anti-conservative bias. According to recent reporting from , , and , the company has at times overridden its fact-checking system and tweaked its algorithms to favor conservative publications over liberal ones like Mother Jones.2) Ted Cruz claimed social media companies are the biggest threat to free speech in the US. That’s not at all clear.Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) came in hot to the hearing, announcing his intent to grill Dorsey in a wrestling-match style flyer he (ironically) tweeted out the night before the session, all in the name of defending free speech on the internet.TOMORROW10am ET / 9am CTLivestream will be available here --&gt; — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz)“The three witnesses we have before the committee today collectively pose the single biggest threat to free speech in America and the greatest threat we have to free and fair elections,” Cruz said, speaking about Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and Pichai.Cruz is entitled to his opinion, of course, but it’s not at all objectively clear that the biggest threat to free speech or election integrity in this country is when Facebook, Twitter, or Google fact-check politicians like Trump.In fact, if you asked this same question of leading free speech advocates and human rights organizations, many would say a bigger concern is Trump’s since his first day in office. If social media companies do pose a threat to free speech, they say, it has less to do with how they handle conservative voices and more do with the extremist hate speech that spreads on their platforms, and which on women, minorities, and other marginalized groups by shutting them out of online public discourse.It’s true that social media companies now rival governments in the scope of their power and influence, and free speech defenders of all political persuasions demand that these companies provide more transparency and accountability about what content they do and don’t allow.But for Cruz and some of his Republican colleagues to support free speech only when it suits their political needs (in an extreme example of this, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) denounced Google for allegedly censoring Republicans while who publicly criticized her) is a hypocritical one at best.3) Dorsey told Cruz that Twitter doesn’t impact elections. It does.Despite Cruz’s largely theatrical political showboating, he did get into one important exchange with Dorsey that highlighted an issue originating with the tech platforms themselves: their refusal to acknowledge that they are more than just neutral platforms.At one point, Cruz asked Dorsey whether Twitter has influence over the elections, and Dorsey said no.Cruz retorted, “If you do not believe you have the power to influence elections, why do you block anything?”Dorsey’s response was that Twitter blocks content to reduce harassment and make everyone feel included on its platform. Facebook and Google have similarly asserted that they aim to be neutral platforms for people to communicate, with exceptions to protect their users from harm. But that’s just part of the picture.The reality is that Twitter, Facebook, Google, and every other social media platform make decisions every day about what kind of political speech is and isn’t allowed on their platforms. Moreover, the algorithms underpinning these platforms dictate which topics go viral and reach the masses instantly, and which ones get seen by a much smaller number of people. And because these sites are the main way tens of millions of Americans primarily consume their daily news, what is and isn’t allowed on them can of course impact how someone votes in an election.The fact that Dorsey — as well as Zuckerberg and Pichai — wouldn’t admit this basic fact was telling of tech CEOs’ lack of candor about the political power they’ve amassed through their companies.4) Senators suggested tech companies’ liberal employee majorities are a problem. But that’s neither illegal nor the government’s job to police.First of all, let’s be clear that at Google, Twitter, and Facebook . That’s reflective of the demographics where these companies are based and the skills they hire for: largely college-educated workers in major urban areas like San Francisco, New York, and Seattle.In Wednesday’s hearing, several Republican Senators questioned tech CEOs about the political makeup of their workforce as if there was something shameful about this.The insinuation is that because these companies have a liberal-leaning workforce that they as a default are stifling conservative speech.But as we mentioned earlier, there isn’t any real proof of that systematic suppression. And even if there were, the solution wouldn’t necessarily be to mandate that everyone who works for Facebook or Twitter pass some kind of political litmus test.Congress has a from gainful employment due to their political beliefs. While it’s fair to question the unparalleled political power of tech companies and try to regulate that problem, it’s dangerous for lawmakers to misleadingly frame the issues at hand as being connected to employees’ personal politics.5) Senators kept pronouncing Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s name incorrectly. It’s pronounced “Pitch-eye.”Senators across the aisle repeatedly butchered the name of Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The soft-spoken Pichai, who was born and raised in India and at the search giant from a product manager to its chief executive, refrained from correcting his questioners.The fact that members of Congress were mispronouncing the name of one of the most important business leaders in the US was an embarrassing slip many on Twitter. Especially as it was Pichai’s third time being questioned in front of Congress.And while getting Pichai’s name right is a less important point in the scope of the broader issues at stake around social media, it’s not insignificant, either. In recent months, Trump and some Republican lawmakers Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris over the . It seems more likely that in this case, senators were botching Pichai’s name out of ignorance rather than malice. But as , Congress hasn’t had any trouble pronouncing other hard-to-pronounce names in the past. In the year 2020, there’s really no excuse for elected officials not to at least try and correctly pronounce the name of a global tech titan.Millions turn to Vox to understand what’s happening in the news. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all.

We took a closer look at the unproven claims lawmakers made about Facebook, Google, and Twitter.Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing — and changing us.Six days ahead of a historic presidential election whose outcome is expected to shape the and as to aid millions of unemployed Americans affected by the ongoing , the Senate talking about something else: how social media companies handle controversial speech on the internet.Wednesday’s hearing was supposed to focus on nuanced reforms to a — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their...

public

Shirin Ghaffary is a reporter for Recode. Prior to that, she worked for BuzzFeed News and Elementum, an enterprise software startup, and interned for the Wall Street Journal and TechCrunch. Originally from the San Francisco Bay Area, Shirin was raised in Silicon Valley next door to Apple headquarters, and attended UC Berkeley where she was executive news editor of the Daily Californian, the university paper.

https://www.vox.com/authors/shirin-ghaffary

Shirin Ghaffary

Vox is a liberal-leaning American news and opinion website owned by Vox Media. The website was founded in April 2014 by Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, and Melissa Bell, and is noted for its concept of explanatory journalism. Vox's media presence also includes a YouTube channel, several podcasts, and a show presented on Netflix.

5 fact-checks from the Senate’s hearing on social media

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS