Read on Twitter
You might be prepared to ignore the majority of the Section 230 complaints simply as a matter of campaigning ahead of the US Election, but how social media platforms handle incidents like the New York Post story is a serious issue.
Hearing streaming now. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/10/does-section-230-s-sweeping-immunity-enable-big-tech-bad-behavior
Hearing streaming now. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/10/does-section-230-s-sweeping-immunity-enable-big-tech-bad-behavior
Chairman Roger Wicker says: "It is worth noting that both Twitter and Facebook's aversion to 'hacked materials' has not always been so stringent. For example when the president's tax returns were illegally leaked, neither company attempted to restrict access to that information..
..Similarly the now discredited Steele dossier, was widely shared without fact-checking or disclaimers," Chairman Wicker continued.
"This apparent double-standard would be appalling under normal circumstances but the fact that selective censorship is occurring in the midst of the 2020 election cycle dramatically amplifies the power wielded by Facebook and Twitter."
No real attempt to discuss this so far. Senator Cantwell mentioned Russian interference in 2016, but did not make any allegations about such interference being part of the New York Post story.
Chairman Wicker raised a few complaints with Jack Dorsey about @realDonaldTrump tweets being restricted, while Twitter "allows foreign dictators to post propaganda typically without restriction".
Chairman Wicker notes tweets by Ayatollah Khamenei ( @khamenei_ir) including one stating: "The only remedy until the removal of the Zionist regime is firm, armed resistance."
Jack Dorsey said that this was sabre-rattling, a kind of expected behaviour. https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562
Jack Dorsey said that this was sabre-rattling, a kind of expected behaviour. https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562
He also complained about Lijian Zhao's ( @zlj517) message that "It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan" which Chairman Wicker alleged went two months without any labelling, in contrast to the rapid labelling of @RealDonaldTrump tweets. https://twitter.com/zlj517/status/1238111898828066823
Chairman Wicker said: "When President Trump tweeted about how mail-in ballots are vulnerable to fraud, a statement that I subscribe to and agree with, a statement that is in fact true, Twitter immediately imposed a fact-check label on that tweet." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1297495295266357248
Mr Dorsey responded: "As we think about enforcement, we consider severity of potential offline harm, and we act as quickly as we can."
This is what was explained at the time. https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-2020-twitter-flags-misleading-trump-tweet-as-it-could-dissuade-people-from-voting-12055253
This is what was explained at the time. https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-2020-twitter-flags-misleading-trump-tweet-as-it-could-dissuade-people-from-voting-12055253
"We have taken action against tweets from world leaders all around the world, including the president, and we took action on that tweet, because we saw it and we saw the confusion it night encourage, and we labelled it accordingly," Mr Dorsey continued.
"The goal of our labelling is to provide more context, so that people can have more information, so they can make decisions for themselves," he added.
Overwhelmingly (and sadly if perhaps unsurprisingly) the discussion has been split on partisan lines. There has been very little to no actual policy discussion, but a lot about the merits of @realDonaldTrump's tweets on the coronavirus pandemic.
We interrupt this thread with a little reminder that you can follow all of the results live with @SkyNews from 10pm next Tuesday, on TV (or Youtube: ) on both Android and iOS, and on http://skynews.com
"The three witnesses before this committee today collectively pose, I believe, the single greatest threat to free speech in America, and the greatest threat we have to free and fair elections," opens Senator Ted Cruz.
Senator Cruz notes "Facebook is at the minimum at least trying to make some efforts in the direction of defencing free speech, I appreciate their doing so."
Of Google, Senator Cruz says: "I agree with the concerns that Senator Klouchabar raised. I think that Google has more power than any company on the face of the planet."
"And the antitrust concerns are real, the impact of Google is profound, and I expect we will have continued and ongoing discussions about Google's abuse of that power and its willingness to manipulate search outcomes to influence and change election results," Senator Cruz adds.
"But today, I want to focus my questioning on Mr Dorsey, and on Twitter. Because of the three players before us, I think Twitter's conduct has by far been the most egregious."
Cruz asks: "Mr Dorsey, does Twitter have the ability to influence elections?"
Dorsey: "No."
Cruz asks: "Mr Dorsey, does Twitter have the ability to influence elections?"
Dorsey: "No."
