Congress Summons Its Speech Regulators A hearing shows how Big Tech is becoming a government enforcer.
On Thursday the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter sat before the House Energy and Commerce Committee as Democrats thundered that they should censor more political speech, and what was notable was how routine this ritual has become.
The Journal reports this was Mark Zuckerberg’s “fourth appearance before Congress since last July, and the third for both Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai. ” The gatekeepers of online expression increasingly resemble government regulators, navigating threats and exhortations from politicians.
The hearing topic was “disinformation,” and it followed the same committee’s hearing last month targeting conservative media. The term “disinformation” is elastic, covering anything from election and health hoaxes to political expression that Democrats disfavor. Rep. Mike Doyle, the subcommittee chair, said in his opening statement that the sites the CEOs oversee are “havens of hate, harassment, and division,” and declared, “we will legislate to stop this.”
That sentiment was echoed by Rep. Henry Butterfield, who said social-media platforms are “being used to undermine social justice movements.” He said Congress may have to “compel you, perhaps with penalties, to make meaningful changes” to employee composition.
Republicans also laid into the platforms, especially their impact on minors and progressive bias in moderation. But the message from the majority party was clear and unified: Clamp down on more political speech, pronto, or risk the consequences. Rep. Jerry McNerney said the removal of disinformation “isn’t happening quickly enough.”
Progressives have deputized Big Tech executives as de facto regulators of American debate. Hearings like this one—as well as congressional letters to the CEOs—have become so frequent because social media management is now performing what has all the hallmarks of a quasi-governmental function. Congress regularly enforces the arrangement through legislative threats. As Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld recently pointed out in these pages, government could not legally censor this content without the platforms’ help.
Yet the distinction between government and Big Tech firms is becoming harder to delineate. Which speech decisions are the companies making because of business interests, and which are in response to government demands?
As politicians increasingly intrude into online speech decisions, the 1996 compromise that gave internet platforms legal immunity in exchange for autonomy over content on their websites continues to break down.
Comments are closed.
