When Jack Dorsey testified to the Senate next week, Twitter CEO was politically damaged by his company’s unsuccessful reaction to an article about Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. You have a chance to cancel some of them.
But it also presents a dangerous moment for Mr. Dorsey, who says analysts risk embodying Republican complaints about alleged conservative censorship by social media companies.
Senator will vote on Tuesday whether to issue a subpoena to Mr Dorsey following Twitter’s decision to limit articles in the New York Post that said he violated the policy on hacked material. Officials expect a majority of Republican members to do so and may also publish to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Analysts say the hearing, already scheduled for Friday, will give Republican senators an opportunity to express anger at the industry in general, following a series of moves by Silicon Valley companies that have infuriated the right. ..
Sam McGowan, a research analyst at Beacon Policy Advisors, a Washington consultancy, said: All of these senators are looking for video clips that can burn Jack Dorsey and use it in campaign materials to revitalize the base. “
Republican chairman Lindsey Graham said Thursday that he hopes the hearing will provide social media companies with the opportunity to give them “long-deferred accounting.”
Dorsey needs to explain why Twitter decided to block reports from the New York Post. It may even temporarily ban President Donald Trump’s campaign account and his spokesman, Cary McKenny’s campaign account.
Twitter initially quoted a policy to block hacked material, even though the policy included news reports about hacking and warnings about sharing personal information.Dorsey Then said Prior to Twitter updating its policy, his company’s communication on this decision was “bad.” Instead, he said it would only block content shared directly by hackers or people who “act with them.” He also said on Friday that he would unblock sharing as personal information from New York Post articles became widely available online and in the media.
Even some liberal commentators warn that the decision is too enthusiastic. “It was a really offensive act that they probably couldn’t prove in the long run,” said Angelo Carsone, CEO of the left-wing nonprofit Media Matters.
“They saw smelt like bad behavior, and they tried to shoehorn with a restrictive reaction,” he said.
This column has exacerbated Republican anger at social media companies, especially after weeks of unprecedented turmoil in the industry to limit disinformation from the right.
During the summer, Twitter was angry by adding warning labels to some of Mr. Trump’s tweets about false elections, false coronaviruses, and policy violations regarding incitement to violence.
The company has tightened its moderation policy and last week announced additional restrictions on potential politicians and others who share misleading claims. Also, in recent weeks, both Mr. Trump and his campaign accounts have been temporarily suspended due to rule violations.
Meanwhile, Facebook has recently begun to take action on some of Mr. Trump’s posts, including removing one because he mistakenly claimed that the coronavirus was less deadly than the flu. Both have announced a move to crack down on the Trump conspiracy theory QAnon, similar to YouTube.
In response, senior Republicans have begun to talk again about Section 230, a provision of the 1996 law that exempts social media platforms from being sued for content posted by users.
Mr. Trump has called for the law to be abolished and issued an executive order earlier this year calling on the Federal Communications Commission to “clarify” when it should be applied. FCC chairman Agit Pai, appointed by Mr. Trump, said he would do so on Thursday, but is unlikely to make recommendations until the end of the presidential election and may not offer any if he resigns.
Senate Republicans are also making new pushes to change the law, working on legislation that limits when companies are exempt from Article 230, according to Senate officials. Such a bill, by Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley, should force companies seeking impunity to show political neutrality and justify their removal from the Justice Department. Any content that may be based on a suggestion that it should be enforced.
Both Dorsey and Zuckerberg will testify to Article 230 in the Senate, although the bill is unlikely to be passed, as the Democratic Party of Japan controls the House later in the month.
Instead, some analysts are now more proactive about false information, as companies such as Facebook and Twitter see the potential Biden administration as a more realistic threat than another Trump term. I think that I am taking a positive action.
Biden also talked about the abolition of Section 230, but senior Democrats are interested in both passing privacy regulations and reforming antitrust laws to facilitate the challenge of the Silicon Valley Group’s corporate strength. I am.
McGowan of Beacon Policy Advisors said: “The industry wants to show that the self-regulatory model works and the Democrats are doing these things on their own, so there is no need to introduce stricter regulations.”