Big Tech Hearings are Wasteful Political Theater

It’s another week in Washington. That means, naturally, that a couple of tech CEOs are once again being called to testify on Capitol Hill and to be berated by a panel of U.S. Senators. This time, it is Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter respectively. The topic is ostensibly going to be each platform’s moderation of certain content, more specifically the New York Post’s Hunter Biden exposé.

Though Section 230 is not explicitly mentioned in the hearing itinerary, expect it to loom very large amidst the proceedings. Prominent Republican politicians from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), and all the way up to Donald Trump have explicitly called for the outright repeal of this longstanding provision of law. They claim that Section 230 allows these platforms to “censor” conservatives.

Before all the noise that will most assuredly come at this hearing, it is worth reiterating what Section 230 actually means and what it actually does. This provision provides social media platforms – among other tech companies – a degree of legal immunity for things others say on their platform. Succinctly, if John Doe says something defamatory on Twitter, John Doe is legally responsible for that comment, not Twitter. That’s as straightforward as it comes.

However, some politicians – like those named above – have twisted this basic definition to impose some sort of neutrality standard on these tech companies. The saying goes that if social media companies censor, then they have editorial discretion and should be held liable. Section 230, though, was never about neutrality. In the words of then Rep. and now Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), coauthor of the law, it was about giving upstart tech companies a “sword and a shield” to be able to promote free speech and still maintain a site users want to visit.

A world without Section 230 would likely be a nightmare for those clamoring for its demise. If it is repealed and companies like Facebook and Twitter are legally responsible for all the content on their site, moderation and content removal will expand exponentially. They could not afford to leave anything that could potentially be considered defamatory on the platform, lest they be subjected to costly legal battles ad infinitum. This will also deter any up and coming competitor from entering the market, because only the giant companies could ever hope to afford the associated costs.

While members of the Senate Judiciary Committee go out seeking to cut their next campaign ad by looking tough in the face of our nation’s top business leaders, remember this. Like so many other proposals that go through Congress, the push to repeal Section 230 wildly ignores any of the unintended consequences. Dorsey and Zuckerberg may take a verbal beating, but it is very important that sober-minded policymakers not get swept up in the show.