Social media company executives and technology researchers differed in the extent to which they believe algorithms are being used to suppress harmful content on online platforms during a Tuesday congressional hearing.
Executives from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube told senators from the judiciary subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law that the companies use formulas to remove content that violates their terms of use. They said they also suppress content that has more borderline hateful content.
Facebook’s vice president for content policy, Monika Bickert, said it would be “self-defeating” for the company’s algorithms to push extreme content.
Tristan Harris, who used to work for Google as a design ethicist and is now co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, cast doubt on how far those algorithms go to limit such divisive content.
“Their business model is to create a society that is addicted, outraged, polarized, performative and disinformed,” he said. “While they can try to skim the major harm off the top and do what they can — and we want to celebrate that, we really do — it’s just fundamentals, they’re trapped in something that they can’t changed.
“It’s almost like having the heads of Exxon, BP and Shell here and asking about what you’re doing to responsibly stop climate change.”
Harris and fellow expert Joan Donovan, research director for Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, said social media companies play a significant role in U.S. democracy, pointing to the use of such platforms by organizers of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Subcommittee Chairman Chris Coons and ranking member Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., appeared to share concerns about regulations on social media companies and potential First Amendment issues.
“None of us wants to live in a society that as a price of remaining open and free is hopelessly politically divided,” Coons said. “But I also am conscious of the fact that we don’t want to needlessly constrained some of the most innovative, fastest-growing businesses in the West. Striking that balance is going to require more conversation.”
Copyright 2021 United Press International, Inc. (UPI). Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI’s prior written consent.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
These companies own the algorithms. As someone who was a pioneer in software I can tell you that is you own it you can change it to do what you want. Anything else is purely fiction that they promote to dodge their responsibility for their actions.
AN Algorithm does NOT DO ANYTHING MORE THAN what the programmer MAKES IT DO..
Big Tech censorship, in bed with the politicians in Washington. Pravda personified. Like Tucker said, Big Tech gives to both parties, so the RINO establishment is in on the censorship, as are the communist Democrats.
“It’s almost like having the heads of Exxon, BP and Shell here and asking about what you’re doing to responsibly stop climate change.” In other words, “Because we say they’re the enemy. It’s not like they know anything about real-world energy production.”
This is the reality behind the mask.
They said they also suppress content that has more borderline hateful content. In other words, anything the woke folk disagree with.
Social media no longer provides neutral platforms, therefore they should no longer be able to hide behind Section 230.
AND Since the vast chunk of the REGULAR MEDIA, is no longer a “Free press”, THOSE ORGs should no longer enjoy ANY FIRST Amendment protections either!
Regardless of whether they use algorithms or blue-pencil-and-eyeshade editors to accept or reject content, the deliberate acceptance/rejection decisions make them publishers rather than platforms, and they should be treated as such, including the lifting of their exemption from legal liabilities.
AND since we all know they only SELECTIVELY ‘do that rejection, they should ALSO BE SUED for violating the 14th amendment’s “EQUAL protection” clause.