But lawmakers on both sides of the corridor on Wednesday denounced Zuckerberg’s proposal as a secondary political spectacle and a bad faith attempt to give the giant a competitive advantage.
“Mark Zuckerberg knows that reversing section 230 will cement Facebook’s position as the dominant social media company and make it much more difficult for new startups to challenge their dairy cow,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Who co- wrote Section 230 was a member of the House in the 1990s and resisted Congressional efforts to reduce the law.
Others at the forefront of efforts to renew the legal shield were also angered by Zuckerberg’s suggestion of what the legislative solution should look like.
Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Who proposed reversing protections to address concerns about the alleged anti-conservative bias of technology companies, called Zuckerberg’s proposal self-service. And she said that Facebook should prepare for broader changes – like it or not.
“The reform of Section 230 will hit Facebook regardless of what those CEOs interested in Silicon Valley want,” said Blackburn. “Big Tech only wants reform when it increases its power at the expense of competitors.”
Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) And Tom Malinowski (DN.J.), who on Wednesday reintroduced legislation to make companies responsible for amplifying certain types of illegal content, such as civil rights abuses and foreign terrorism. , told reporters on a phone call that Congress should not fall for Zuckerberg’s maneuver.
Malinowski said Congress should focus on making Facebook more legally responsible for the way it amplifies and augments illicit material, rather than hosting the content itself.
“This is a classic example of how Facebook expects us to understand nothing,” he said. “They want us to focus on putting out fires, not on the fact that their product is flammable.”
Zuckerberg embraced the idea of updating Section 230 at a Senate Trade Committee hearing in October, where he suggested that lawmakers consider proposals to strengthen “industry collaboration” and increase transparency about how platforms make decisions about the content of the user. But his comments on statements made public on Wednesday were the most detailed so far.
The issue has emerged as one of the main fronts in the battle between Washington and Silicon Valley, with lawmakers threatening to weaken or remove protections altogether if technology companies do not address concerns about their content policies and practices.
Zuckerberg and some prominent tech figures – including from Microsoft, Match Group and Salesforce – have stopped opposing changes and have come to suggest and endorse proposals that they hope will influence lawmakers. Facebook’s testimony marks one of the most detailed roadmaps offered by the industry to date.
Still, House Energy & Commerce President Frank Pallone (DN.J.), whose panel is hosting Thursday’s session, said Zuckerberg’s proposal seemed to influence public opinion more than real change.
“He keeps saying he wants to retire, but he’s so vague,” said Pallone. “It almost looks like he wants to give the impression that he wants a makeover, but when you get to the details, it’s not at all clear.”
Smaller platforms and other technology companies, including Twitter and Google, whose CEOs Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai will testify alongside Zuckerberg on Thursday, expressed concern that weakening Section 230 protections could disproportionately harm smaller companies.
“The flexibility of the law has allowed companies of all sizes to thrive and face the unique damage of their platforms,” said Internet Works, a coalition of smaller companies that includes Reddit, Tripadvisor and Etsy, in a statement on Wednesday.
Zuckerberg seemed to agree with the concerns of smaller companies in his testimony, suggesting that any new requirements for Section 230 immunity could be “proportional to the size of the platform”.
The changes suggested by Facebook also resemble aspects of the EARN IT Act, S. 3398 (116), a bipartisan proposal to reduce Section 230 of Sens. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). This legislation would create a commission to develop the best voluntary practices to be followed by companies to curb child pornography.
Blumenthal, however, categorically rejected Zuckerberg’s idea, calling it “a fake fig leaf that does nothing to protect victims or requires real changes for Big Tech.”
“I have seen this manual countless times: Facebook, after spending years apologizing while doing little, read the room, saw that a real change is on the horizon and is now proposing gentle and smooth adjustments to the edges that do nothing but protect your bottom line, “he said.
A Facebook spokesman declined to comment on the legislators’ comments.
Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Whose constituency includes parts of Silicon Valley, said he is not ready to endorse Zuckerberg’s proposal, but that it was “constructive” for Facebook to engage with Congress in efforts to amend Section 230 instead of rejecting them.