[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





  DISINFORMATION NATION: SOCIAL MEDIA'S ROLE IN PROMOTING EXTREMISM AND 
                             MISINFORMATION

=======================================================================

                         VIRTUAL JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                AND THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                             MARCH 25, 2021

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 117-19


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov






















 DISINFORMATION NATION: SOCIAL MEDIA'S ROLE IN PROMOTING EXTREMISM AND 
                             MISINFORMATION

=======================================================================

                         VIRTUAL JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                AND THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 25, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-19

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 
                        energycommerce.house.gov 
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
46-925 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023 
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                        MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
                                 Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York             Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    Chair                            TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
TONY CARDENAS, California            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois             CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota                   (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                                 ------                                

            Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

                        JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
                                  Chair
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                  Ranking Member
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts           FRED UPTON, Michigan
JERRY McNERNEY, California           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice      LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    Chair                            NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             GREG PENCE, Indiana
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois             DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York           CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota                   (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Florida, opening statement............................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, prepared statement..............................   129

                               Witnesses

Mark Zuckerberg, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Facebook.......................................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Answers to submitted questions \1\
Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, Alphabet.................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Answers to submitted questions \1\
Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer, Twitter....................    41
    Prepared statement...........................................    43
    Answers to submitted questions \1\

                           Submitted Material

Letter of March 25, 2021, from Asian Americans Advancing Justice 
  to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle.................   130
Letter of March 25, 2021, from Wade Henderson, Interim President 
  and Chief Executive Officer, and LaShawn Warren, Executive Vice 
  President for Government Affairs, Leadership Conference on 
  Civil and Human Rights, to Mr. Doyle, et al., submitted by Mr. 
  Doyle..........................................................   136
Letter of March 25, 2021, from Koustubh ``K.J.'' Bagchi, Senior 
  Policy Counsel, and Spandana Singh, Policy Analyst, Open 
  Technology Institute, and reports, ``Protecting the Vote How 
  Internet Platforms Are Addressing Election and Voter 
  Suppression-Related Misinformation and Disinformation,'' 
  September 2020, and ``How Internet Platforms Are Combating 
  Disinformation and Misinformation in the Age of COVID-19,'' 
  June 2020, to Mr. Doyle, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle \2\

----------

\1\ The witnesses' answers to submitted questions for the record have 
been retained in committee files and are available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111407.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210325/111407/
HHRG-117-IF16-20210325-SD005.pdf.
Letter of March 3, 2021, from Donna N. Burns, President, NY Small 
  Farma Ltd., to Mr. Pallone, et al., and report, ``Creating 
  Opportunity and Justice with Regenerative Cannabis: A Challenge 
  to New York,'' December 2020, submitted by Mr. Doyle \3\
Statement of Alphabet Workers Union, March 25, 2021, submitted by 
  Mr. Doyle......................................................   143
Letters from David J. Johns, Executive Director, National Black 
  Justice Coalition, to Mr. Doyle, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle   146
Letter of March 22, 2021, from Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, Legal 
  Advisor, Sikhs for Justice, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   150
Letters of March 24, 2021, from William Tong, Attorney General of 
  Connecticut, to Mr. Pallone, et al., and to Jack Dorsey, Chief 
  Executive Officer, Twitter, Inc., and Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman 
  and Chief Executive Officer, Facebook, Inc., submitted by Mr. 
  Doyle..........................................................   152
Letter of March 24, 2021, from Arthur D. Sidney, Vice President 
  of Public Policy, Computer & Communications Industry 
  Association, to Mr. Doyle, et al., submitted by Mr. Latta......   160
Report, ``Facebook, From Election to Insurrection: How Facebook 
  Failed Voters and Nearly Set Democracy Aflame,'' AVAAZ, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle \3\
Article of March 24, 2021, ``Why Section 230 Isn't Really a Good 
  Samaritan Provision,'' by Neil Fried, DigitalFrontiers 
  Advocacy, submitted by Mr. Latta...............................   163
Letter of March 25, 2021, from American Association of 
  Independent Music, et al., to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by 
  Mr. Doyle......................................................   168
Letter of March 25, 2021, from Disinfo Defense League to Mr. 
  Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle........................   172
Letter of March 25, 2021, from Laurel Lehman, Policy Analyst, 
  Consumer Reports, et al., to Mr. Doyle, et al., submitted by 
  Mr. Latta......................................................   176
Report, ``The Disiniformation Dozen: Why Platforms Must Act on 
  Twelve Leading Online Anti-Vaxxers,'' Center for Countering 
  Digital Hate, submitted by Mr. Doyle \3\
Letter of March 25, 2021, from the Coalition for a Secure and 
  Transparent Internet to Mr. Doyle, et al., submitted by Mr. 
  Doyle..........................................................   184
Statement of the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 
  by Kiran Kaur Gill, Executive Director, March 25, 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   192
Letter of March 24, 2021, from Meenakshi Bewtra, et al., to Mr. 
  Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle........................   204
Letter of January 21, 2021, from Ms. Eshoo, et al., to Sundar 
  Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, Google, LLC, and Susan 
  Wojcicki, Chief Executive Officer, YouTube, Inc., submitted by 
  Mr. Doyle......................................................   206
Letter of January 21, 2021, from Ms. Eshoo, et al., to Mark 
  Zuckerberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Facebook, 
  Inc., submitted by Mr. Doyle...................................   209
Letter of January 21, 2021, from Ms. Eshoo, et al., to Jack 
  Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Twitter, Inc., 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   212
Study, ``A longitudinal analysis of YouTube's promotion of 
  conspiracy videos,'' by Marc Faddoul, et al., March 6, 2020, 
  submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   216
Letter of March 18, 2021, from John B. Hertig, President, Board 
  of Directors, Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies Global, to 
  Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Latta...........................   224
Statement of the Technology and Social Change Team, Harvard 
  Shorenstein Center, by Joan Donovan, et al., February 15, 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   231

----------

\3\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111407.
Article of May 26, 2020, ``Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts 
  to Make the Site Less Divisive,'' by Jeff Horwitz and Deepa 
  Seetharaman, Wall Street Journal, submitted by Mr. Kinzinger...   246
Article of March 17, 2021, ``FBI: Surge in Internet Crime Cost 
  Americans $4.2 Billion,'' by Masood Farivar, VOA News, 
  submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   256
Report of the Global Research Project, National Center for 
  Missing & Exploited Children, ``A Global Landscape of Hotlines 
  Combating Child Sexual Abuse Material on the Internet and an 
  Assessment of Shared Challenges,'' submitted by Mr. Latta \3\
Article of June 11, 2020, ``Google Is Not Cracking Down on the 
  Most Dangerous Drug in America,'' by Dr. Hany Farid and Mathea 
  Falco, Newsweek, submitted by Mr. Latta........................   260
Article of March 11, 2021, ``How Facebook got addicted to 
  spreading misinformation,'' by Karen Hao, MIT Technology 
  Review, submitted by Mr. Latta \3\
Article of October 24 2017, ``Bill Gates and Steve Jobs Raised 
  Their Kids Tech-Free-And It Should've Been a Red Flag,'' by 
  Chris Weller, The Independent, submitted by Mr. Latta..........   267
Article of February 12, 2021, ``Inside the Making of Facebook's 
  Supreme Court,'' by Kate Klonick, The New Yorker, submitted by 
  Mr. Latta......................................................   271
Statement of the Coalition for a Safer Web, ``Proposal for a 
  Social Media Standards Board,'' submitted by Mr. Latta.........   282
Article of February 7, 2020, ``Tech Companies Detect a Surge in 
  Online Videos of Child Sexual Abuse,'' by Gabriel J.X. Dance 
  and Michael H. Keller, The New York Times, submitted by Mr. 
  Latta..........................................................   290
Article of October 5, 2020, ``Thank you for posting: Smoking's 
  lessons for regulating social media,'' by Joan Donovan, MIT 
  Technology Review, submitted by Mr. Latta......................   293
Article of January 2021, ``Who Is in Control? The Need to Rein in 
  Big Tech,'' by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart News, submitted by Mr. 
  Latta..........................................................   298
Article of December 2019, ``The Dark Psychology of Social 
  Networks,'' by Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell, The 
  Atlantic, submitted by Mr. Latta...............................   306
Article of June 23, 2020, ``Square, Jack Dorsey's Pay Service, Is 
  Withholding Money Merchants Say They Need,'' by Nathaniel 
  Popper, The New York Times, submitted by Mr. Latta.............   317
Letter of March 24, 2021, from Lauren Culbertson, Head of U.S. 
  Public Policy, Twitter, to Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Latta   320
Letter of March 24, 2021, from Mark Isakowitz, Vice President, 
  Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google, to Mrs. Rodgers, 
  et al., submitted by Mr. Latta.................................   329
Letter of March 24, 2021, from Facebook, Inc., to Mrs. Rodgers, 
  submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   339
Article of December 10, 2016, ``Twitter says no to law 
  enforcement protest policing tool,'' by T. Seppala, 
  engadget.com, submitted by Mr. Latta...........................   348
Letter of March 24, 2021, from Anti-Defamation League, et al., to 
  Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Cardenas........   350
Charts, youth suicide trends, submitted by Ms. Castor............   354
Report of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, ``Hijacking 
  Our Heroes: Exploiting Veterans Through Disinformation on 
  Social Media,'' submitted by Miss Rice \3\

----------

\3\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111407.

 
 DISINFORMATION NATION: SOCIAL MEDIA'S ROLE IN PROMOTING EXTREMISM AND 
                             MISINFORMATION

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
                             joint with the
  Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 12:01 p.m., 
via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Michael F. 
Doyle (chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and 
Technology) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Doyle, Schakowsky, Rush, 
Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui, Castor, McNerney, Welch, Clarke, 
Schrader, Cardenas, Dingell, Veasey, Kelly, McEachin, Soto, 
O'Halleran, Rice, Craig, Trahan, Pallone (ex officio), Latta 
(Subcommittee on Communications and Technology ranking member), 
Bilirakis (Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce 
ranking member), Upton, Scalise, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Johnson, 
Long, Bucshon, Mullin, Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Dunn, 
Curtis, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Tonko, Blunt Rochester, 
Schrier, Burgess, McKinley, Griffith, Crenshaw, and Joyce.
    Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff 
Director; Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer Epperson, 
Counsel; Lisa Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, General 
Counsel; Daniel Greene, Professional Staff Member; Tiffany 
Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Alex 
Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer 
Protection; Ed Kaczmarski, Policy Analyst; Zach Kahan, Deputy 
Director, Outreach and Member Service; Jerry Leverich, Senior 
Counsel; Dan Miller, Professional Staff Member; David Miller, 
Counsel; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Policy 
Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief 
Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Andrew Souvall, Director of 
Communications, Outreach and Member Services; Sydney Terry, 
Policy Coordinator; Anna Yu, Professional Staff Member; Michael 
Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and 
Commerce, Energy, Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff 
Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Bijan 
Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel; Tim Kurth, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Kate O'Connor, 
Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; and 
Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
    Mr. Doyle. The Subcommittee on Communications and 
Technology and Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce 
will now come to order. Today we will be holding a joint 
hearing entitled ``Disinformation Nation: Social Media's Role 
in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via videoconferencing. As part of our hearing, 
microphones will be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise.
    Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your 
microphones each time you wish to speak. Additionally, Members 
will need to be visible on screen in order to be recognized.
    Due to the anticipated length of this hearing, the 
committee will take a 15-minute recess around 3 o'clock to 
provide witnesses and Members a restroom break.
    Finally, documents for the record can be sent to Ed 
Kaczmarski and Joe Orlando at the email addresses we have 
provided to your staff. All documents will be entered into the 
record at the conclusion of the hearing.
    The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
         CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Our Nation is drowning in disinformation driven by social 
media. Platforms that were once used to share photos of kids 
with grandparents are all too often havens of hate, harassment, 
and division. The way I see it, there are two faces to each of 
your platforms.
    Facebook has Family and Friends Neighborhood, but it is 
right next to the one where there is a White nationalist rally 
every day. YouTube is a place where people share quirky videos, 
but down the street antivaxxers, COVID deniers, QAnon 
supporters, and Flat Earthers are sharing videos. Twitter 
allows you to bring friends and celebrities into your home, but 
also Holocaust deniers, terrorists, and worse.
    Now, it would be one thing if every user chose where to go 
organically, but almost everything is scripted on social media 
platforms. Facebook recognizes antisocial tendencies in one 
user and invites them to visit the White nationalists. YouTube 
sees another user is interested in COVID-19 and autostarts an 
antivax video. On Twitter, a user follows the trending 
conversation never knowing it is driven by bots and coordinated 
disinformation networks run by foreign agents.
    Your platforms have changed how people across the planet 
communicate, connect, learn, and stay informed. The power of 
this technology is awesome and terrifying, and each of you has 
failed to protect your users and the world from the worst 
consequence of your creations.
    This is the first time the three of you have appeared 
before Congress since the deadly attack on the Capitol on 
January 6th. That event was not just an attack on our democracy 
and our electoral process, but an attack on every Member of 
this committee and in the Congress.
    Many of us were on the House floor and in the Capitol when 
that attack occurred, and we were forced to stop our work of 
certifying the election and retreat to safety, some of us 
wearing gas masks and fearing for our lives. We fled as a mob 
desecrated the Capitol, the House floor, and our democratic 
process. People died that day, and hundreds were seriously 
injured.
    That attack, and the movement that motivated it, started 
and was nourished on your platforms. Your platforms suggested 
groups for people to join, videos they should view, and posts 
they should like, driving this movement forward with terrifying 
speed and efficiency.
    FBI documents show that many of these individuals used your 
platforms to plan, recruit, and execute this attack. According 
to independent research, users on Facebook were exposed 1.1 
billion times to misinformation related to the election last 
year alone despite changes to your policies and claims that you 
have removed election misinformation.
    Our Nation is in the middle of a terrible pandemic. Nearly 
550,000 Americans have lost their lives to this deadly disease, 
more than any other country on the planet. And an independent 
study found that on Facebook alone, that users across five 
countries, including the United States, were exposed to COVID 
disinformation an estimated 3.8 billion times, again despite 
claims of fixes and reforms.
    And now, as the Biden administration is working to 
implement the American Rescue Plan and get vaccines in people's 
arms, we are faced with waves of disinformation on social media 
about the safety and efficacy of these shots. These vaccines 
are the best chance we have to fight this virus, and the 
content that your websites are still promoting, still 
recommending, and still sharing is one of the biggest reasons 
people are refusing the vaccine.
    And things haven't changed. My staff found content on 
YouTube telling people not to get vaccines, and was recommended 
to similar videos. The same was true on Instagram, where it was 
not only easy to find vaccine disinformation, but platforms 
recommended similar post. The same thing happened on Facebook, 
except they also had antivax groups to suggest as well. And 
Twitter was no different. If you go to any of these 
superspreader accounts that remain up despite the policies 
meant to curb this antivax content, you will see this content.
    Now, understand this. You can take this content down. You 
can reduce division. You can fix this. But you choose not to. 
We saw your platforms remove ISIS terrorist content. We saw you 
tamp down on COVID misinformation at the beginning of the 
pandemic. And we have seen disinformation drop when you have 
promoted reliable news sources and removed serial 
disinformation superspreaders from your platform. You have the 
means.
    But time after time, you are picking engagement and profit 
over the health and safety of your users, our Nation, and our 
democracy. These are serious issues, and to be honest, it seems 
like you all just shrug off billion-dollar fines. Your 
companies need to be held accountable. We need rules, 
regulations, technical experts in government, and audit 
authority of your technologies. Ours is the committee of 
jurisdiction, and we will legislate to stop this. The stakes 
are simply too high.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle

    Our Nation is drowning in disinformation driven by social 
media. Platforms that were once used to share photos of kids 
with grandparents are all too often havens of hate, harassment, 
and division.
    The way I see it, there are two faces to each of your 
platforms. Facebook has the family and friends neighborhood but 
it is right next to the one where there is a White nationalist 
rally every day.
    YouTube is a place where people share quirky videos, but 
down the street, antivaxxers, COVID deniers, QAnon supporters, 
and flat earthers are sharing videos. Twitter allows you to 
bring friends and celebrities into your home, but also 
Holocaust deniers, terrorists and worse.
    Now, it would be one thing if every user chose where to go 
organically, but almost everything is scripted on social media 
platforms. Facebook recognizes antisocial tendencies in one 
user and invites them to visit the White nationalists.
    YouTube sees another user is interested in COVID-19 and 
autostarts an antivax video. On Twitter a user following the 
trending conversation, never knowing it is driven by bots and 
coordinated disinformation networks run by foreign agents.
    Your platforms have changed how people across the planet--
communicate, connect, learn, and stay informed.
    The power of this technology is awesome and terrifying--and 
each of you has failed to protect your users and the world from 
the worst consequences of your creations.
    This is the first time the three of you have appeared 
before Congress since the deadly attack on the Capitol on 
January 6th. That event was not just an attack on our Democracy 
and our electoral process, but an attack on every member of 
this committee and in the Congress.
    Many of us were on the House floor and in the Capitol when 
that attack occurred and we were forced to stop our work of 
certifying the election--and retreat to safety--some of us 
wearing gas masks and fearing for our lives.
    We fled as a mob desecrated the Capitol, the House floor, 
and our democratic process. People died that day, and hundreds 
were seriously injured.
    That attack and the movement that motivated it started and 
was nourished on your platforms. Your platforms suggested 
groups for people to join, videos they should view, and posts 
they should like--driving this movement forward with terrifying 
speed and efficiency.
    FBI documents show that many of these individuals used your 
platforms to plan, recruit, and execute this attack.
    According to independent research, users on Facebook were 
exposed 1.1 billion times to misinformation related to the 
election last year alone--despite changes to your policies and 
claims that you removed election misinformation.
    Our Nation is in the middle of a terrible pandemic. Nearly 
five hundred and fifty thousand Americans have lost their lives 
to this deadly disease--more than any other country on the 
planet. An independent study found that on Facebook alone, 
users across five countries, including the United States, were 
exposed to COVID disinformation an estimated 3.8 billion 
times--again despite claims of fixes and reforms.
    And now as the Biden administration is working to implement 
the American Rescue Plan and get vaccines in people's arms, we 
are faced with waves of disinformation on social media about 
the safety and efficacy of these shots.
    These vaccines are the best chance we have to fight this 
virus, and the content that your websites are still promoting, 
still recommending, and still sharing--is one of the biggest 
reasons people are refusing the vaccine.
    And things haven't changed--my staff found content on 
YouTube telling people not to get vaccines and was recommended 
similar videos.
    The same was true on Instagram, where it was not only easy 
to find vaccine disinformation--but the platform recommended 
similar posts. The same thing happened on Facebook except they 
also had antivax groups to suggest as well.
    Twitter was no different, if you go to any of the super 
spreader accounts that remain up despite policies meant to curb 
antivax content, you'll see this content.
    You can take down this content, you can reduce division, 
you can fix this--but you choose not to.
    We saw your platforms remove ISIS terrorist content; we saw 
you tamp down on COVID misinformation at the beginning of the 
pandemic; we have seen disinformation drop when you have 
promoted reliable news sources and removed serial 
disinformation super spreaders from your platforms.
    You have the means, but time after time, you are picking 
engagement and profit over the health and safety of your users, 
our Nation, and our democracy.
    These are serious issues, and to be honest--it seems like 
you all just shrug off billion-dollar fines. Your companies 
need to be held accountable--we need rules, regulations, 
technical experts in government, and audit authority of your 
technologies. Ours is the committee of jurisdiction, and we 
will legislate to stop this. The stakes are simply too high.

    Mr. Doyle. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Latta, ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 
for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Latta. Well, I thank the chairman for recognizing me. 
And I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today, for 
a conversation that is long overdue in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. I am deeply concerned by your decisions to operate 
your companies in a vague and biased manner, with little to no 
accountability while using Section 230 as a shield for your 
actions and their real-world consequences.
    Your companies have the power to silence the President of 
the United States, shut off legitimate journalism in Australia, 
shut down legitimate scientific debate on a variety of issues, 
dictate which articles or websites are seen by Americans when 
they search the internet. When these actions are taken, users 
have little to no recourse to appeal the decision--if they are 
aware of your actions. In most cases, we simply don't know.
    What does this mean for everyday Americans? We are all 
aware of Big Tech's ever-increasing censorship of deserving 
voices and their commitment to serve the radical progressive 
agenda by influencing a generation of children, who are moving, 
shutting down, or canceling any news, books, and even now toys, 
that aren't considered woke. This is fundamentally un-American.
    At a recent hearing on disinformation and extremism online, 
Professor Turley, one of the Nation's foremost experts on 
constitutional law, testified about the ``Little Brother 
Problem,'' a problem which private entities do for the 
government which it cannot legally do for itself.
    As of January of this year, Google has a greater than 92 
market share in search. Facebook has over 2.7 billion monthly 
users. And Twitter has 187 million daily users. Your companies 
have enormous control over whose ideas are seen, read, or heard 
around the world. This gives you great power. And if misused, 
as we have seen in recent years, your actions have a ripple 
effect throughout the world that result in American voices 
being removed from the marketplace of ideas.
    While the Little Brother Problem of censorship is 
frightening enough, other serious harms are occurring on these 
platforms that affect ordinary Americans. Young American 
children and teenagers are addicted--actually addicted--to 
their devices and social media. This problem has been 
exacerbated by the pandemic and will only get worse if children 
continue to be separated from their peers and cannot learn from 
their teachers in a classroom.
    Your platforms are purposely designed to keep our children 
hooked to their screens. The use of social media has been 
linked to increased rates of depression, mental illness, 
cyberbullying, and suicide among America's youth. Illegal drugs 
continue to be sold online despite your previous commitment to 
solve these issues.
    Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent to submit a letter 
from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy for the 
record.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
    Serious problems continue to persist, and I wonder how much 
you are truly dedicating to combating these actions. What 
actions are you taking to educate Americans about the dangers 
of using your site, especially the dangers for kids?
    As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Communications and 
Technology, we have oversight of any change made to Section 230 
of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 provides you 
with liability protection for content moderation decisions made 
in good faith. Based on recent actions, however, it is clear 
that in your definition of good faith, moderation includes 
censoring viewpoints you disagree with and establishing a faux 
independent appeals process that doesn't make its content 
moderation decisions based on American principles of free 
expression. I find that highly concerning.
    I look forward to today's hearing as an important step in 
reconsidering the extent to which Big Tech deserves to retain 
the significant liability protection. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

    Good morning to our witnesses, and welcome to this long 
overdue conversation with the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    I am deeply concerned by your decisions to operate your 
companies in a vague and biased manner, with little to no 
accountability, while using Section 230 as a shield for your 
actions and their real-world consequences.
    Your companies have the power to silence the President of 
the United States, shut off legitimate journalism in Australia, 
shut down legitimate scientific debate on a variety of issues, 
and dictate which articles or websites are seen by Americans 
when they search the Internet. When these actions are taken, 
users have little to no recourse to appeal the decision--if 
they are aware of your actions. In most cases, we simply do not 
know.
    What does this mean for everyday Americans?
    We are all well aware of Big Tech's ever increasing 
censorship of conservative voices and their commitment to serve 
the radical progressive agenda by influencing a generation of 
children and removing, shutting down, or canceling any news, 
books, and, now, even toys that aren't considered ``woke.'' 
This is fundamentally un-American.
    At a recent hearing on disinformation and extremism online, 
Professor Turley, one of the Nation's foremost experts on 
constitutional law, testified about ``the little brother 
problem''--a problem in which private entities do for the 
Government what it cannot legally do for itself. As of January 
of this year, Google has greater than 92% market share in 
search, Facebook has over 2.7 billion monthly users, and 
Twitter has over 187 million daily users.
    Your companies have enormous control over whose ideas are 
seen, read, or heard around the world. This gives you great 
power--and if misused, as we have seen in the recent years, 
your actions have ripple effects throughout the world that 
result in American voices being removed from the marketplace of 
ideas.
    While the little brother problem of censorship is 
frightening enough, other serious harms are occurring on these 
platforms that affect ordinary Americans.
    Young American children and teenagers are addicted, 
actually addicted, to their devices and social media. This 
problem has been exacerbated by the pandemic and will only get 
worse if children continue to be separated from their peers and 
cannot learn from their teachers in a classroom.
    Your platforms are purposely designed to keep our children 
hooked to their screens. The use of social media has been 
linked to increased rates of depression, mental illness, 
cyberbullying, and suicide among America's youth. Illegal drugs 
continue to be sold online despite your previous commitments to 
solve these issues [Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a 
letter from the National Association Boards of Pharmacy for the 
record]. Serious problems continue to persist, and I wonder how 
much you are truly dedicating to combating these actions.
    What actions are you taking to educate Americans about the 
dangers of using your site? Especially the dangers for our 
kids?
    As ranking member on the Subcommittee for Communications 
and Technology, we have oversight over any change made to 
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 
provides you with liability protection for content moderation 
decisions made in ``good faith.'' Based on recent actions, 
however, it is clear that your definition of ``good faith'' 
moderation includes censoring viewpoints you disagree with and 
establishing a faux independent appeals process that does not 
make its content moderation decisions based on American 
principles of free expression. I find that highly concerning.
    I look at today's hearing as an important step in 
reconsidering the extent to which Big Tech deserves to retain 
their significant liability protection.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Chair Schakowsky, chair of the 
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, for 5 minutes 
for her opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. It is a pleasure to cochair this 
meeting with you.
    I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for coming. 
It is not an exaggeration to say that your companies have 
fundamentally and permanently transformed our very culture and 
our understanding of the world. Much of this is for good, but 
it is also true that our country, our democracy, even our 
understanding of what is truth has been harmed by the 
proliferation and dissemination of misinformation and 
extremism, all of which has deeply divided us.
    What our witnesses today need to take away from this 
hearing is that self-regulation has come to the end of its 
road, and that this democracy, this democratic--the people that 
you see before you, elected by the people, is preparing to move 
forth with legislation and regulation.
    The regulation that we seek should not attempt to limit 
constitutionally protected freedom of speech, but it must hold 
platforms accountable when they are used to incite violence and 
hatred or, as in the case of the COVID pandemic, spread 
misinformation that costs thousands of lives.
    All three of the companies that are here today run 
platforms that are hotbeds of misinformation and 
disinformation. And despite all the promises and new policies 
to match, disinformation was rampant in the 2020 election, 
especially targeting vulnerable communities. For example, 
Spanish language ads run by the Trump campaign falsely accused 
President Biden of being endorsed by Venezuelan President 
Maduro.
    The spread of disinformation fed upon itself until it 
arrived at the Capitol of the United States on January 6th, 
which cost five lives. The lives lost in the insurgency were 
not the first cases of these platforms' failure, nor even the 
worst. In 2018, Facebook admitted a genocide of the Rohingya 
people in Myanmar was planned and executed on Facebook.
    2020 saw the rise of coronavirus disinformation on Facebook 
platforms, including the playing of the--they called it ``The 
Plandemic.'' This film got 1.8 million views and 150,000 shares 
before it was removed. Disinformation like ``Plandemic'' made 
people skeptical of the need for vaccines and almost certainly 
cost--contributed to the horrible loss of life during the 
pandemic. Disinformation also hops platforms to spread viruses. 
Disinformation also hops from platform to platform. ``The 
Plandemic'' actually was first on YouTube before it was on 
Facebook and Instagram and Twitter.
    Misinformation regarding the election dropped 73 percent 
across social media platforms after Twitter permanently 
suspended Trump as well as--and also the Capitol insurgency and 
QAnon.
    But the question really is: What took so long? The 
witnesses here today have demonstrated time and time again that 
they do not--that self-regulation has not worked. They must be 
held accountable for allowing disinformation and misinformation 
to spread. And that is why I will be introducing the Online 
Consumer Protection Act, which I hope will earn bipartisan 
support. And thank you. I will yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky

    I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for coming. 
It is not an exaggeration to say that your companies have 
fundamentally and permanently transformed our very culture: and 
our understand of the world.
    Much of this is for the good, but it is also true that our 
country, our democracy, even our understanding of what is 
truth, has been harmed by the proliferation of disinformation, 
misinformation, and extremism, all of which has deeply divided 
us.
    What our witnesses need to take away from this hearing is 
that self-regulation has come to the end of its road, and that 
this democratically elected body is prepared to move forward 
with legislation and regulation.
    The regulation we seek should not attempt to limit 
constitutionally protected free speech, but it must hold 
platforms accountable when they are used to incite violence and 
hatred--or as in the case of the Covid pandemic--spread 
misinformation that costs thousands of lives.
    All three companies here today run platforms that are 
hotbeds of misinformation and disinformation.
    Despite all the promises and new policies to match, 
disinformation was rampant in the 2020 election--especially 
targeting vulnerable communities.
    For example, Spanish language ads run by the Trump campaign 
falsely claimed President Biden was endorsed by Venezuelan 
President Maduro. The spread of disinformation fed upon itself 
until it came to a head in the historic assault on our Capitol 
and our democracy on January 6th, which cost 5 lives.
    The lives lost to the Insurrection were not the first 
casualties of these platforms' failures, nor are they the 
worst. In 2018, Facebook admitted a genocide of the Rohingya 
people in Myanmar was planned and executed on Facebook.
    2020 saw the rise of coronavirus disinformation on 
Facebook's platforms including the propaganda film 
``Plandemic.'' This film got 1.8 million views and 150,000 
shares before it was removed by Facebook.
    Disinformation like ``Plandemic'' made people skeptical of 
the need for vaccines and almost certainly contributed to the 
horrible loss of life during the pandemic.
    Disinformation also hops platforms to spread virally across 
the internet. ``Plandemic'' was first posted on YouTube before 
taking off on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.
    Misinformation regarding the election dropped by 73% across 
social media platforms after Twitter permanently suspended 
Trump as well as accounts tied to the Capitol Insurrection and 
QAnon. The question is, what took so long?
    The witnesses here today have demonstrated time and again 
that promises to self-regulate don't work. They must be held 
accountable for allowing disinformation and misinformation to 
spread across their platforms, infect our public discourse, and 
threaten our democracy.
    That's why I'll be introducing the Online Consumer 
Protection Act, which I hope will earn bipartisan support.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis, ranking member for 
the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, for 5 
minutes for his opening remarks.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 
Thank you for participating in today's hearing, all the 
witnesses and the Members.
    I have been thinking about this hearing since our side 
first requested this hearing last year. My time in college has 
provided me enough knowledge about the history of the committee 
to know what the Telecommunications Act was and, importantly, 
what it wasn't. Components of that law have been struck down by 
the courts, while other provisions are interpreted and applied 
differently than first conceived. This is all a departure from 
congressional intent.
    Regardless of what one thinks of whether all of the 
Communications Decency Act was the right approach, the same 
members that voted for Section 230 voted for that entire bill. 
The statute was meant to protect our society, specifically our 
children.
    To our witnesses today, here lies the problem for you: You 
don't want the Federal Government telling you what parts of 
your company you are allowed to operate. So imagine things from 
our perspective when you pick and choose what parts of the law 
you want to follow.
    I really do admire your ingenuity. You have created 
something truly remarkable, in my opinion. But with that power, 
you must also be Good Samaritans, and you have an obligation to 
be stewards of your platform. If your legal department doesn't 
believe you are bound to the intent of the law, I would hope 
your moral compasses will.
    Many of my colleagues will raise legitimate concerns about 
the attack on the Capitol from January, and other colleagues 
can point to what occurred in our cities last summer. These 
were all incidents where social media escalated tension, 
incited chaos, and bred extremism through echo chambers and 
algorithms.
    As a new Republican leader, quite an honor, on the commerce 
protection and commerce committee--so the Consumer Protection 
and Commerce committee--I have been digging into how your 
companies operate. That led me to run a survey of my district 
following our Big Tech hearing announcement. The conclusion is 
my constituents simply don't trust you anymore.
    With thousands of responses, over 82 percent say they do 
not trust Big Tech to be good stewards of their platforms or 
consistently enforce their policies. That includes my 
constituent who told me, ``We were providing information to 
local families on teen suicide risks on Facebook Livestream. It 
was blocked by Facebook.''
    Another constituent said she has seen countless teens be 
bullied online or simply not able to process a devastating 
comparison game that they are forced to deal with on social 
media. Others told me they stopped using your services 
altogether out of fear and distrust. One even told me they quit 
social media due to treatment from your companies over their 
families' Christian views.
    Each one of these represents a story of how your companies 
have failed people. And you will be hearing from my colleagues 
with more of these stories about how Big Tech has lost its way, 
highlighting a much larger problem. People want to use your 
services, but they suspect your coders are designing what they 
think we should see and hear by keeping us online longer than 
ever, and all with the purpose to polarize or monetize us, 
disregarding any consequences for the assault on our inherent 
freedoms which we hold so dearly.
    So I don't want to hear about how changing your current law 
is going to affect startups because I have heard directly from 
them, accusing you of anticompetitive tactics. None of us want 
to damage entrepreneurs. What I do want to hear is what you 
will do to bring our country back from the fringes and stop the 
poisonous practices that drive depression, isolation, and 
suicide, and instead cooperate with law enforcement to protect 
our citizens.
    Our kids are being lost while you say you will try to do 
better, as we have heard countless time already. We need true 
transparency and real change. We need, again, not empty 
promises from you, and we have heard that over and over again. 
The fear you should have coming into this hearing today isn't 
that you are going to get upbraided by a Member of Congress. It 
is that our committee knows how to get things done when we come 
together. We can do this with you or without you. And we will.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis

    Thank you for participating in today's hearing. I have been 
thinking about this hearing since our side first requested it 
last year.
    My time in Congress has provided me enough knowledge about 
the history of this committee to know what the 
Telecommunications Act was and importantly what it wasn't.
    Components of that law have been struck by the courts, 
while other provisions are interpreted and applied differently 
than first conceived. This is all a departure from 
Congressional intent.
    Regardless of what one thinks of whether all of the 
Communications Decency Act was the right approach, the same 
Members that voted for Section 230 voted for that entire bill--
the statute was meant to protect our society, specifically our 
kids.
    To our witnesses today, here lies the problem for you. You 
don't want the Federal Government telling you what parts of 
your company you're allowed to operate. Imagine things from our 
perspective when you pick and choose what parts of the law you 
want to follow.
    I really do admire your ingenuity. You have created 
something truly remarkable. But with that power you must also 
be Good Samaritans, and you have an obligation to be stewards 
of your platform. If your legal department doesn't believe you 
are bound to the intent of the law, I would hope your souls and 
consciences will.
    Many of my colleagues will raise legitimate concerns about 
the attack on the Capitol from January, and other colleagues 
can point to what occurred in our cities last summer. These 
were all incidents where social media escalated tension, 
incited chaos, and bred extremism through echo chambers and 
algorithms.
    As the new Republican leader on the Consumer Protection and 
Commerce subcommittee, I have been digging into how your 
companies operate. That led me to run a survey of my district 
following our Big Tech hearing announcement. The conclusion is 
my constituents simply don't trust you anymore. With thousands 
of responses, over 82% said they do not trust Big Tech to be 
good stewards of their platforms or consistently enforce their 
policies. That includes my constituent who told me ``We were 
providing information to local families on teen suicide risks 
on Facebook Livestream, and it was blocked by Facebook.'' 
Another constituent said she is seeing ``countless teens be 
bullied online or simply not able to process the devastating 
comparison game that they are forced to deal with on social 
media.'' Others told me they stopped using your services all 
together out of fear and distrust, one even told me they quit 
social media due to treatment from your companies over their 
family's Christian views. Each one of these represents a story 
of how your companies have failed people, and you'll be hearing 
from my colleagues with more of these stories about how Big 
Tech has lost its way, highlighting a much larger problem.
    People want to use your services, but they suspect your 
coders are designing what they think we should see and hear, by 
keeping us online longer than ever, and all with the purpose to 
polarize and monetize us, disregarding any consequences for the 
assault on our inherent freedoms.
    So I don't want to hear about how changing current law is 
going to hurt startups, because I've heard directly from them 
accusing you of anticompetitive tactics. None of us want to 
damage entrepreneurs.
    What I do want to hear is what you will do to bring our 
country back from the fringes and stop the poisonous practices 
that drive depression, isolation, and suicide, and instead 
cooperate with law enforcement to protect our citizens. Our 
kids are being lost while you say you will ``try to do better'' 
as we've heard countless times already. We need true 
transparency and real change, not empty promises.
    The fear you should have coming into this hearing today 
isn't that you're going to get yelled at by a Member of 
Congress, it's that our committee knows how to get things done 
when we come together. We can do this with you or without you. 
And we will.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Schakowsky, for 
this very important hearing. We are here today because the 
spread of disinformation and extremism has been growing online, 
particularly on social media, where there are little to no 
guardrails in place to stop it.
    And unfortunately this disinformation and extremism doesn't 
just stay online. It has real-world, often dangerous, and even 
violent consequences. And the time has come to hold online 
platforms accountable for their part in the rise of 
disinformation and extremism.
    According to a survey conducted by Pew earlier this month, 
30 percent of Americans are still hesitant or simply do not 
want to take the COVID-19 vaccine. On January 6, our Nation's 
Capitol was violently attacked. This month, Homeland Security 
Secretary Mayorkas identified domestic violent extremism as the 
``greatest threat'' to the United States. And crimes against 
Asian Americans have risen by nearly 150 percent since the 
beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Five years ago, during the 2016 Presidential elections 
Facebook, Google, and Twitter were warned about--but simply 
ignored--their platforms' role in spreading disinformation. And 
since then the warnings have continued, but the problem has 
only gotten worse.
    Only after public outrage and pressure did these companies 
make inadequate attempts to appease critics and lawmakers. But 
despite the public rebuke, Wall Street continued to reward the 
companies' strategy to promote misinformation and 
disinformation by driving their stock prices even higher.
    And now, despite repeated promises to seriously tackle this 
crisis, Facebook, Google, and Twitter instead routinely make 
minor changes to their policies in response to the public 
relations crisis of the day. And they will change some 
underlying internal policy that may or may not be related to 
the problem. But that is it. The underlying problem remains.
    So Mr. Chairman, it is now painfully clear that neither the 
market nor public pressure will force these social media 
companies to take the aggressive action they need to take to 
eliminate disinformation and extremism from their platforms. 
And, therefore, it is time for Congress and this committee to 
legislate and realign these companies' incentives.
    Today our laws give these companies and their leaders a 
blank check to do nothing. Rather than limit the spread of 
disinformation, Facebook, Google, and Twitter have created 
business models that exploit the human brain's preference for 
divisive content to get Americans hooked on their platform at 
the expense of the public interest.
    It isn't just that social media companies are allowing 
disinformation to spread--it is that, in many cases, they are 
actively amplifying and spreading it themselves. And fines, to 
the extent they are levied at all, have simply become the cost 
of doing business.
    The dirty truth is that they are relying on algorithms to 
purposefully promote conspiratorial, divisive, or extremist 
content so they can take more money in ad dollars. And this is 
because the more outrageous and extremist the content, the more 
engagement and views these companies get from their users. And 
more views equal more money, Mr. Chairman. That is what it is 
all about, more money.
    It is crucial to understand that these companies aren't 
just mere bystanders--they are playing an active role in the 
meteoric rise of disinformation and extremism because they make 
money on it. So when a company is actually promoting this 
harmful content, I question whether existing liability 
protections should apply.
    Members on this committee have suggested legislative 
solutions and introduced bills. The committee is going to 
consider all these options so that we can finally align the 
interests of these companies with the interests of the public 
and hold the platforms and their CEOs accountable when they 
stray.
    That is why you are here today, Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Pichai, 
and Mr. Dorsey. You have failed to meaningfully change after 
your platforms played a role in fomenting insurrection, in 
abetting the spread the virus, and trampling Americans civil 
liberties.
    And while it may be true that some bad actors will shout 
``Fire!'' in a crowded theater, by promoting harmful content 
your platforms are handing them a megaphone to be heard in 
every theater across the country and the world. Your business 
model itself has become the problem.
    And the time for self-regulation is over. It is time we 
legislate to hold you accountable. That is what we are going to 
do. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Doyle, and Ms. 
Schakowsky because I know that you are very serious about 
moving forward on legislation, which we will do. I promise 
everyone.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    We are here today because the spread of disinformation and 
extremism has been growing online, particularly on social 
media, where there are little to no guardrails in place to stop 
it. And unfortunately, this disinformation and extremism 
doesn't just stay online. It has real world, often dangerous 
and even violent consequences. The time has come to hold online 
platforms accountable for their part in the rise of 
disinformation and extremism.
    According to a survey conducted by Pew earlier this month, 
30 percent of Americans are still hesitant or simply do not 
want to take the COVID-19 vaccine. On January 6, our Nation's 
Capitol was violently attacked. This month, Homeland Security 
Secretary Mayorkas identified domestic violent extremism as the 
``greatest threat'' to the United States. And crimes against 
Asian Americans have risen by nearly 150 percent since the 
beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Each of these controversies and crimes have been 
accelerated and amplified on social media platforms through 
misinformation campaigns, the spread of hate speech, and the 
proliferation of conspiracy theories.
    Five years ago, during the 2016 Presidential elections, 
Facebook, Google, and Twitter were warned about--but simply 
ignored--their platforms' role in spreading disinformation. 
Since then, the warnings have continued, but the problem has 
only gotten worse. Only after public outrage and pressure, did 
these companies make inadequate attempts to appease critics and 
lawmakers. But despite the public rebuke, Wall Street continued 
to reward the companies' strategy to promote misinformation and 
disinformation by driving their stock prices even higher.
    And now, despite repeated promises to seriously tackle this 
crisis, Facebook, Google, and Twitter instead routinely make 
minor changes to their policies in response to the public 
relations crisis of the day. They will change some underlying 
internal policy that may or may not be related to the problem. 
But that's it. The underlying problem remains.
    It is now painfully clear that neither the market nor 
public pressure will force these social media companies to take 
the aggressive action they need to take to eliminate 
disinformation and extremism from their platforms. And, 
therefore, it is time for Congress and this committee to 
legislate and realign these companies' incentives to 
effectively deal with disinformation and extremism.
    Today, our laws give these companies, and their leaders, a 
blank check to do nothing. Rather than limit the spread of 
disinformation, Facebook, Google, and Twitter have created 
business models that exploit the human brain's preference for 
divisive content to get Americans hooked on their platform, at 
the expense of the public interest. It isn't just that social 
media companies are allowing disinformation to spread--it's 
that, in many cases, they are actively amplifying and spreading 
it themselves. Fines, to the extent they are levied at all, 
have simply become the cost of doing business.
    The dirty truth is that they are relying on algorithms to 
purposefully promote conspiratorial, divisive, or extremist 
content so they can rake in the ad dollars. This is because the 
more outrageous and extremist the content, the more engagement 
and views these companies get from their users. More views 
equal more money.
    It's crucial to understand that these companies aren't just 
mere bystanders--they are playing an active role in the 
meteoric rise of disinformation and extremism.
    So when a company is actually promoting this harmful 
content, I question whether existing liability protections 
should apply.
    Members on this committee have suggested legislative 
solutions and introduced bills. The committee is going to 
consider all these options so that we can finally align the 
interests of these companies with the interests of the public 
and hold the platforms, and their CEOs, accountable when they 
stray.
    That is why you are here today, Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Pichai, 
and Mr. Dorsey. You have failed to meaningfully change after 
your platforms played a role in fomenting insurrection, in 
abetting the spread of COVID-19, and trampling Americans civil 
rights.
    And while it may be true that some bad actors will shout 
fire in a crowded theater, by promoting harmful content, your 
platforms are handing them a megaphone to be heard in every 
theater across the country and the world. Your business model 
itself has become the problem.
    The time for self-regulation is over. It is time we 
legislate to hold you accountable. With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Ms. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ten years ago, when I joined Big Tech platforms, I thought 
they would be a force for good. I thought that they would help 
us build relationships and promote transparency in Congress. I 
can testify today I was wrong. That is not what has transpired. 
You have broken my trust. Yes, because you failed to promote 
the battle of ideas and free speech. Yes, because you censor 
political viewpoints you disagree with. Those polarizing 
actions matter for democracy.
    But do you know what convinced me Big Tech is a destructive 
force? It is how you have abused your power to manipulate and 
harm our children. Your platforms are my biggest fear as a 
parent. I am a mom of three school-aged kids, and my husband 
and I are fighting the Big Tech battles in our household every 
day.
    It is a battle for their development, a battle for their 
mental health, and ultimately a battle for their safety. I have 
monitored your algorithms. I have monitored where your 
algorithms lead them. It is frightening. And I know that I am 
not alone.
    After multiple teenage suicides in my community, I reached 
out to our schools and we started asking questions: What is 
going on with our kids? What is making them feel so alone, so 
empty and in despair? And this is what I heard over and over 
again from parents, pediatricians, school administrators, and 
teachers: They are all raising the alarm about social media.
    A day doesn't go by that I don't talk to friends and other 
parents who tell me their 14-year-old is depressed, she used to 
love soccer, now they can't get her to do anything, she never 
gets off her device or leaves her room. I think about a mom who 
told me she can't leave her daughter alone--ever--because she 
harms herself. Or the family who is recovering after almost 
losing their daughter to a predator she met online.
    These stories are not unique to me or eastern Washington. I 
recently heard of a young college student who has lost nine 
friends to suicide. This is unimaginable. The science on social 
media is becoming clear. Between 2011 and 2018, rates of 
depression, self-harm, suicides, and suicide attempts exploded 
among American teens.
    During that time, rates of teen depression increased more 
than 60 percent, with a larger increase among young girls. 
Between 2009 and 2015, emergency room admissions for self-harm 
among 10-to-14-year-olds tripled. And suicide substantially 
increased.
    One study found during that time teens who use their 
devices for 5 or more hours a day were 66 percent more likely 
to have at least 1 suicide-related outcome compared to those 
who used theirs for just 1. Other studies found that teens who 
spend more time online report lower psychological well-being 
and more feelings of loneliness.
    Remember, our kids, the users, are the product. You, Big 
Tech, are not advocates for children. You exploit and profit 
off of them. Big Tech needs to be exposed and completely 
transparent for what you are doing to our children so parents 
like me can make informed decisions. We also expect Big Tech to 
do more to protect children, because you haven't done enough. 
Big Tech has failed to be good stewards of your platforms.
    I have two daughters and a son with a disability. Let me be 
clear: I do not want you defining what is true for them. I do 
not want their future manipulated by your algorithms. I do not 
want their self-worth defined by the engagement tools you built 
to attract their attention. I do not want them to be in danger 
from what you have created. I do not want their emotions and 
vulnerabilities taken advantage of so you can make more money 
and have more power.
    I am sure most of my colleagues on this committee who are 
parents and grandparents feel the same way. Over 20 years ago, 
before we knew what Big Tech would become, Congress gave you 
liability protections. I want to know: Why do you think you 
still deserve those protections today? What will it take for 
your business model to stop harming children? I know I speak 
for millions of moms when I say we need answers, and we will 
not rest until we get them.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 10 years ago--when I joined Big 
Tech platforms--I thought they would be a force for good.
    I thought they would help us build relationships and 
promote transparency in Congress. I can testify today, I was 
wrong. That is not what has transpired. You've broken my trust. 
Yes, because you've failed to promote the battle of ideas and 
free speech.
    Yes, because you censor political viewpoints you disagree 
with. Those polarizing actions matter for democracy. But, do 
you know what has convinced me Big Tech is a destructive force? 
It's how you've abused your power to manipulate and harm our 
children.
    Your platforms are my biggest fear as a parent. I'm a mom 
of three schoolaged kids. My husband and I are fighting the Big 
Tech battles in our household every day. It's a battle for 
their development, A battle for their mental health and--
ultimately--a battle for their safety. I've monitored where 
your algorithms lead them. It's frightening. I know I'm not 
alone. After multiple teenage suicides in my community, I 
reached out to our schools and we started asking questions.
    What's going on with our kids? What's making them feel so 
alone? So empty and in despair? This is what I hear over and 
over again from parents...pediatricians...school 
administrators...and teachers.
    They all are raising the alarm about social media. A day 
doesn't go by that I don't talk to friends and other parents 
who tell me: Their 14-year-old is depressed. She used to love 
soccer. Now, they can't get her to do anything. She never gets 
off her device or leaves her room.
    I think about a mom who told me she can't leave her 
daughter alone EVER because she harms herself. Or the family 
who is recovering from almost losing their daughter to a 
predator she met online.
    These stories are not unique to me or Eastern Washington. I 
recently heard of a young college student who has lost 9 
friends to suicide. This is unimaginable. The science on social 
media is becoming clearer.
    Between 2011 and 2018, rates of depression, self-harm, 
suicides, and suicide attempts exploded among American teens. 
During that time, rates of teen depression increased by more 
than SIXTY percent, with the larger increase among young girls.
    Between 2009 and 2015, emergency room admissions for self-
harm among 10 to 14-year-old girls tripled and suicides 
substantially increased.
    One study found that during that time, teens who used their 
devices for 5 or more hours a day were 66 percent more likely 
to have at least one suicide-related outcome compared to those 
who used their device for just one. Other studies have found 
that teens who spend more time online report lower 
psychological well-being and more feelings of loneliness.
    Remember our kids--the users--are the product. You--Big 
Tech--are not advocates for children. You exploit and profit 
off them.
    Big Tech needs to be exposed and completely transparent for 
what you are doing to our children so parents like me can make 
informed decisions. We also expect Big Tech to do more to 
protect children because you haven't done enough. Big Tech has 
failed to be good stewards of your platforms. I have two 
daughters and a son with a disability.
    Let me be clear, I do not want you defining what is true 
for them. I do not want their future manipulated by your 
algorithms. I do not want their self-worth defined by the 
engagement tools you've built to own their attention. I do not 
want them to be in danger from what you've created. I do not 
want their emotions and vulnerabilities taken advantage of so 
you can make more money and have more power.
    I'm sure most of my colleagues on this committee--who are 
also parents and grandparents--feel the same way. Over 20 years 
ago, before we knew what Big Tech would become, Congress gave 
you liability protections.
    I want to know why do you think you still deserve those 
protections today? What will it take for your business model to 
stop harming children? I know I speak for millions of moms when 
I say we need these answers and we will not rest until we get 
them.
    Thank you.

    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady yields 
back.
    The Chair would now like to remind Members that, pursuant 
to committee rules, all Members' written opening statements 
shall be made a part of the record.
    I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's 
hearing and thank them all for appearing today. First we have 
Mark Zuckerberg, chairman and chief executive officer of 
Facebook; Sundar Pichai, chief executive officer of Google; and 
Jack Dorsey, chief executive officer of Twitter.
    We want to thank all three of you for joining us today. We 
look forward to your testimony. Each of you will have 5 minutes 
to give your opening statements.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, we will start with you. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENTS OF MARK ZUCKERBERG, FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN, AND CHIEF 
  EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FACEBOOK; SUNDAR PICHAI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
 OFFICER, ALPHABET; AND JACK DORSEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
                            TWITTER

                  STATEMENT OF MARK ZUCKERBERG

    Mr. Zuckerberg. Chairs Pallone, Schakowsky, and Doyle, 
ranking members Rodgers, Latta, and Bilirakis, and members of 
the committee, I am glad that this committee is looking at all 
the ways that misinformation and disinformation show up in our 
country's discourse.
    There are important challenges here for our society. We 
have to decide how we want to handle speech that is legal but 
harmful, and who should be responsible for what people say. 
Misinformation is not a new problem. It was 200 years ago that 
a congressman said that a lie would travel from Maine to 
Georgia while truth was still getting on its boots. And 
disinformation has often been spread through traditional media 
too.
    But the internet gives everyone the power to communicate, 
and that certainly presents unique challenges. Now, people 
often says things that aren't verifiably true but that speak to 
their lived experiences. I think we have to be careful 
restricting that. For example, if someone feels intimidated or 
discriminated against while voting, I believe that they should 
be able to share their experience even if the election overall 
was fair.
    I don't think anyone wants a world where you can only say 
things that private companies judge to be true, where every 
text message, email, video, and post has to be fact-checked 
before you hit send. But at the same time, we also don't want 
misinformation to spread that undermines confidence in 
vaccines, stops people from voting, or causes other harms.
    At Facebook, we do a lot to fight misinformation. We have 
removed content that could lead to imminent real-world harm. We 
have built an unprecedented third-party fact-checking program, 
and if something is rated false, then we have warning labels 
and significantly reduce its distribution. We invest a lot in 
directing billions of people to authoritative information.
    The system isn't perfect. But it is the best approach that 
we have found to address misinformation in line with our 
country's values. It is not possible to catch every piece of 
harmful content without infringing on people's freedoms in a 
way that I don't think that we would be comfortable with as a 
society.
    Our approach was tested in 2020 when we took extraordinary 
steps during an extraordinary election. We removed voting 
misinformation; banned hundreds of malicious and conspiracy 
networks, including QAnon; labeled posts that prematurely or 
wrongly declared victory; and directed people to official 
results. We labeled over 180 million posts. We directed 140 
million people to our official Voting Information Center. And 
we helped 4\1/2\ million people register to vote.
    We did our part to secure the integrity of the election. 
And then, on January 6th, President Trump gave a speech 
rejecting the results and calling on people to fight. The 
attack on the Capitol was an outrage, and I want to express my 
sympathy to all of the Members and Capitol workers who had to 
live through this disgraceful moment in our history. And I want 
to express my gratitude to the Capitol police, who were on the 
front lines in defense of our democracy.
    I believe that the former President should be responsible 
for his words, and that the people who broke the law should be 
responsible for their actions. So that leaves the question of 
the broader information ecosystem. And I can't speak for 
everyone else--the TV channels, radio stations, news outlets, 
websites, and other apps--but I can tell you what we did.
    Before January 6th, we worked with law enforcement to 
identify and address threats. During and after the attack, we 
provided extensive support in identifying the insurrectionists 
and removed posts supporting violence. We didn't catch 
everything, but we made our services inhospitable to those who 
might do harm. And when we feared that he would incite further 
violence, we suspended the former President's account.
    Now, many people are concerns that platforms can ban 
leaders. I am too. I don't think that private companies should 
make so many decisions like this alone. We need an accountable 
process, which is why we created an independent oversight board 
that can overrule our decisions. And we need democratically 
agreed rules for the internet.
    The reality is, our country is deeply divided right now, 
and that isn't something that tech companies alone can fix. 
Now, we all have a part to play in helping to turn things 
around, and I think that starts with taking a hard look at how 
we got here.
    Now, some people say that the problem is that social 
networks are polarizing us. But that is not at all clear from 
the evidence or research. Polarization was rising in America 
long before social networks were even invented. And it is 
falling or stable in many other countries where social networks 
are popular. Others claim that algorithms feed us content that 
makes us angry because it is good for business, but that is not 
accurate either.
    I believe that the division we see today is primarily the 
result of a political and media environment that drives 
Americans apart. And we need to reckon with that if we are 
going to make progress. I know that technology can help bring 
people together. We see it every day on our platforms.
    Facebook is successful because people have a deep desire to 
connect and share, not to stand apart and fight. And we believe 
that connectivity and togetherness are more powerful ideals 
than division and discord, and that technology can be part of 
the solution to the challenges our society is facing. And we 
are ready to work with you to move beyond hearings and get 
started on real reform. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Zuckerberg follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Zuckerberg.
    Now Mr. Pichai. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pichai, are you on mute?
    Mr. Pichai. Sorry. I had my volume on.

                   STATEMENT OF SUNDAR PICHAI

    Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, Chairwoman 
Schakowsky, Ranking Member Bilirakis, full committee Chair 
Pallone, and full committee Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, 
and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today.
    To begin, I want to express my sympathies to those who have 
lost loved ones to COVID or the recent gun violence in Boulder 
and Atlanta. In difficult times, we are reminded of what 
connects us as Americans: the hope that we can make things 
better for our families and our communities. And we at Google 
are committed to that work.
    I joined Google because I believed the internet was the 
best way to bring the benefits of technology to more people. 
Over the past three decades, we have seen how it has inspired 
the best in society by expanding knowledge, powering 
businesses, and providing opportunities for discovery and 
connection.
    I am proud that anyone can turn to Google for help, whether 
they are looking for vaccine information, learning new skills 
on YouTube, or using digital tools to grow their businesses. In 
2020 our products helped 2 million U.S. businesses and 
publishers generate $426 billion in economic activity. We are 
energized by the opportunity to help people at scale and 
humbled by the responsibility that comes with it.
    Thousands of people at Google are focused on everything 
from cyber attacks to privacy to today's topic, misinformation. 
Our mission is to organize the world's information and make it 
universally accessible and useful. The goal to that is 
providing trustworthy content and opportunities for free 
expression while combating misinformation.
    It is a big challenge without easy answers. Five hundred-
plus hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. And 
approximately 15 percent of Google searches each day are new to 
us. Eighteen months ago, no one had heard of COVID-19. Sadly, 
``coronavirus'' was the top trending search last year.
    Staying ahead of new challenges to keep users safe is a top 
priority. We saw the importance of that on January 6th, when a 
mob stormed the U.S. Capitol. Google strongly condemns these 
violent acts on our democracy and mourns the lives lost.
    In response, we raised up authoritative sources across our 
products. On YouTube, we removed livestreams and videos that 
violated our Incitement to Violence policies and began issuing 
strikes to those in violation of our Presidential Elections 
policy. We removed apps from the Play Store for inciting 
violence and stopped ads referencing the 2020 election or the 
Capitol riots as part of our Sensitive Events policy.
    We were able to act quickly because we were prepared ahead 
of the 2020 elections. Our reminders of how to register and 
vote were viewed over 2 billion times. YouTube's election 
results information panels have been viewed more than 8 billion 
times.
    We also worked to keep campaigns safe from by cyber attacks 
and protect platforms from abuse. After the December 8 safe 
harbor deadline for States to certify elections, we removed 
content from YouTube that alleged widespread fraud changed the 
outcome of the election.
    This past year, we have also focused on providing quality 
information during the pandemic. Globally, we have committed 
over $550 million in ad grants for COVID-related PSAs to 
governments, health organizations, and nonprofits. On YouTube, 
our COVID information panels have been viewed over 400 billion 
times. We also removed 850,000 videos and blocked nearly 100 
million COVID-related ads throughout 2020.
    Across all of this work, we strive to have transparent 
policies and enforce them without regard to politics or point 
of view. Our ability to provide a range of information and 
viewpoints while also being able to remove this information is 
possible only because of legal frameworks like Section 230. It 
is foundational to the open web, which has been a powerful 
force for good for so many.
    I look forward to sharing more about our approach today and 
working together to create a path forward for the next three 
decades. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pichai follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Pichai.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dorsey for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JACK DORSEY

    Mr. Dorsey. Thank you, members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and its subcommittees for the opportunity to speak 
with the American people about how Twitter may be used to 
spread disinformation, and our solutions. My remarks will be 
brief so we can move to your questions and discussion.
    In our discussion today, some of you might bring up 
specific tweets or examples, and I will probably have an answer 
like, ``My team will follow up with you.'' I don't think that 
is useful. I would rather us focus on principles and approaches 
to address these problems. I will start with ours.
    We believe in free expression. We believe in free debate 
and conversation to find the truth. At the same time, we must 
balance that with our desire for our service not to be used to 
sow confusion, division, or destruction. This makes the freedom 
to moderate content critical to us.
    Our process to moderate content is designed to constantly 
evolve. We observe what is happening on our service. We work to 
understand the ramifications. And we use that understanding to 
strengthen our operations. We push ourselves to improve, based 
on the best information we have.
    Much of what we are likely to discuss today are entirely 
new situations the world has never experienced before and in 
some unique cases involved elected officials. We believe the 
best way to face a big, new challenge is through narrowing the 
problem to have the greatest impact.
    Disinformation is a broad concept, and we needed to focus 
our approach on where we saw the greatest risk if we hope to 
have any impact at all. So we chose to focus on disinformation 
leading to offline harm, and three categories to start: 
manipulated media, public health, and civic integrity.
    Many of you will have strong opinions on how effective we 
are in this work. Some of you will say we are doing too much 
and removing free speech rights. Some of you will say we are 
not doing enough and end up causing more harm. Both points of 
view are reasonable and worth exploring.
    If we woke up tomorrow and decided to stop moderating 
content, we would end up with a service very few people or 
advertisers would want to use. Ultimately, we are running a 
business, and a business wants to grow the number of customers 
it serves. Enforcing policy is a business decision. Different 
businesses and services will have different policies, some more 
liberal than others, and we believe it is critical this variety 
continues to exist. Forcing every business to behave the same 
reduces innovation and individual choice and diminishes free 
marketplace ideals.
    If instead we woke up tomorrow and decided to ask the 
government to tell us what content to take down or leave up, we 
may end up with a service that couldn't be used to question the 
government. This is a reality in many countries today, and is 
against the right of an individual. This would also have the 
effect of putting enormous resource requirements on businesses 
and services, which would further entrench only those who are 
able to afford it. Smaller businesses would not be able to 
compete, and all activity would be centralized into very few 
businesses.
    So how do we resolve these two viewpoints? One way is to 
create shared protocols. Social media has proven itself 
important enough to be worthy of an internet protocol, one that 
a company like Twitter can contribute to and compete on 
creating experiences people love to use. We started work on 
such a protocol, which we call Blue Sky. It intends to act as a 
decentralized, open-source social media protocol not owned by 
any single company or organization. Any developer around the 
world can help develop it, just as any company can access its 
services.
    But does an open protocol address the concerns raised here? 
Greater transparency is the strongest benefit. Anyone around 
the world can see everything that is happening in the 
newsletter, including exactly how it works. One doesn't have to 
trust a company. Just look at the source code.
    Second, since the base protocol is shared, it will increase 
innovation around business models, recommendation algorithms, 
and moderation controls, which are in the hands of individuals 
rather than private companies. This will allow people to 
experiment in a market-based approach. Finally, it will allow 
all of us to observe, acknowledge, and address any societal 
issues that arise much faster. Having more eyes on the problems 
will lead to more impactful solutions that can be built 
directly into this protocol, making the network far more secure 
and resilient.
    A decentralized, open-source protocol for social media is 
our vision and work for the long term. We continue the cycle 
mentioned earlier of constantly improving our approach to 
content moderation in the short term. I hope our discussion 
today will focus on more enduring solutions.
    One final note: We are a bunch of humans with a desire to 
make the world around us better for everyone living today and 
those that come after us. We make mistakes in prioritization 
and in execution. We commit to being open about these and doing 
our best to remedy what we control.
    We appreciate the enormous privilege we have in building 
technologies to host some of the world's most important 
conversations, and we honor the desire to create better 
outcomes or everyone who interacts with them.
    Thanks for your time, and I look forward to the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dorsey follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Dorsey.
    Well, we have concluded witness opening statements. At this 
time we will move to Member questions. I want to make sure that 
Members are aware that our witnesses are being assisted by 
counsel, and during questions our witnesses may briefly mute 
themselves to seek advice of counsel, which is permitted.
    Each Member will have 5 minutes to start asking questions 
of our witnesses. I ask everyone to please adhere to that 5-
minute rule, as we have many people that want to ask questions. 
I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, a point of order?
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman--who is speaking?
    Mr. Duncan. This is Jeff Duncan. Point of order.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Duncan. If the witnesses are advised by counsel and we 
are not swearing them in, why would they need counsel?
    Mr. Doyle. In previous hearings, we have always permitted 
witnesses to have counsel. Sometimes you will see them at a 
hearing just leaning back and talking to their counsel before a 
question. But it is allowed under our rules, and I just wanted 
to make Members aware that they may mute themselves while that 
is going on.
    Mr. Duncan. They should be sworn in, but I yield back. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. OK. Gentlemen, my time is short, and I ask that 
you make your responses as brief and to the point as possible. 
If I ask you a yes-or-no question, I am just looking for a yes 
or no. So please respond appropriately.
    I want to start by asking all three of you if your platform 
bears some responsibility for disseminating disinformation 
related to the election and the Stop the Steal movement that 
led to the attack on the Capitol. Just a yes or no answer. Mr. 
Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Chairman, I think our responsibility is to 
build systems that can help fight----
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Zuckerberg, I just want a yes or no answer. 
OK? Yes or no: Do you bear some responsibility for what 
happened?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, our responsibility is to make 
sure that we build effective systems to help fight the spread 
of----
    Mr. Doyle. OK. The gentleman's preference is not to answer 
the question.
    Mr. Pichai, yes or no?
    Mr. Pichai. We always feel a deep sense of responsibility. 
But I think we worked hard. This election effort was one of our 
most substantive efforts.
    Mr. Doyle. Is that a yes or a no?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, it is a complex question. We----
    Mr. Doyle. OK. We will move on.
    Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. But you also have to take into 
consideration a broad ecosystem. It is not just about the 
technology platforms that are used.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Thank you, and I agree with that.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, independent analysis has shown that despite 
all the things that Facebook did during the election, users 
still interacted with election misinformation roughly 1.1 
billion times over the last year. The initial Stop the Steal 
group started on Facebook and gained over 350,000 followers in 
less than a day, faster than almost any other in your 
platform's history, and they were immediately calling for 
violence.
    In mid-December, you stopped promoting high-quality news 
outlets for election content at a time when the disinformation 
was as its height. And finally, the FBI has released numerous 
documents showing that many of the insurrectionists used 
Facebook to coordinate and plan the attack on January 6th.
    So my question is: How is it possible for you not to at 
least admit that Facebook played a central role or a leading 
role in facilitating the recruitment, planning, and execution 
of the attack on the Capitol?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Chairman, my point is that I think that the 
responsibility here lies with the people who took the actions 
to break the law and take--and do the insurrection.
    And secondarily, also, the people who spread that content, 
including the President but others as well, with repeated 
rhetoric over time saying that the election was rigged and 
encouraging people to organize. I think that those people bear 
the primary responsibility as well. And that was the point that 
I was making.
    Mr. Doyle. I understand that. But your platforms 
supercharged that. You took what--a thing and magnified it. In 
12 hours you got 350,000 people in your site. You gin this up. 
Your algorithms make it possible to supercharge these kinds of 
opinions. I think we are here because of what these platforms 
enabled, how your choices put our lives and our democracy at 
risk. And many of us just find it just unacceptable.
    I want to ask each of you another question: Do you think 
vaccines that have been approved for COVID-19 work? Just yes or 
no. Do you think the vaccines that have been approved work? Mr. 
Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. Yes. Absolutely.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. But I don't think we are here to discuss 
our own personal opinions.
    Mr. Doyle. I just want to know if you think the vaccines 
work. Yes?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. However----
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. OK. So if you think the vaccines 
work, why have your companies allowed accounts that repeatedly 
offend your vaccine disinformation policies to remain up? I 
mean, according to report, just 12 accounts on Facebook, 
Twitter, and Instagram account for 65 percent of all the 
vaccine disinformation on your platforms. You are exposing tens 
of millions of users to this every day. I don't have the stats 
on YouTube, but my understanding is it is similar.
    So my question is: Why, in the midst of a global pandemic 
that has killed over half a million Americans, that you haven't 
taken these accounts down that are responsible for the 
preponderance of vaccine disinformation on your platforms? Will 
you all commit to taking these platforms down today? Mr. 
Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, yes, we do have a policy 
against allowing vaccine disinformation----
    Mr. Doyle. Oh, I know you have a policy, but will you take 
the sites down today? You still have 12 people up on your site 
doing this. Will you take them down?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I would need to look at the--
and have our team look at the exact examples to make sure they 
violate the policy----
    Mr. Doyle. Look at them today and get back to us tomorrow 
because those still exist. We found them as early as last 
night.
    Mr. Pichai, how about you?
    Mr. Pichai. We have removed over 850,000 videos and we----
    Mr. Doyle. But have you removed them all? Do you still have 
people that are spreading disinformation on your platforms? 
There are about 12 superspreaders.
    Mr. Pichai. We have clear policies and we take down 
content. Some of the content is allowed if it is people's 
personal experiences. But we definitely----
    Mr. Doyle. OK. Thank you. Mr. Dorsey? I see my time is 
getting expired. Mr. Dorsey? Will you take these sites down? 
You got about 12 superspreaders. Will you take them down?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. We remove everything against our policy.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    I see my time is expired. I will now yield to the ranking 
member, Mr. Latta, for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. I thank my friend for yielding.
    Amanda Todd was just 15 years old when she hung herself. 
Amanda met a man online who took inappropriate screenshots of 
Amanda and proceeded to follow her around the internet and 
harass her for years. He found her classmates on Facebook and 
he would send them the picture he took of her. To cope with the 
anxiety, Amanda turned to drugs and alcohol. But it became too 
much for her.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, clearly Ms. Todd was underage, so the photo 
that was shared to harass her was illegal. Do you believe that 
Facebook bears any responsibility for the role it played in her 
death? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sorry, I was muted. Congressman, that is 
a--it is an incredibly sad story. And I think that we certainly 
have a responsibility to make sure that we are building systems 
that can fight and remove this kind of harmful content. In the 
case of child exploitation content, we have been building 
systems for a long time that use AI, and we have thousands of 
people working on being able to identify this content and 
remove it, and I think our systems are generally pretty 
effective at this. And I think it is our responsibility to make 
sure that we keep improving them.
    Mr. Latta. My time--my time is pretty short, but would you 
say yes or no then?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sorry. Can you repeat that?
    Mr. Latta. Well, in the question, yes or no, then? Any 
responsibility?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I believe that the 
responsibility of the platform----
    Mr. Latta. OK. Well, let me move on because I have got--I 
am very short on time.
    Do you believe that Facebook should be held accountable for 
any role in her death? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, the responsibility that I 
think platforms should have----
    Mr. Latta. OK.
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. Is to build effective systems 
to moderate this content.
    Mr. Latta. I am going to have to move on. I am going to 
have to take it that you are just not responding to the 
question.
    Unfortunately, stories like Amanda Todd's are only becoming 
more common. While we all can talk about how your platforms can 
be used for good or evil, the evil seems to persevere.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, you stated that you support thoughtful 
changes to Section 230 to ensure that tech companies are held 
accountable for certain actions that happen on their platforms, 
such as child exploitation. What specific changes do you 
support in Section 230?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Thanks, Congressman. I would support two 
specific changes, especially for large platforms--although I 
want to call out that I think for smaller platforms I think we 
need to be careful about any changes that we make that remove 
their immunity, because that could hurt competition. So let me 
just call on these for larger platforms.
    I think, first, platforms should have to issue transparency 
reports that state the prevalence of content across all 
different categories of harmful content, everything from child 
exploitation to terrorism to incitement of violence to 
intellectual property violations to pornography, whatever the 
different harms are, and----
    Mr. Latta. Well, let me ask real quick now: Where are those 
transparency reports you are being reported to, and how often 
do you think that should be going out?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Oh, Congressman, as a model, Facebook has 
been doing something to this effect for every quarter, where we 
report on the prevalence of each category of harmful content 
and how effective our systems are at identifying that content 
and removing it in advance. And I think the company should be 
held accountable for having effective systems to do that 
broadly.
    The second change that I would propose is creating 
accountability for the large platforms to have effective 
systems in place to moderate and remove clearly illegal 
content, so things like sex trafficking or child exploitation 
or terrorist content. And I think it would be reasonable to 
condition immunity for the larger platforms on having a 
generally effective system in place to moderate clearly illegal 
types of content.
    Mr. Latta. Let me interrupt real quick because I am running 
really short on time. Because I know in your testimony you are 
talking about that you would--you say that platforms should not 
be held liable if a particular piece of content evades its 
detection.
    So again, that is one of the areas when you are talking 
about the transparency and also the accountability I would like 
to follow up on.
    Let me ask you real quick, Mr. Pichai, yes or no: Do you 
agree with Mr. Zuckerberg's changes to Section 230?
    Mr. Pichai. There are definitely good proposals around 
transparency and accountability, which I have seen in various 
legislative proposals as well, which I think are important 
principles and we would certainly welcome legislative 
approaches in that area.
    Mr. Latta. OK. Mr. Dorsey, do you agree with Mr. 
Zuckerberg? Yes or no? On the changes on 230?
    Mr. Dorsey. I think the ideas around transparency are good. 
I think it is going to be very hard to determine what is a 
large platform and a small platform, and it may incentivize the 
wrong things.
    Mr. Doyle. OK. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. My time is expired, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Chair Schakowsky, chair 
of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, immediately after the Capitol insurgency, 
Sheryl Sandberg did an interview in which she insisted that the 
siege was largely planned on smaller platforms, that--but the 
court filings actually show something quite the opposite, that 
the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers used Facebook to coordinate in 
real time during the siege.
    And so my question for you is: Will you admit today that 
Facebook groups, in particular, played a role in fomenting the 
extremism that we saw and that led to the Capitol siege?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, thanks for the question on 
this. In the comment that Sheryl made, what I believe that we 
were trying to say was--and what I stand behind--is what was 
widely reported at the time, that after January 6th----
    Ms. Schakowsky. No. But I am sorry to interrupt, as many of 
my colleagues have had to do because we only have 5 minutes. 
But would you say that--and would you admit that Facebook 
played a role?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I think certainly there was 
content on our services, and from that perspective, I think 
that there is further work that we need to do to make our 
services and moderation more effective.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I have heard that. OK. I am going to ask 
Mr. Pichai a question.
    Many companies have used Section 230 as a shield to escape 
consumer protection laws. And I have a bill that would actually 
not protect companies that do that. And so, Mr. Pichai, would 
you agree that that that would be proper use, to not allow 
liability protection for those who violate consumer protection 
laws?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, consumer protection laws are 
very important areas, like we comply with COPPA and HIPAA. I 
think the right approach is to have legislation in applicable 
areas and have us----
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I am going to have to interrupt again. 
Is that a yes, that if a law has been broken, a consumer 
protection law, that it would not--there would not be liability 
protection under Section 230 for you?
    Mr. Pichai. We rely on the liability protections to 
actually take strong action in, particularly, new types of 
content. When the Christchurch shooting happened, within a few 
minutes our teams had to make decisions about the content to 
take down. That certainty is what we rely on.
    But I agree with you that we should have strong consumer 
protection laws and be subject to it and have agencies like the 
FTC have clear oversight over those laws and how we comply with 
them.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just ask a real--thank you--a real 
yes or no, quickly. Do you think that when you take money to 
run advertisements that promote disinformation, that you are 
exempt from liability? Yes or no? Yes or no?
    Mr. Pichai. Section 230----
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Zuckerberg? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I don't know the legal 
answer to that. But we don't allow misinformation in our ads. 
And any ad that has been fact-checked as false, we don't allow 
it to run as an ad.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. And Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. Again, I also would need to review the legal 
precedent for it. But we would not allow that.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. And Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. We are subject to FTC's deceptive ad practices, 
so there are statutes which apply to us. We removed over 3 
billion bad ads last year alone.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Let me ask one more question: Do you 
think that Section 230 should be expanded to trade agreements 
that are being made, as happened in the U.S. trade agreement 
with Mexico and Canada? Yes or no? Mr. Zuckerberg.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, my primary goal would be to 
help update Section 230 to reflect the kind of modern reality 
in what we have learned over 25 years. But that said, I do 
still think that Section 230 plays a foundational role in the 
development of the internet and----
    Ms. Schakowsky. I hear you. But I am talking now about 
trade agreements. Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, I think there is value in it. 
But if there are evolution of Section 230, that should apply. 
And so in a flexible way, being able to do that would be good, 
I think.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. I don't fully understand the ramifications of 
what you are suggesting. So I would have to review any----
    Ms. Schakowsky. I am saying to have a liability shield that 
would be international and clarify it in trade agreements. And 
I think it is a bad idea.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis, ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Dorsey, you have heard briefly about what I am hearing 
again my district. My opening remarks, you have heard them. The 
other key part with these stories that we are hearing when we 
conduct these surveys is how we empower law enforcement.
    In a hearing last year, we received testimony that since 
2016 Twitter has intentionally curtailed sharing threat data 
with law enforcement fusion centers. Here is the question: You 
are well aware that on Twitter and Periscope, that traffic has 
increased from bad actors seeking to groom children for 
molestation, lure females into sex trafficking, sell illegal 
drugs, incite violence, and even threaten to murder police 
officers.
    Are you willing to reinstate this cooperation, retain 
evidence, and provide law enforcement the tools to protect our 
most vulnerable? Yes or no?
    Mr. Dorsey. Well, first, child sexual exploitation has no 
place on our platform, and I don't believe that is true. We 
work with local law enforcement regularly.
    Mr. Bilirakis. So you are saying that this is not true, 
what I am telling you? Are you willing to reinstate--reinstate; 
in other words, it is not going on now--reinstate this 
cooperation with law enforcement to retain evidence and provide 
law enforcement the tools to protect our most vulnerable?
    Mr. Dorsey. We would love to work with you in more detail 
on what you are seeing. But we work with law enforcement 
regularly. We have a strong partnership.
    Mr. Bilirakis. So you are saying that this is not true, 
what I am telling you?
    Mr. Dorsey. I don't believe so. But I would love to 
understand the specifics.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Will you commit to doing what I am telling 
you you are not doing in the future, and work with me on this?
    Mr. Dorsey. We will commit to continue doing what we are 
doing.
    Mr. Bilirakis. And what is that? You are saying that the--
so in other words----
    Mr. Dorsey. Working with the local law enforcement.
    Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Well, let me go on to the next question. 
But I am going to follow up with this to make sure you are 
doing this. I mean, our children's lives are in jeopardy here.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, we have heard you acknowledge mistakes 
about your products before. There are now media reports of an 
Instagram for under-13 being launched. My goodness. Between 
this and YouTube Kids, you and Mr. Pichai have obviously 
identified a business case for targeting this age bracket with 
content, and I find that very concerning, targeting this 
particular age bracket, 13 and under.
    Given these free services, how exactly would you be making 
money, or are you trying to monetize our children, too, and get 
them addicted early? And will you be allowing your own children 
to use this site with the default settings? We are talking 
about, again, the site that apparently is being launched for 
children 13 and under, or under 13, actually. Can you please 
answer that question for me?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we are early in thinking 
through how this service would work. There is clearly a large 
number of people under the age of 13 who would want to use a 
service like Instagram. We currently do not allow them to do 
that. I think the offer----
    Mr. Bilirakis. What would be beneficial to our children to 
launch this kind of service?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Well, Congressman, I think helping people 
stay connected with friends and learn about different content 
online is broadly positive. There are clearly issues that need 
to be thought through and worked out, including how parents can 
control the experience of kids, especially kids under the age 
of 13. And we haven't worked through all of that yet, so we 
haven't kind of formally announced the plans. But I think that 
something like this could be quite helpful for a lot of people.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Excuse me. OK, I will reclaim my time.
    Mr. Pichai, your company has had failures to rating content 
for kids. What advice would you offer your challenge here?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, we have invested a lot in a one-
of-a-kind product, YouTube Kids. The content there is--we work 
with trusted content partners. Think Sesame Street as an 
example of the type of channel you would find there, science 
videos and cartoons. And we take great effort to make sure----
    Mr. Bilirakis. I need to reclaim my time. I have one more--
one last question for Mr. Zuckerberg.
    Do you have concerns with what has appeared on your 
platform hosted by YouTube? And with regard to your children, 
about--in general. Do you have concerns, yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, are you asking me about 
YouTube?
    Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. I am asking you about YouTube.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I use YouTube to watch 
educational videos with my children, and----
    Mr. Bilirakis. Do you have concerns? First, for your 
children and your family personally? Do you have concerns?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Well, Congressman, my children are 5 and 3 
years old. So when I watch content on YouTube with them, I am 
doing it and supervising them. So in that context, no, I 
haven't particularly had concerns. But I think it is important 
that if anyone is building a service for kids under the age of 
13 to use by themselves, that there are appropriate parental 
controls.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. I would ask all Members to try to stick to our 
5-minute rule so that we can get out of here before midnight.
    The Chair will now recognize Mr. Pallone, the full 
committee chair, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle. My questions are of 
Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Pichai. But I just want to say, after 
listening to the two of you's testimony, you definitely give 
the impression that you don't think that you are actively in 
any way promoting this misinformation and extremism. And I 
totally disagree with that.
    You are not passive bystanders. You are not nonprofits or 
religious organizations that are trying to do a good job for 
humanity. You are making money. And the point we are trying to 
make today--or at least I am--is that when you spread 
disinformation, misinformation, extremism, actively promoted 
and amplified, you do it because you make more money.
    And so I kind of deny the basic premise of what you said. 
But let me get to the questions. Let me ask Mr. Zuckerberg. 
According to a May 2020 Wall Street Journal report, a Facebook 
researcher concluded that Facebook's own recommendation tools 
were tied to a significant rise in membership in extremist 
Facebook groups in Germany. I wrote to you last month 
requesting this research and related documents. I trust you 
will fully cooperate with the committee's inquiry and provide 
all requested documents and information.
    But my question is, and please yes or no: Were you aware of 
this research showing that 64 percent of the members in the 
extremist Facebook groups studied joined because of Facebook's 
own recommendations to join these extremist groups in Germany? 
Were you aware of that, yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, this is something that we 
study because we want to make sure our products----
    Mr. Pallone. But I am asking whether you were aware of it. 
It is a simple question. Yes or no: Were you aware of it? That 
is all I am asking. Were you aware of it?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Aware at what time? After we studied that--
--
    Mr. Pallone. I just asked if you were aware of it, Mr. 
Zuckerberg. Yes or no? If not, I am going to assume that the 
answer is yes. OK?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I have seen the study. It was 
about a----
    Mr. Pallone. All right. So your answer is yes.
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. Contest leading up to the 
German election. And we have since----
    Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. Let me go to the final 
question, which relates to that. You said yes. OK.
    The troubling research I mentioned demonstrates that 
Facebook was not simply allowing disinformation and extremism 
to spread, it actively amplified it and spread it. This is my 
point. Nonetheless, Facebook didn't permanently stop 
recommending political and civil groups to the United States 
until after the January 6th insurrection, years after it was 
made aware of this research.
    The fact that Facebook's own recommendation system helped 
populate extremist groups compels us to reevaluate platforms' 
liabilities. Now, back to that Wall Street Journal article.
    Facebook's chief product officer, Chris Cox, championed an 
internal effort to address division on Facebook and proposed a 
plan that would have reduced the spread of content by 
hyperactive users on the far left and far right. The article 
alleges, Mr. Zuckerberg, that you personally reviewed this 
proposal and approved it, but only after its effectiveness was 
decreased to 80 percent.
    Is that true? Yes or no, please?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we have made a lot of measures 
that--to fight this content, including----
    Mr. Pallone. Did you approve it after its effectiveness was 
decreased to 80 percent? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I can't speak to that specific 
example. But we have put in place a lot of different measures, 
and I think that they are effective, including----
    Mr. Pallone. Did you review the proposal and approve it?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we do a lot of work in this 
area and I review a lot of proposals and we move forward on a 
lot of steps.
    Mr. Pallone. It is not a difficult question. I am just 
asking if you reviewed this internal proposal and you approved 
it. And you won't even answer that. It is so easy to answer 
that question. It is very specific.
    All right. You won't answer. Right? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, that is not what I said. I 
said I did review that in addition to many other proposals and 
things that we have taken action on.
    Mr. Pallone. You whether or not----
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Including shutting off recommendations for 
civic and political groups.
    Mr. Pallone. Did you approve it with the 80 percent 
decrease in effectiveness?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I don't remember that 
specifically. But we have taken a number of different----
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Let me----
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. Steps on this.
    Mr. Pallone. Let me go to Mr. Pichai. Mr. Pichai, according 
to the New York Times, YouTube's recommendation algorithm is 
responsible for more than 70 percent of the time users spend on 
YouTube. In fact, a former design ethicist at Google was quoted 
as saying, ``If I am YouTube and I want you to watch more, I am 
always going to steer you towards Crazy Town.''
    Mr. Pichai, is YouTube's recommendation algorithm designed 
to encourage users to stay on the site? Yes or no? Is it 
designed to encourage users to stay on the site? Yes or no?
    Mr. Pichai. Content responsibilities are our number one 
goal, so that trumps everything.
    Mr. Pallone. I am only asking--very simple--whether 
YouTube's recommendation algorithm is designed to encourage 
users to stay on the site. Simple question. Yes or no.
    Mr. Pichai. That is not the sole goal, Congressman. That 
would definitely----
    Mr. Pallone. So the answer is yes. OK. So the bottom line 
is, simply put, your company's bottom line compels you to 
amplify extremist and dangerous content. You are not 
bystanders. And what happens online doesn't stay online. It has 
real-world consequences. That is why Congress has to act, 
because you are not bystanders. You are encouraging this stuff.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Rodgers, the full committee 
ranking member, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Rodgers. We tragically lost a number of young people to 
suicide in my community. In a 3-year period from 2013 to 2016, 
the suicide rate more than doubled in Spokane County. In the 
last six months, one high school lost three teens. Right now 
suicide is the second-leading cause of death in the entire 
State of Washington for teens 15 to 19 years old.
    As I mentioned, it has led to many painful conversations 
trying to find some healing for broken families and 
communities. And together we have been asking, what has left 
our kids with a deep sense of brokenness? Why do children, 
including kids we have lost in middle school, feel so empty at 
such a young, vulnerable age?
    Well, some studies are confirming what parents in my 
community already know: Too much time on screens and social 
media is leading to loneliness and despair. And it seems to be 
an accepted truth in the tech industry because what we are 
hearing today: Making money is more important.
    Bill Gates put a cap on screen time for his daughter. Steve 
Jobs once said in a quote, ``We limit how much technology our 
kids use at home.'' Mr. Zuckerberg, you have also said that 
your kids--or you don't want your kids sitting in front of 
screens passively consuming content.
    So Mr. Zuckerberg, yes or no: Do you agree too much time in 
front of screens, passively consuming content, is harmful to 
children's mental health?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, the research that I have 
seen on this suggests that if people are using computers and 
social----
    Ms. Rodgers. Could you answer yes or no? I am sorry. Could 
you use yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I don't think that the research is 
conclusive on that. But I can summarize what I have learned, if 
that is helpful.
    Ms. Rodgers. I will follow up at a later time because I do 
know that Facebook has acknowledged that passive consumption on 
your platform is leading to people feeling worse. And you said 
that going from video to video is not positive. Yet Facebook is 
designed to keep people scrolling. Instagram is designed to get 
users to go from video to video.
    So I would like to ask you, if you said earlier that you 
don't want kids sitting in front of the screens passively 
consuming content, and your products are designed to increase 
screen time, do you currently have any limitations on your own 
kids' use of your products, or how do you think that will 
change as they get older?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sure, Congresswoman. My daughters are 5 and 
3, and they don't use our products. Actually, that is not 
exactly true. My eldest daughter, Max, I let her use Messenger 
Kids sometimes to message her cousins. But overall, the 
research that we have seen is that using social apps to connect 
with other people can have positive mental health benefits and 
well-being benefits by helping people feel more connected and 
less lonely.
    Passively consuming content doesn't have those positive 
benefits to well-being but isn't necessarily negative. It just 
isn't as positive as connecting. And the way we design our 
algorithms is to encourage meaningful social interactions. So 
it is a common misconception that our teams--our goals, or even 
have goals, of trying to increase the amount of time that 
people spend.
    The News Feed team at Facebook and the Instagram team----
    Ms. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Zuckerberg. I do have a couple 
more questions.
    So do you agree that your business model and the design of 
your products is to get as many people on the platform as 
possible and to keep them there for as long as possible? If you 
could answer yes or no, that would be great.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, from a mission perspective, 
we want to serve everyone. But our goal is not--we don't--I 
don't give our News Feed team or our Instagram team goals 
around increasing the amount of time that people spend. I 
believe that if we build a useful product which----
    Ms. Rodgers. OK. Thank you. Thank you. We all have limited 
time. I think the business model suggests that it is true.
    It was mentioned earlier that you are studying extremism. I 
would like to ask, yes or no, of all of you, beginning with Mr. 
Zuckerberg: Has Facebook conducted any internal research as to 
the effect your products are having on the mental health of our 
children?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I know that this is something 
that we try to study, and I am----
    Ms. Rodgers. Can you say yes or no? I am sorry.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I believe the answer is yes.
    Ms. Rodgers. OK. Mr. Dorsey, has Twitter?
    Mr. Dorsey. I don't believe so, but we will follow up with 
you.
    Ms. Rodgers. OK. Mr. Pichai, has Google conducted any 
research on the effect your products are having on the mental 
health of children?
    Mr. Pichai. We consult widely with expert third parties on 
this area, including SAMHSA and other mental health 
organizations, and invest a lot of time and effort in this 
area.
    Ms. Rodgers. OK. I would like to see that. It sounds like 
you have studied extremism. Let's get focused on our children.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
    Bobby, you need to unmute.
    There you go.
    Nope, you are still muted.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all agree 
that social media sites should not be tools for stoking racial 
division or exacerbating racial injustice. However, there is a 
broad finding of research that demonstrates the 
disproportionate effects of disinformation and White supremacy 
extremism on women and people of color, especially Black 
people.
    We have seen, and continue to see, that too often social 
media sites put their earnings before equality. Simply stated, 
your corporations carelessly put profits over people. 
Misinformation, outlandish conspiracy theories, and incendiary 
content targeting minorities remains firmly, and social media 
companies, your companies, are profiting from hate and racism 
on these platforms by harnessing data and generating 
advertising revenue from such content.
    There is only one comparison that remotely approaches the 
avarice and moral discrepancy of your companies, and that is 
the slavetocracy burden of our Nation's shameful and inhumane 
and most difficult dark days in the past.
    This is the very reason why I ask Mr. Dorsey, I remember 
you at our 2018 hearing to commit to commissioning an 
independent third-party civil rights audit of Twitter. This 
response at the hearing was followed up with a joint letter 
from Chairman Pallone and myself confirming that commitment.
    It is 3 years later, and I am still waiting, Mr. Dorsey, 
for the results of that audit. Where is that audit, Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. Thank you. We have taken another approach, 
which is to work with civil rights orgs on a regular basis. We 
have regular conversations with civil rights orgs multiple 
times a year.
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Dorsey, where is the audit that Members of 
Congress, including the chairman of the committee--where is the 
audit that we asked you and you agreed to forward?
    Mr. Dorsey. We don't have it. We sought a different 
approach with----
    Mr. Rush. I don't have it either, and I thought that you 
were being very, very disingenuous. As a matter of fact, I 
thought that you had lied to the committee and you should be 
condemned for that. And I can't wait until we come up with 
legislation that will deal with you and your cohorts in a very, 
very effective way. This was nothing but an empty promise that 
you made.
    You haven't taken this issue seriously, and Mr. Dorsey I as 
a black man in America, my experiences are different from your 
experiences. This audit is very, very important to me and to 
those who are similarly situated just as I am. Facebook, to 
their credit, has completed an audit. And there is no reason, 
simply no reason under the sun, that corporation as large as 
yours should not have completed that audit.
    Mr. Dorsey, has Twitter evaluated the disparate impact from 
COVID-19 misinformation on the African American community, and 
simply has not even attempted to identify messages to combat 
COVID-19 misinformation targeted at African Americans and 
emphasized reliable, trustworthy medical information?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes on both. And we review with civil rights 
orgs on a regular basis. That is the solution we chose.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Upton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I listen to this hearing, like it or not, it sounds like 
everybody on both sides of the aisle is not very happy. I think 
we all believe that there is a lot of responsibility that 
should be shared for some of the issues that we have raised 
today by the three of you. And I would just offer--or 
speculate, I guess you could say--that we are going to see some 
changes in Section 230.
    The President, former President Trump, vetoed a pretty big 
bill, the defense bill, earlier last year over this very issue 
because he wanted the total repeal and he didn't get it. But I 
know that the Senate now has got some legislation that is 
pending that is looking at a couple reforms. And my sense is 
that we may see something here in the near future as well.
    I serve as one of only two House members on the Commission 
on Combating Synthetic Opioid Trafficking. It is a multi-
Federal agency. It is cochaired by David Trone in the House and 
Tom Cotton in the Senate. And there is a lot of concern that we 
all have, not only as parents but as community leaders across 
the country, on opioids and the inability to remove illegal 
offers of opioids, steroids, even fake COVID-19 vaccines. Very 
troubling, I think, as we see some of these platforms push such 
content to a user in real search of it.
    So I guess my first question is to you, Mr. Zuckerberg. The 
sale of illegal drugs on your platform does violate your 
policy, yet it does remain a problem on your platforms. Can you 
explain the resources that you currently have devoted to 
addressing the issue and whether or not you plan to develop 
more? And this is an issue that I intend to raise with the 
Commission as we look forward to this in the next number of 
months.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Thanks, Congressman. I think this is an 
important area and a good question. We have more than a 
thousand engineers who work on our what we call integrity 
systems that basically are AI systems that try to help find 
content that violates our policies. You are right that that 
content does violate our policies. And we also have more than 
35,000 people who work in content review who basically are 
either responding to flags that they get from the community or 
checking things that our AI systems flag for them but are 
unsure about.
    And this is an area--and when we are talking about 
reforming Section 230--where I think it would be reasonable to 
expect that large platforms, especially, build effective 
systems to be able to combat and fight this kind of clearly 
illegal content. I think that there will be a lot of ongoing 
debate about how to handle content which people find 
distasteful or maybe harmful but is legal. But in this case, 
when the content is illegal, I think it is pretty reasonable to 
expect that large platforms build effective systems for 
moderating this.
    Mr. Upton. So we saw earlier this week--of course, we don't 
know all the facts on this terrible shooting in Boulder, 
Colorado. It appears, at least some of the initial reports, 
that the alleged shooter was in fact bullied, and I think I saw 
some press reports that some of it had happened online as well.
    What process do you have that would allow parents or 
families to be able to pursue antibullying efforts that might 
be on your platforms?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Thanks, Congressman. I think bullying is a 
really important case to consider for Section 230 because, 
first of all, it is horrible, and we need to fight it, and we 
have policies that are against it. But it also is often the 
case that bullying content is not clearly illegal.
    So when we talk about needing the ability under something 
like Section 230 to be able to moderate content which is not 
only clearly illegal content but broader, one of the primary 
examples that we have in mind is making sure that we can stop 
people from bullying children. And here we work with a number 
of advocacy groups. We work with law enforcement to help fight 
this. This is a huge effort and part of what we do, and I think 
it is extremely important.
    Mr. Upton. And other than taking the approach that you 
don't want to see any changes to 230, what suggestions might 
you have for us as we examine this issue?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sorry, Congressman. I am not saying that I 
don't think that there should be changes. I am saying that I 
think 230 still broadly is important, so I wouldn't repeal the 
whole thing.
    But the three changes that I have basically suggested are--
one is around transparency, that large platforms should have to 
report on a regular cadence, for each category of harmful 
content, how much of that harmful content they are finding and 
how effective their systems are at dealing with it.
    The second thing I think that we should do is hold large 
platforms to a standard where they should have effective 
systems for handling clearly illegal content, like opioids or 
child exploitation or things like that.
    And the threshold thing that I think is an important 
principle is that these policies really do need to apply more 
to large platforms. And I think we need to find a way to exempt 
small platforms, so that way--when I was getting started with 
Facebook, if we had gotten hit with a lot of lawsuits around 
content, it might have been prohibitive for me to get started. 
And I think none of us here want to see the next set of 
platforms from being stopped from kind of being able to get 
started and grow.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Eshoo.
    Ms. Eshoo. Am I unmuted? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good 
morning--well, it is still--we are Californians, so it is good 
morning for us.
    I want to start by saying that content moderation, like 
removing posts or banning accounts, is about treating symptoms. 
And I think that we need to treat symptoms, but I also think 
that we need to address two underlying diseases. The first is 
that your products amplify extremism. The second is that your 
business models of targeted ads enable misinformation to thrive 
because you chase user engagement at great cost to our society.
    So to Mr. Pichai, last month the Anti-Defamation League 
found that YouTube amplifies extremism. Scores of journalists 
and researchers agree. And here is what they say happens: A 
user watching an extremist video is often recommended more such 
videos, slowly radicalizing the user. YouTube is not doing 
enough to address recommendations, and it is why Representative 
Malinowski and myself introduced the Protecting Americans from 
Dangerous Algorithms Act to narrowly amend Section 230 so 
courts can examine the role of algorithmic amplification that 
leads to violence.
    And it is also why I, along with 40 of my House colleagues, 
wrote to each of you about this issue. And Mr. Chairman, I ask 
that those letters be placed into the record.
    [The letters appear at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Eshoo. So my question to you, Mr. Pichai, is: Are you 
willing to overhaul YouTube's core recommendation engine to 
correct this issue? Yes or no?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, we have overhauled our 
recommendation systems, and I know you have engaged on these 
issues before, pretty substantially in pretty much any area.
    Ms. Eshoo. Now, Mr. Pichai, yes or no, because we still 
have a huge problem. And I outlined what they--are you saying 
that the Anti-Defamation League doesn't know what they are 
talking about? All these journalists and researchers? There is 
a lot more to address. And that is why I am asking you if you 
are willing to overhaul YouTube's core recommendation engine to 
correct this. It is serious. It is dangerous. What more can I 
say about it? Yes or no?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, if I may explain, we have----
    Ms. Eshoo. No. I don't have time to explain. So we--let me 
just say this to the witnesses. We don't do filibuster in the 
House. That is something that is done in the Senate. So a 
filibuster doesn't work with us.
    To Mr. Zuckerberg, your algorithms use unseemly amounts of 
data to keep users on your platform because that leads to more 
ad revenue. Now, businesses are in business to make money. We 
all understand that. But your model has a cost to society. The 
most engaging posts are often those that induce fear, anxiety, 
anger, and that includes deadly, deadly misinformation.
    The Center for Countering Digital Hate found that the 
Explore and Suggested Posts parts of Instagram are littered 
with COVID misinformation, election disinformation, and QAnon 
posts. So this is dangerous, and it is why Representative 
Schakowsky and I are doing a bill that is going to ban this 
business model of surveillance advertising.
    So are you willing to redesign your products to eliminate 
your focus on addicting users to your platforms at all costs? 
Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, as I said before, the teams 
that design our algorithm----
    Ms. Eshoo. Never mind. I think--let me just say this, and I 
think it is irritating all of us, and that is that no one seems 
to know the word ``yes'' or the word ``no.'' Which one is it? 
If you don't want to answer, just say, ``I don't want to 
answer.'' So yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, these are nuanced issues 
and----
    Ms. Eshoo. OK. So I am going to say that is a no.
    To Mr. Dorsey, as chairwoman of the Health Subcommittee I 
think that you need to eliminate all COVID misinformation--and 
not label or reduce its spread, but remove it. I looked at a 
tweet this morning. Robert Kennedy, Jr., links the death of 
baseball legend Hank Aaron to the COVID vaccine even though 
fact-checkers debunked the story. The tweet has 9,000 retweets.
    Will you take this down, and why haven't you? And also, why 
haven't you banned the 12 accounts that are spewing this deadly 
COVID misinformation? This could cost lives.
    Mr. Dorsey. No, we won't take it down because it didn't 
violate our policy. So we have a clear policy in place----
    Ms. Eshoo. What kind of policy is that? Is it a policy for 
misinformation?
    Mr. Dorsey. No.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Scalise. Is Mr. Scalise here?
    Mr. Scalise. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. Ah, there we go.
    Mr. Scalise. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
you for having this hearing. I want to thank our three 
witnesses for coming as well. Clearly, you are seeing a lot of 
concern being expressed by Members on both sides, both 
Republican and Democrat, about the way that your social media 
platforms are run, and especially as it relates to the fairness 
and equal treatment of people.
    I know I have had a lot of concerns, shared it with some of 
you individually over the last few years about whether it is 
algorithms that seem to be designed sometimes to have an 
antibias against conservatives. But look, we all agree that 
whether it is illegal activity, bullying, those things ought 
not to be permeated through social media.
    There is a big difference between stopping bullying and 
violent type of social media posts versus actual censorship of 
political views that you disagree with. And I want to ask my 
first question to Mr. Dorsey, because there have been a lot of 
concerns expressed recently about that inequal treatment. And I 
will just start with the New York Post article.
    I think a lot of people have seen this. This article was 
censored by Twitter when it was originally sent out. This is 
the New York Post, which is a newspaper that goes back to 1801, 
founded by Alexander Hamilton. And for weeks, this very 
credibly sourced article, right before an election, about 
Hunter Biden was banned by Twitter.
    And then when you contrast that, you have this Washington 
Post article that was designed to misportray a conversation 
between President Trump and the Georgia secretary of state that 
has since been--parts of this have been debunked. And yet this 
article can still be tweeted out.
    I want to ask Mr. Dorsey: First of all, do you recognize 
that there is this real concern that there is an 
anticonservative bias on Twitter's behalf? And would you 
recognize that this has to stop if this has going to be--
Twitter is going to be viewed by both sides as a place where 
everybody is going to get a fair treatment?
    Mr. Dorsey. We made a total mistake with the New York Post. 
We corrected that within 24 hours. It was not to do with the 
content. It was to do with the hacked materials policy. We had 
an incorrect interpretation. we don't write policy according to 
any particular political leaning. If we find any of it, we root 
it out.
    Mr. Scalise. So we are regarding the Washington Post----
    Mr. Dorsey. We will make mistakes. We will make mistakes, 
and our goal is to correct them as quickly as possible. And in 
that case, we did.
    Mr. Scalise. And I appreciate you recognizing that was a 
mistake. However, the New York Post's entire Twitter account 
was blocked for about 2 weeks where they couldn't send anything 
out, not just that article. And to censor--we have got a First 
Amendment too. It just seems like to censor a newspaper that is 
as highly respected as the New York Post--again, 1801, founded 
by Alexander Hamilton--for their entire account to be blocked 
for 2 weeks by a mistake seems like a really big mistake.
    Was anyone held accountable in your censoring department 
for that mistake?
    Mr. Dorsey. Well, we don't have a censoring department. But 
I agree. Like it----
    Mr. Scalise. Well, who made the decision, then, to block 
their account for two weeks?
    Mr. Dorsey. We didn't block their accounts for 2 weeks. We 
required them to delete the tweet, and then they could tweet it 
again. They didn't take that action, so we corrected it for 
them. That was----
    Mr. Scalise. Even though the tweet was accurate. I mean, 
are you now--look, you have seen the conversations on both 
sides about Section 230, and there is going to be more 
discussion about it. But you are acting as a publisher if you 
are telling a newspaper that they have got to delete something 
in order for them to be able to participate in your account.
    I mean, don't you recognize that that--you are no longer 
hosting a town square. You are acting as a publisher when you 
do that.
    Mr. Dorsey. It was literally just a process, sir. This was 
not against them in any particular way. We require--if we 
remove a violation, we require people to correct it. We changed 
that based on their not wanting to delete that tweet, which I 
completely agree with. I see it. But it is something we 
learned. We learned to----
    Mr. Scalise. OK. Well, let me go to the New York--now let 
me go to the Washington Post article because this article can 
still be tweeted. I don't know if it was ever taken down. It 
contains false information. Even the Washington Post 
acknowledges that it contains false information. Yet their 
tweets today on your service that still mischaracterize it in a 
way where even the Washington Post admitted it is wrong, yet 
those mischaracterizations can still be retweeted.
    Will you address that and start taking those down to 
reflect what even the Washington Post themselves has admitted 
is false information?
    Mr. Dorsey. Our misleading information policies are focused 
on manipulated media, public health, and civic integrity. That 
is it. We don't have a general----
    Mr. Scalise. I would hope that you would go and take that 
down. And look. I know you said in your opening statement, Mr. 
Dorsey, that Twitter is running a business, and you said, ``A 
business wants to grow the customers it serves.'' Just 
recognize if you become viewed and continue to become viewed as 
an anticonservatively biased platform, there will be other 
people that step up to compete and ultimately take millions of 
people from Twitter. I would hope you recognize that.
    And I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Butterfield for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, last year in response to the police killing 
of George Floyd, you wrote a post on your Facebook page that 
denounced racial bias. It proclaimed, ``Black Lives Matter.'' 
You also announced that the company would donate $10 million to 
racial justice organizations.
    And Mr. Dorsey, Twitter changed its official bio to a Black 
Lives Matter tribute, and you pledged $3 million to an 
antiracism organization started by Colin Kaepernick. And Mr. 
Pichai, your company held a companywide moment of silence to 
honor George Floyd, and you announced $12 million in grants to 
racial justice organizations.
    The CEO of Google subsidiary YouTube wrote in a blog post, 
``We believe Black Lives Matter and we all need to do more to 
dismantle systematic racism.'' YouTube also announced it would 
start a $100 million fund for black creators.
    Now, all of this sounds nice. But these pronouncements, 
gentlemen, these pronouncements and money donations do not 
address the way your companies' own products, Facebook, 
Twitter, and YouTube, have been successfully weaponized by 
racists and are being used to undermine social justice 
movements, to suppress voting in communities of color, and 
spread racist content and lies.
    And so, gentlemen, in my view--in my view your companies 
have contributed to the spread of race-based extremism and 
voter suppression. As the New York Times noted last year, ``It 
is as if the heads of McDonald's, Burger King, and Taco Bell 
all got together to fight obesity by donating to a vegan food 
co-op rather than lowering their calories.''
    Gentlemen, you could have made meaningful changes within 
your organizations to address the racial biases built into your 
products and donated to these organizations. But instead, we 
are left with platitudes and another round of passing the buck.
    America is watching you today. This is a moment that begins 
a transformation of the way you do business, and you must 
understand that. Perhaps a lack of diversity within your 
organizations has contributed to these failures. The 
Congressional Black Caucus's Tech 2025 initiative has been 
working for years to increase diversity and equity in tech 
companies at all levels, and you know that because we have 
visited with you in California.
    We founded this initiative in 2015 with the hope that by 
now the tech workforce would reflect the diversity of our 
country. Here we are, 2021. I acknowledge that you have made 
some modest advancements, but not enough. There must be 
meaningful representation in your companies to design your 
products and services in ways that work for all Americans.
    And that requires public accountability. History has shown 
that you have talked the talk but have failed to walk the walk. 
It appears now that Congress will have to compel you--compel 
you, perhaps with penalties--to make meaningful changes.
    And I am going to try the yes-or-no answer, and hopefully I 
will have better results than my colleagues.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, I will start with you, and please be brief. 
Yes or no: Would you oppose legislation that would require 
technology companies to publicly report on workforce diversity 
at all levels?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I don't think so, but I need 
to understand it in more detail.
    Mr. Butterfield. Well, we will talk about that. And I hope 
that, if we introduce this legislation, you will not oppose it.
    What about you, Mr. Dorsey? Would you oppose a law that 
made workforce diversity reporting a requirement?
    Mr. Dorsey. No, I wouldn't oppose it. It does come with 
some complications in that we don't always have all the 
demographic data for our employees.
    Mr. Butterfield. Well, thank you for that, and we talked 
with you in your office some years ago and you made a 
commitment to work with us, but we need more.
    What about you, Mr. Pichai? Are you willing to support--
would you be willing to commit to--would you oppose a law that 
made workforce diversity reporting a requirement? Would you 
oppose it?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, we were the first company to 
publish transparency reports. We publish it annually. And so, 
happy to share that with you and take any feedback. But we do 
today provide, in the U.S., detailed demographic information on 
our workforce, and we are committed to doing better.
    Mr. Butterfield. Well, gentlemen, for the last 6 years, the 
Congressional Black Caucus has said to you over and over again 
we need greater diversity among your workforce from the top to 
the bottom, and we need for you to publish the data so the 
world can see it. That is the only way we are going to deal 
with diversity and equity.
    Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. I heard you at the 
beginning of the committee gavel, and I yield back the 10 
seconds that I have.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman deserves commendation for doing 
that, and I hope others follow his example.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the 
witnesses for being here.
    And Big Tech decisions have real impact on people, and that 
is why I ask my constituents, using your platforms, to share 
their experiences on your platforms with me as their 
representative. And I am here to advocate on their behalf. I 
received 450 responses, and one major thing that I heard from 
my constituents was the experience they have had with sites 
taking down religious content, which is important because a lot 
of religious organizations are now streaming their services due 
to COVID.
    I did have one instance where a constituent wrote to me--
and this is what she posted--``I am thankful God's grace is new 
every morning.'' And then Facebook took it down, and then my 
constituent said she got a notice from Facebook that it 
violated their policies around hate.
    And so I just want to discuss about this. I can ask you 
yes-or-no questions, Mr. Zuckerberg, on that, but I just want 
to talk about it a little bit. One is, it seems, I know that we 
don't want extreme language on the internet. I am with you on 
that. And you cannot watch everything. And so you use 
algorithms to find that, so algorithms will flag things, some 
that are clearly obvious and some that you would say probably 
shouldn't have been flagged.
    But it seems to me that it seems to be biased in that 
direction. And so instead of just giving you a yes-or-no 
question, I want to read that quote again. And I sort of know a 
little bit about math, not a lot but a little bit, about within 
that quote, what in there would get tripped up, with this quote 
get tripped up and put into the flagged category?
    And as it says, ``I am thankful God's grace is new every 
morning.'' And so I guess the question is what word or thought 
do you think would trip an algorithm for that quote, Mr. 
Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, it is not clear to me why that 
post would be a problem. I would need to look into it in more 
detail. Sometimes the systems look at patterns of posting, so 
if someone is posting a lot, then maybe our system thinks it is 
spam. But I would need to look into it in more detail.
    Overall, the reality is that any system is going to make 
mistakes. There is going to be content that we take down that 
we should have left up, and there is going to be content that 
we missed that we should have taken down that we didn't catch 
or that the system has made a mistake on. And at scale, 
unfortunately, those mistakes can be a large number even if it 
is a very small percent.
    But that is why, when we are talking about things like 
Section 230 reform, I think it is reasonable to expect large 
companies to have effective moderation systems but not 
reasonable to expect that there are never any errors. But I 
think that transparency can help hold the companies accountable 
as to what accuracy and effectiveness they are achieving.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Then, well, to your spam comment, I think 
they did receive a notify it was for the hate policy. And I 
understand there are going to be gray areas, whatever. But that 
quote, I don't see where the gray area is as to how it could 
get caught up in that.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I agree.
    Mr. Guthrie. But I want to move on. Thanks for your answer 
with that. I want to move on.
    So Mr. Dorsey, I want to talk about the RFK, Jr. I didn't 
see that quote, but you said that didn't violate your policy. 
And just in the context of that, I know CDC just recently 
updated its school guidance to make clear science says you can 
be 3 feet away and still be safe in schools. The issue--things 
are changing every day because we are learning more and more 
about this virus.
    So how did the RFK comment not violate your policy--RFK, 
Jr.? And how did--we have an RFK III that we all--and JFK and 
JPK III I guess we all like as a former colleague. But RFK, 
Jr., and the policy towards that. And then how do you keep up 
with what's changing so quickly, Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. We can follow up with you on the exact 
reasoning. But we have to recognize that our policies evolve 
constantly, and they have to evolve constantly. So, as has been 
said earlier in this testimony, we observe what is happening as 
a result of our policy. We have got to understand the 
ramifications. And we improve it. And it is a constant cycle. 
We are always looking to improve our policies and our 
enforcement.
    Mr. Guthrie. So Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Pichai, just on all 
that continuously evolving information on COVID because we are 
learning more and more about it, how do you keep up? We only 
have about 30 seconds, so if you could--quick answers for each 
of you, if you can. Mr. Pichai, maybe, since you haven't 
answered a question.
    Mr. Pichai. Yes. On COVID we have been really taking 
guidance from CDC and other health experts, proactively 
removing information. One thing we get to do in YouTube is to 
recommend higher quality content. We have shown 400 billion 
information panels on COVID alone last year, including a lot 
from CDC and other health organizations.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you, and I will yield back 4 
seconds, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Guthrie.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having 
this hearing today.
    Today we have another opportunity, hearing from the leaders 
of Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in what has become a 
concerning pattern. The members of this committee are here to 
demand answers to questions about social media's role in 
escalating misinformation, extremism, and violence.
    Last week I testified at a House Judiciary Committee 
hearing about the rise in discrimination and violence against 
Asian Americans. Horrifically, that hearing came on the heels 
of a violent attack in Atlanta that left eight people, six of 
them Asian women, dead.
    The issues we are discussing here are not abstract. They 
have real-world consequences and implementations that are too 
often measured in human lives. I am worried, as are many 
watching this hearing, that the companies before us today are 
not doing enough to prevent the spread of hate, especially when 
it is targeted against minority communities. Clearly the 
current approach is not working, and I think Congress must 
revisit Section 230.
    A recent study from the University of San Francisco 
examined nearly 700,000 tweets in the week before and after 
President Trump tweeted the phrase ``Chinese virus.'' The 
results showed two alarming trends: There was a significantly 
greater increase in hate speech the week after the President's 
tweet, and that half of the tweets using the hashtag 
#chinavirus showed an anti-Asian sentiment compared to just 
one-fifth of the tweets using the hashtag #covid19.
    This empirical evidence backs up what the World Health 
Organization already knew in 2015, saying, ``Disease names 
really do matter. We have seen certain disease names provoke a 
backlash against members of particularly religious or ethnic 
communities.'' Despite this, Facebook and Twitter are still 
allowing hashtags like #chinavirus, #kungflu, and #wuhanvirus 
to spread.
    Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Dorsey, given the clear association 
between this type of language and racism or violence, why do 
you still allow these hashtags on your platforms? Anyone answer 
that, or is that not answerable?
    Mr. Dorsey. I think we were waiting for you to call on one 
of us. We do have policies against hateful conduct, and that 
includes the trends, so when we see associated with any hateful 
conduct, we will take action on it. It is useful to remember 
that a lot of these hashtags, though, do contain counterspeech, 
and people on the other side of it do own them and show why 
this is so terrible and why it needs to----
    Ms. Matsui. Can I just take my time back? The fact of the 
matter is I think you know how to develop algorithms to kind of 
get rid of this and examine this further.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, any comment here?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Thanks, Congresswoman. The rise in anti-
Asian hate is a really big issue and something that I do think 
that we need to be proactive about. I agree with the comments 
that Jack made on this. On Facebook, any of that context, if it 
is combined with something that is clearly hateful, we will 
take that down. It violates the hate speech policy.
    But one of the nuances that Jack highlighted that we 
certainly see as well in enforcing hate speech policy is that 
we need to be clear about when someone is saying something 
because they are using it in a hateful way versus when they are 
denouncing it. And this is one of the things that has made it 
more difficult to operationalize this at scale.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, reclaiming my time, I think this gives us 
an opportunity to really look at hate speech, what it really 
means, particularly in this day and age when we have many 
instances of these things happening. Hate speech on social 
media can be baked in, and unfortunately this also is a trend 
that maybe happened years and years ago, which it might have 
just been a latent situation.
    But with social media, it travels all around the world and 
it hurts a lot of people. And my feeling, and I believe a lot 
of other people's feeling, is that we really have to look at 
how we define hate speech. And you all are very brilliant 
people, and you hire brilliant people. I would think that there 
is a way for you to examine this further and take it one step 
lower to see if it is something that is legitimate or not.
    And I really feel that this is a time, especially now when 
we are examining platforms and what you can do and should do, 
and as we are examining here in this committee and as we write 
legislation, we really want to have the entire multitude of 
what can and can't be done.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I only have 11 seconds left, 
and I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    Let's see. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 
for being here. In all this conversation it is good to have, I 
think we also have to recognize that we need to--we are lucky 
to have all these companies located in the United States. When 
we talked about the issues and concerns, for instance, with 
TikTok, we can see that a lot of these companies could easily 
leave here and go elsewhere and then we would have far less 
oversight.
    I think the crackdown on January 6 was correct. I think we 
need to be careful to not use that as a way to deflect from 
what led to January 6th, the pushing of this narrative of Stop 
the Steal. I think there are folks that are concerned, though, 
that we also need to make sure that those same levels of 
protection exist when you talk about like Iran, for instance, 
and what the leaders there tweet. But let me go into specific 
questions.
    Over the years we have obviously seen the rise of 
disinformation. It is not new. I remember getting 
disinformation in the 1990s. But we have seen it spread on 
these platforms. So we live in a digital world where many 
people get their news and entertainment from the internet, from 
articles and posts that are often based off algorithms that can 
cater to what people see and read.
    So those constant News Feeds have simply reinforced 
people's beliefs, or worse, that they can promote disgraceful 
and utterly ridiculous conspiracy theories from groups like 
QAnon. Extremism and violence have grown exponentially as a 
result, and we know it is true specifically after January 6.
    So Mr. Zuckerberg, let me ask you: According to Hany Farid 
at Berkeley, numerous external studies and some of your own 
internal studies have revealed that your algorithms are 
actively promoting divisive, hateful, and conspiratorial 
content because it engages users to spend more time.
    Do you think those studies are wrong? And if not, what are 
you guys doing to reverse course on that?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. This is an 
important set of topics.
    In terms of groups, we stopped recommending all civic and 
political groups even though I think a lot of the civic and 
political groups are healthy, because we were seeing that that 
was one vector that there might be polarization or extremism, 
and groups might start off with one set of views but migrate to 
another place. So we have removed that completely. And we did 
it first as an exceptional measure during the election; and 
since the election we have announced that we are going to 
extend that policy indefinitely.
    For the rest of the content in News Feed and on Instagram, 
the main thing that I would say is I do think that there is 
quite a bit of misperception about how our algorithms work and 
what we optimize for. I have heard a lot of people say that we 
are optimizing for keeping people on the service.
    The way that we view this is that we are trying to help 
people have meaningful social interactions. People come to 
social networks to be able to connect with people. If we 
deliver that value, then it will be natural that people use our 
services more. But that is very different from setting up 
algorithms in order to just kind of try to tweak and optimize 
and get people to spend every last minute on our service, which 
is not how we designed the company or the services.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thanks. I don't mean to interrupt you. I do 
have another question.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous consent to insert for 
the record an article from the Wall Street Journal titled 
``Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less 
Divisive.''
    [The article appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Kinzinger. Let me move on to the next one. For years I 
have called for increased consumer protection from companies on 
fake accounts and bad actors who use them to exploit others. 
This issue affected me personally. In 2015, a woman from India 
spent all of her money on a flight to come see me because she 
claimed to have developed a relationship with me over Facebook.
    In 2019 I sent you, Mr. Zuckerberg, a letter highlighting 
the issue, and your team provided a relatively inadequate 
response. Since then, I have introduced two pieces of 
legislation, Social Media Accountability and Account 
Verification Act, and the Social Media Fraud Mitigation Act, 
both of which aim to curb this activity.
    So Mr. Zuckerberg, the last time you came before us, you 
stated that Facebook has a responsibility to protect its users. 
Do you feel that your company is living up to that? And 
further, what have you done to remove those fake accounts?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Thanks. So fake accounts are one of the 
bigger integrity issues that we face. I think in the first half 
of--well, in the last half of last year, we took down more than 
a billion fake accounts, just to give you a sense of the 
volume, although most of those our systems are able to identify 
within seconds or minutes of them signing up because the 
accounts just don't behave in a way that a normal person would 
in using the service.
    But this is certainly one of the highest-priority issues we 
have. We see a large prevalence of it. Our systems, I think, at 
this point are pretty effective in fighting it, but they are 
not perfect, and there are still a few percent that get 
through. And it is a big issue and one we will continue working 
on.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. I would love to ask the rest--the 
others a question, but I don't have time. So I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you for your attention.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Castor for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, since you were last here in front of the 
committee, the illegal activities, the expanse of unwitting 
Americans, the rampant misinformation on your platforms, have 
gotten worse. Part of the reason for this toxic stew is that 
you employ manipulative methods to keep people cemented to the 
platform, often amplifying discord. And it boosts your bottom 
line. You enjoy an outdated liability shield that incentivizes 
you to look the other way or take half-measures while you make 
billions at the expense of our kids, our health, the truth, and 
now we have seen the very foundation of our democracy.
    I have been working for over a year with advocates and 
other members on an update to the children's protections 
online. You all know the tracking and manipulation of children 
under age 13 is against the law, but Facebook, Google, YouTube, 
and other platforms have broken that law or have found ways 
around it. Many have been sanctioned for knowingly and 
illegally harvesting personal information of children and 
profiting from it.
    I have a question for each of you, just a qusick yes or no: 
Did you all watch ``The Social Dilemma,'' where former 
employees of yours or other Big Tech platforms say they do not 
allow their kids on social media? Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I haven't seen it----
    Ms. Castor. Yes or----
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. But I am obviously familiar 
with it.
    Ms. Castor. OK. Mr. Pichai? Yes or no?
    Mr. Pichai. Yes. I have seen the movie.
    Ms. Castor. And----
    Mr. Dorsey. No. No.
    Ms. Castor. OK. Well, Mr. Zuckerberg, there is a good 
reason that they have the former execs say that. Are you aware 
of the 2019 Journal of the American Medical Association 
pediatric study that the risk of depression for adolescents 
rises with each daily hour spent on social media? And I am not 
talking screen time. I am not talking about Facetime or sending 
text messages to friends. But are you aware of that research?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I am not aware of that 
research.
    Ms. Castor. All right. What about the 2019 HHS research 
that suicide rates among kids aged 10 to 14 increased by 56 
percent between 2007 and 2017 and tripled--tripled--for kids 
between the age of 10 and 14? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I am aware of the issue----
    Ms. Castor. Yes. So yes. Certainly you are also aware of 
the research that indicates a correlation between the rise in 
hospital admissions for self-harm and the prevalence of social 
media on phones and the apps on platforms that are designed to 
be addictive and keep kids hooked. Yes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Castor. Well, how about you, Mr. Pichai? Are you aware 
of the JAMA pediatric September 2020 study where they tested 
hundreds of apps used by children aged 5 and under, many of 
which were in the Google Play Store's family section? The study 
found 67 percent of the apps tested showed transmission of 
identifying info to third parties in violation of the COPPA 
law? Are you familiar?
    Mr. Pichai. Extensively spent time on this area. We 
introduced a curated set of apps for kids on the Play Store. We 
give digital well-being tools so that people can take a break, 
set time patterns, can set time limits for children. So the 
concept of----
    Ms. Castor. Let me ask you this, then, Mr. Pichai: How much 
are you making in advertising revenue from children under the 
age 13?
    Mr. Pichai. Most of our products other than a specific 
product designed for kids, YouTube--most of our products are 
not eligible for children under the age of 13.
    Ms. Castor. Yes. So you are not going to provide that.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, how much advertising revenue does 
Facebook--do you make from behavioral surveillance advertising 
targeted towards kids under age 13?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, it should be none of it. We 
don't allow children under the age of 13----
    Ms. Castor. Are you----
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. On the services that run 
advertising.
    Ms. Castor. Oh, are you saying that there are no kids on 
Instagram under the age of 13 right now?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, children under the age of 13 
are not allowed on Instagram. When we find out that they are 
there----
    Ms. Castor. No. That is not the answer. I think, of course, 
every parent knows that there are kids under the age of 13 on 
Instagram. And the problem is that you know it, and you know 
that the brain and social development of our kids is still 
evolving at a young age. There are reasons in the law that we 
set that cutoff at 13. But now, because these platforms have 
ignored it, they have profited off of it, we are going to 
strengthen the law. And I encourage all of my colleagues to 
join in this effort. I have heard a lot of bipartisan support 
here today.
    We also need to hold the corporate executives accountable 
and give parents the tools that they need to take care and 
protect their kids.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Over a decade ago, Americans watched Facebook, Twitter, and 
Google emerge from humble beginnings. We were curious to see 
how these new, innovative companies would improve our lives. 
The results are in, and they are deeply concerning.
    We have seen a surge in cyberbullying, child porn, radical 
extremism, human trafficking, suicides, and screen addiction, 
all of which have been linked to the use of social media. Our 
Nation's political discourse has never been uglier, and we 
haven't been this divided since the Civil War.
    Yet Big Tech marches on uninhibited. What is their newest 
target? Children under the age of 13. News outlets this week 
have reported that Facebook is planning to create an Instagram 
app designed for children under the age of 13. We have talked 
about it here already today. Elementary and middle school 
students.
    By allowing Big Tech to operate under Section 230 as is, we 
will be allowing these companies to get our children hooked on 
their destructive products for their own profit. Big Tech is 
essentially handing children a lit cigarette and hoping they 
stay addicted for life.
    In 1994, Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman chaired a 
hearing with the CEOs of our Nation's largest tobacco 
companies. During his opening statement, he stated, and I 
quote, ``Sadly, this deadly habit begins with our kids. In many 
cases they become hooked quickly and develop a lifelong 
addiction that is nearly impossible to break.''
    So, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Dorsey, you profit from your 
company's hooking users to your platforms by capitalizing on 
their time. So yes or no: Do you agree that you make money off 
of creating an addiction to your platforms? Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, no. I don't agree with that.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you. Thank you.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. What we do is----
    Mr. Johnson. That is what I needed, a yes or a no, because 
you do.
    Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. No.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Let me go on.
    Chairman Waxman went on to say, and I quote, ``For decades, 
the tobacco companies have been exempt from the standards of 
responsibility and accountability that apply to all other 
American corporations. Companies that sell aspirin, cars, and 
soda are all held to strict standards when they cause harm, and 
that we demand that when problems occur, corporations and their 
senior executives be accountable to Congress and the public. 
This hearing marks the beginning of a new relationship between 
Congress and the tobacco companies.'' That is what Chairman 
Waxman said in 1994.
    So For all three of you, Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Dorsey, and 
Mr. Pichai: Do you agree that the CEOs that--as the CEOs of 
major tech companies, you should be held accountable to 
Congress and the public? Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think we are accountable to 
Congress and to the public.
    Mr. Johnson. Do you think you should be held accountable?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I am not sure I understand what you mean, 
but I think so.
    Mr. Johnson. It is an easy question. Should you be held 
accountable----
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. To Congress and the public for 
the way you run your business?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes. And we are.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. Accountable to the public.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Accountable--no. I said accountable to 
Congress and the public. We represent the public. So you agree?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you. Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. Yes. I am here today because I am accountable 
to Congress and members of the public.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Great. Well, gentlemen, let me tell you 
this, and I think I have heard it mentioned by several of my 
other colleagues. There is a lot of smugness among you. There 
is this air of untouchableness in your responses to many of the 
tough questions that you are being asked.
    So let me tell you all this. All of these concerns that 
Chairman Waxman stated in 1994 about Big Tobacco apply to my 
concerns about Big Tech today, about your companies. It is now 
public knowledge that former Facebook executives have admitted 
that they use the tobacco industry's playbook for addictive 
products. And while this is not your first hearing in front of 
Congress, I can assure you that this hearing marks a new 
relationship between all of us here today. There will be 
accountability.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. He yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the chair for organizing this 
hearing, and I thank the participants. This is a lot of work on 
your behalf and a long day for you. I appreciate that.
    Are you all aware that your platforms are behemoths, and 
that the Americans are demanding that we step in and rein in 
your platforms both in terms of how you handle our data and how 
platforms handle disinformation that causes real harm to 
Americans and to the democracy itself?
    I understand the tension you have between maximizing your 
profits by engaging to your platforms on the one hand and by 
the need to address disinformation and real harm it causes on 
the other hand. Your unwillingness to unambiguously commit to 
enforcing your own policies and removing the 12 most egregious 
spreaders of vaccine disinformation from your platforms gets 
right at what I am concerned about.
    Disinformation is a strong driver for engagement, and 
consequently you too often don't act even though we know you 
have the resources to do that. There are real harms associated 
with this. And my questions--I hope I don't appear to be rude--
but when I ask for a yes-or-no question, I will insist on a 
yes-or-no answer.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, yes or no: Do you acknowledge that there is 
disinformation being spread on your platform?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sorry, I was muted. Yes, there is, and we 
take steps to fight it.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Yes or no: Do you agree that your 
company has profited from the spread of disinformation?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I don't agree with that. 
People don't want to see disinformation on our services, and 
when we do----
    Mr. McNerney. So it is no, then.
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. I think it hurts our long-
term----
    Mr. McNerney. You said you don't agree with that. I 
appreciate your forthrightness on that. But we all know this is 
happening. Profits are being generated from COVID-19 and 
vaccine disinformation, election disinformation, QAnon 
conspiracy theories, just to name a few things. And it is 
baffling that you have a negative answer to that question. 
Approximately--well, let's move on to the next issue.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, you talked a lot about relying on third-
party fact-checkers to combat the spread of disinformation, but 
you tell us very little about the process. I wrote you a letter 
nearly 2 years ago asking about it, and you failed to answer my 
question.
    I asked this question again when an executive from your 
company testified last year, and she failed to answer. I would 
like to get an answer today. On average, from the time content 
is posted to Facebook's platform, how long does it take 
Facebook to flag suspicious content to third-party fact-
checkers to review the content and for Facebook to take 
remedial action after this review is completed? How long does 
this entire process take? I am just looking for a quick number.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, it can vary. If an AI system 
identifies something immediately, it can be within seconds. If 
we have to wait for people to report it to us and have human 
review, it can take hours or days. The fact-checkers take as 
much time as they need to review things, but as soon as we get 
an answer back from them, we should operationalize that and 
attach a label if the content is rated false and----
    Mr. McNerney. I am paying attention on what you are saying. 
But what I do know is that this process isn't happening quickly 
enough, and I am very concerned that you aren't motivated to 
speed things up, because the most problematic content is what 
gets the most views, and the longer the content stays up, the 
more help--the more this helps maximize your bottom line and 
the more harm that it can cause. It is clear that you are not 
going to make these changes on your own.
    This is a question for all of the participants, panelists: 
Would you oppose legislation that prohibits placing ads next to 
what you know to be or should know to be false or misleading 
information, including ads that are placed in videos, promoted 
content, and ads that are placed above, below, or on the site 
of a piece of content?
    Mr. Zuckerberg, would you answer with a yes or no first, 
please?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, that is very nuanced. I think 
the questions to determine whether something is misinformation 
is a process that I think would need to be spelled out well in 
a law like that.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, OK. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. I would oppose it until we see the actual 
requirements and what the ramifications are. We need to 
understand that.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. And Mr. Pichai, would you oppose a 
prohibition like this?
    Mr. Pichai. The principle makes sense. In fact, advertisers 
don't want anywhere or near to be content like that. And so we 
already have incentives. You can imagine reputable advertisers, 
like consumer products advertisers, do not want any ads to 
appear next to information that could turn off their consumers. 
So we have natural incentives to do the right thing here.
    Mr. McNerney. You all say you want a safe and open platform 
for everyone. You say it is not in your company's interest to 
have this information on your platform. So you shouldn't oppose 
efforts that would prevent harming the American people.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman 
yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pichai, I am going to ask you a yes-or-no question, and 
just tell me if you know the difference in these two words: yes 
and no?
    Mr. Pichai. Yes.
    Mr. Long. Mr. Zuckerberg, same question for you. Do you 
know the difference in yes and no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Long. And Mr. Dorsey, same question for you. Do you 
know the difference in two words, yes or no?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes.
    Mr. Long. I am sorry?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes.
    Mr. Long. Is that a yes? I didn't----
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. I know the difference.
    Mr. Long. Thank you. I want a steak dinner there from one 
of my colleagues. They didn't think I could get all three of 
you to answer a yes-or-no question. I did it.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, let me ask you: How do you ascertain if a 
user is under 13 years old?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, on services like Facebook, we 
have people put in a birthday when they register.
    Mr. Long. That is handy. So a 13-year-old would never--I 
mean, an 11-year-old would never put in the wrong birthday by 2 
years and say they were 13? Is that kind of your policy?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, it is more nuanced than that. 
But I think you are getting at a real point, which is that 
people lie. And we have additional systems that try to 
determine what someone's age might be, so if we detect that 
someone might be under the age of 13, even if they lied, we 
kick them off.
    But this is part of the reason why we are exploring having 
a service for Instagram that allows under-13s on, because we 
worry that kids may find ways to try to lie and evade some of 
our systems. But if we create a safe system that has 
appropriate parent controls, then we might be able to get 
people into using that instead. We are still early in figuring 
this out, but that is a big part of the theory and what we are 
hoping to do here.
    Mr. Long. But currently they are now allowed to use 
Instagram. Correct?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. That is correct. Our policies do not allow 
people under the age of 13 to use it.
    Mr. Long. I am from Missouri, the Show Me State. And just 
to say that no one under 13 can get on to me doesn't pass the 
Missouri smell test of ``show me.'' So I was thinking with you, 
Mr. Zuckerberg, you created the Facebook Oversight Board as a 
way to help hold Facebook accountable. They are currently 
looking at Facebook's decision to remove President Trump's 
Facebook account.
    If the oversight board determines that Facebook should have 
left President Trump's account up, what will you do?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we will respect the decision 
of the oversight board, and if they tell us that former 
President Trump's account should be reinstated, then we will 
honor that.
    Mr. Long. I don't know why people call Attorney General 
Ashcroft ``Attorney General,'' but when they speak of President 
Trump, they call him ``former President.'' But I guess I will 
leave that for another day.
    Sticking with you again, Mr. Zuckerberg, my understanding 
is that the Facebook Oversight Board is comprised of members 
from all over the world. As you are well aware, the United 
States has the strictest protections on free speech than any 
other country.
    Since the decisions of the board are being made by a panel 
rather than the U.S. court of law, how can you assure members 
of this committee and the American people that the oversight 
board will uphold free speech and make their decisions based on 
American laws and principles?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, the members of the oversight 
board were selected because of their views on free expression 
and strong support of it. That is why we created the oversight 
board, to help us defend these principles and to help us 
balance the different aspects of human rights, including free 
expression.
    But each of the people on the oversight board was selected 
because of a strong commitment to free expression, and I think 
the decisions that the oversight board has made so far reflect 
that.
    Mr. Long. OK. Let me move on to Mr. Dorsey.
    Mr. Dorsey, I know you are from the Show Me State also. 
Have you been vaccinated against COVID-19?
    Mr. Dorsey. Not yet.
    Mr. Long. Mr. Pichai, have you been vaccinated against 
COVID-19?
    Mr. Pichai. Sorry. I missed the question, Congressman?
    Mr. Long. I know. I bore a lot of people. Have you been 
vaccinated against COVID-19?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, I was very fortunate to have 
received it last week.
    Mr. Long. So you have one shot. You have another one to go? 
Or is it just Johnson & Johnson, where you just need one?
    Mr. Pichai. I still have one more shot to go.
    Mr. Long. And Mr. Zuckerberg, same question: Have you been 
vaccinated against COVID-19?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I have not yet, but hope to as soon as 
possible.
    Mr. Long. OK. It is not a personal preference not to get 
vaccinated, they just haven't got to your age group?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. That is correct.
    Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. And I just cannot believe Robert 
Kennedy, Jr., is out there with his antivax stuff and it is 
allowed to stay up on Twitter.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    Let's see who is next. I don't see a name. Can staff show 
us who is next up?
    Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    What we are hearing from both sides of the aisle are 
enormous concerns about some of the consequences of the 
development of social media--the algorithmic amplification of 
disinformation, election interference, privacy issues, the 
destruction of local news, and also some competition issues. 
And I have listened carefully, and each of the executives has 
said that your companies are attempting to face these issues.
    But a concern I have is whether, when the public interest 
is so affected by these decisions and by these developments, 
ultimately should these decisions be made by private executives 
who are accountable to shareholders, or should they be made by 
elected representatives accountable to voters?
    So I really have two questions that I would like each of 
you, starting with Mr. Zuckerberg and then Mr. Pichai and then 
Mr. Dorsey, to address.
    First, do you agree that many of these decisions that are 
about matters that so profoundly affect the public interest 
should they be made exclusively by private actors like 
yourselves who have responsibilities for these major 
enterprises?
    And secondly, as a way forward to help us resolve these 
issues or work with them, will you support the creation by 
Congress of a public agency, one like the Federal Trade 
Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, one that 
had staff that is expert in policy and technology, that has 
rulemaking and enforcement authority to be an ongoing 
representative of the public to address these emerging issues? 
Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I agree with what you are 
saying, and I have said a number of times that I think that 
private companies should not be making so many decisions alone 
that have to balance these complicated social and public 
equities.
    And I think that the solution that you are talking about 
could be very effective and positive for helping out because 
what we have seen in different countries around the world is 
there are lots of different public equities at stake here--free 
expression, safety, privacy, competition--and these things 
trade off against each other. And I think a lot of these 
questions, and the reason why people get upset with the 
companies, I don't think it is necessarily because the 
companies are negligent. I think it is because these are 
complex tradeoffs between these different equities.
    And if you----
    Mr. Welch. Pardon my interruption, but I want to go to Mr. 
Pichai. But thank you, Mr. Zuckerberg.
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, if your question is--I just want 
to make sure. Are you asking about whether there should be 
another agency? I defer to Congress on that. We are definitely 
subject to a variety of statutes and oversight by agencies like 
FTC. We have consent agreements with the FCC. And we engage 
with these agencies regularly.
    Mr. Welch. Do you believe that it should be up to the 
public as opposed to private interests to be making decisions 
about these public effects?
    Mr. Pichai. We definitely think areas where there could be 
clear legislation informed by the public--I think that 
definitely is a better approach. I would say the nature of 
content is so fast-changing and so dynamic, we spend a lot of 
energy hiring experts, consult with third parties, and that 
expertise is needed, I think, based on the----
    Mr. Welch. Right. And that is the problem we have in 
Congress, because an issue pops up and there is no way we can 
keep up. But you all can barely keep up with it yourself.
    Mr. Dorsey, your view on those two questions, please?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. I don't think the decision should be made 
by private companies or the government, which is why we are 
suggesting a protocol approach to help the people make the 
decisions themselves, have more control themselves.
    Mr. Welch. So does that mean that the creation of an agency 
that would be intended to address many of these tech issues 
that are emerging is something you would oppose or----
    Mr. Dorsey. I always have an open mind. I would want to see 
the details of what that means and how it works in practice.
    Mr. Welch. Well, of course. But the heart of it is creating 
an entity that has to address these questions of algorithmic 
transparency, of algorithmic amplification of hate speech, of 
disinformation, of competition, and to have an agency that is 
dedicated to that, much like the Securities and Exchange 
Commission was designed to stop the rampant abuse on Wall 
Street in the 1930s--a public sector entity that is doing this, 
not just leaving it to private companies.
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. I do think----
    Mr. Welch. Do you agree or not?
    Mr. Dorsey. I do think there should be more regulation 
around the primitives of AI. But we focus a lot of our 
conversations right now on the outcomes of it. I don't think we 
are looking enough at the primitives.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, I 
want to thank the witnesses for being here today. It is going 
to be a long day, and appreciate your testimony and your 
answering questions.
    I do think it is important to understand history--excuse 
me--when you look at these situations and you know, when it 
comes to the political side, when Thomas Jefferson wanted to 
get out an anti-Adams message even though he was his own vice 
president, had started his own newspaper because it was pretty 
clear that the newspapers that were being published weren't 
going to change their view because there was no competitive 
reason to do that.
    And I think we are looking at potentially a similar 
situation here. Without competition, things don't change. I 
mean, it would be interesting to know the conversations with 
John D. Rockefeller in the early 1900s prior to the breakup of 
Standard Oil in 1911, and then of course AT&T in 1982.
    So I understand that these are businesses. They are 
publicly held companies. I respect that. I understand that. I 
am a capitalist. That said, these situations are a little 
different, I think, because there is some social responsibility 
here. And I appreciate your answers that your companies are 
doing what you believe are necessary.
    So I want to ask--I am going to take the antitrust area 
here. And Mr. Pichai, what do you think--what is the situation 
when you have Google, 92 percent of the searches are Google? 
You basically can't get on the internet without some sort of 
Google service. What do you think is going to happen? What do 
you think we should do about that?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, I mean, we definitely are engaged 
with conversations as well as lawsuits in certain cases. We 
understand there will be scrutiny here. We are a popular 
general-purpose search engine, but we compete vigorously in 
many of the markets we operate in. For example, the majority of 
revenue comes from product services, and one in two product 
services originate with Amazon today in the U.S.
    So we definitely see a lot of competition by category. 
There are many areas as a company we are an emerging player, 
making phones. Or when we are trying to provide enterprise 
software, we compete with or larger players as well. And if you 
look at the last year and look at all the new entrants in the 
market, new companies that have gone public and emerged 
strongly, in tech shows, the market is vibrant and dynamic.
    At Google, we have invested in many startups. Googlers have 
started over--former Google employees have started over 2,000 
companies in the past 15 years. And so I see a highly dynamic, 
vibrant, competitive tech sector, and we are committed to doing 
our part.
    Mr. Bucshon. OK. Fair enough.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, do you have some comments on that subject?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I would echo Sundar's 
comments. I think that this is a highly competitive market. I 
mean, if this is a meeting about social media, not only do you 
have the different companies that are here today that all offer 
very big services that compete with each other, but you have 
new entrants that are growing very quickly, like TikTok, which 
is reaching a scale of hundreds of millions or billions of 
people around the world and I think is growing faster than any 
of our services of the companies that are up here today, and 
certainly competitive with us. And that is just naming a few, 
right? I mean, obviously there's Snapchat and a bunch of other 
services as well.
    So it is a very competitive marketplace.
    Mr. Bucshon. And do you think--I will ask you this, Mr. 
Zuckerberg. I think you have commented that some of the privacy 
things that maybe the Europeans did would kind of solidify your 
dominance as a company. So what should we do in the United 
States on this? Because--it is a different subject, but 
similar--to not do something that would stymie innovation and 
competition, and further--in my view, further create a 
monopolistic or at least a perceived monopolistic environment.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Well, Congressman, I do think that the U.S. 
should have Federal privacy legislation because I think we need 
a national standard. And I think having a standard that is 
across the country that is as harmonized with standards in 
other places would actually create clearer expectations of 
industry and make it better for everyone.
    But I think the point that you are making is a really 
important one, which is, if we ask companies to lock down data, 
then that to some degree can be at odds with asking them to 
open up data to enable, whether it is academic research or 
competition.
    So I think that when we are writing this privacy regulation 
we just should be aware of the interaction between our 
principles on privacy and our principles on competition. And 
that is why I think a more holistic view, like what Congressman 
Welch was just proposing, I think is perhaps a good way to go 
about this.
    Mr. Bucshon. OK. Quickly, Mr. Dorsey, do you have any 
comments on that?
    Mr. Dorsey. One of the reasons we are suggesting more of a 
protocol approach is to enable as many new entrants as 
possible. We want to be a client on that.
    Mr. Bucshon. OK. I want to----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Bucshon. With that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, the 
chairs, and the ranking members for today's hearing. I also 
thank our witnesses for appearing.
    In January, I called for public comment for the discussion 
draft of my bill, the Civil Rights Modernization Act of 2021, a 
narrowly focused proposal to protect historically marginalized 
communities from the harms of targeted advertising practices.
    These harms can and have infringed on the civil rights of 
protected classes, and I am proud to formally introduce this 
bill next week to diminish inequities in the digital world.
    For time's sake, I ask our witnesses to please answer the 
questions as succinctly as possible.
    The first question goes to Mr. Zuckerberg. Facebook 
currently provides their advertisers with insight on how to get 
their ads in front of people who are most likely to find their 
ads relevant by utilizing tools to use criteria like consumer's 
personal interest, geography, to fine-tune thought targeting.
    This has often used code that target or avoid specific 
races or other protected classes of people. Let me add that I 
am aware of the updates to your special ad audience. However, 
why does Facebook continue to allow for discrimination in the 
placement of advertisements that can violate civil rights laws?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, we have taken a number of 
steps to eliminate ways that people can target different groups 
based on racial affinity and different ways that they might 
discriminate, because this is a very important area. And we 
have active conversations going on with civil rights experts as 
to the best ways to continue improving these systems, and we 
will continue doing that.
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Dorsey, Twitter allows advertisers to use 
demographic targeting to reach people based on location, 
language, device, age, and gender. In July, your company made 
changes to your ad targeting policies to advise advertisers to 
``not wrongfully discriminate against legally protected 
categories of users.''
    What did Twitter mean by the phrase ``wrongfully 
discriminate''? Are some kinds of discriminatory advertising 
permitted on Twitter? If so, would you please explain?
    Mr. Dorsey. No. None at all.
    Ms. Clarke. I am sorry. I didn't get that answer.
    Mr. Dorsey. No. None at all.
    Ms. Clarke. OK. And so can you explain what you meant by 
``won't wrongfully discriminate''?
    Mr. Dorsey. We mean that you shouldn't use our ad systems 
to discriminate.
    Ms. Clarke. Oh, OK.
    Mr. Pichai, Google has recently announced a new approach in 
their targeting system called FLOC, or Federal Learning of 
Cohorts--excuse me, Federated Learning of Cohorts--to allow an 
ad targeting to groups of people with similar characteristics. 
The new system will utilize machine learning to create these 
``cohorts'' for the consumers' visits to websites.
    Given the potentially biased and disparate impact of 
machine learning algorithms, how has Google addressed the 
potential discriminatory impact of this new FLOC system?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, it is an important area. We 
recently announced a joint collaboration with HUD to ban ads 
that would target age, gender, family status, ZIP code, in 
addition to race, which we have long disallowed. So we will 
bring similar prohibitions, particularly when we are using 
machine learning.
    And by the FLOC--it is early, we haven't implemented it 
yet. We will be publishing more technical proposals on it, and 
they will be held to our AI principles, which prohibit 
discrimination based on sensitive categories, including race. 
And we will be happy to consult and explain our work there.
    Ms. Clarke. I appreciate that.
    Gentlemen, I just want you to be aware that the longer we 
delay in this, the more that these systems that you have 
created bake discrimination into these algorithms. I think that 
it is critical that you get in there and that you do what is in 
the best interest of the public of the United States of America 
and undo a lot of the harm that has been created with the bias 
that has been baked into your systems.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 23 seconds. And I 
thank you for this opportunity.
    Mr. Doyle. And I thank the gentlelady for that.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the panel 
for being here. What I have listened to so far today, I would 
have to say that based upon what many of us in Congress say 
about the best legislation, when both sides don't like it, it 
is probably good. And you have certainly hit that today, I 
think from both sides. You have been attacked for various 
reasons.
    But I have to say the platforms that you have developed are 
amazing and they have huge potential. And they indeed have 
enabled us to go directions--the information, the 
communications, relationships--that can be very positive and 
are amazing in what has been accomplished.
    I think we get down to how that is controlled and who 
controls it. Going back to our foundations as our country, it 
was our second President, John Adams, who said that our 
constitution was meant for a moral and religious people and is 
wholly inadequate for any other.
    I think we are seeing a lot of the problems that you are 
frustrated with as a result of parents and families, churches, 
schools, that aren't taking the primary responsibility. I get 
that. So it comes down to the choice that is left for the 
people is really between conscience and the constable.
    We are either going to have a conscience that self-controls 
and, as you have said, Mr. Zuckerberg--in fact, what you said, 
I wouldn't mind my 3- and 5-year-old granddaughters coming to 
your house. I am not asking for the invitation, but I think 
they would be safe there relative to the online capabilities, 
from what you have said. But that is conscience versus 
constable.
    But what I have heard today is that there will be some 
constable, and I am not sure that we will have success in 
moving forward. So I guess, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we have 
been here before. We have been here many times. A few years 
ago, when Mr. Zuckerberg was here before this committee, I held 
up a Facebook post by a State senator in Michigan whose post 
was simply announcing his candidacy as a Republican for elected 
office, and yet it was censored as shocking and disrespectful 
or sensational in content.
    Just a few months ago I posted my resolution that would add 
teachers to the vaccine priority list on Twitter, and it was 
labeled as ``sensitive content'' and encouraged to be changed. 
Well, hiding behind Section 230, all of you have denied that 
there is any bias or inequitable handling of content on your 
platforms.
    And yet Pew Research Center found that--and this is where I 
have my problem--not so much with the platform or even the 
extent of what is on the platform, but they found that 72 
percent of the public thinks it is likely that social media 
platforms actively censor political views that Big Tech 
companies find objectionable.
    Further, and I quote, ``By a 4-to-1 margin, respondents 
were more likely to say Big Tech supports the views of liberals 
over conservatives than vice versa.'' Probably equaled only by 
higher education. That was my statement. And yet every time 
this happens, you fall back on blaming glitches in the 
algorithms.
    It was former--Greg Coppola, a former Google insider, who 
said, before he was suspended by Google, he said, ``Algorithms 
don't write themselves. We write them to do what we want them 
to do.'' That is my concern. Whether it is censoring pro-life 
groups like Life Action or pro-Second Amendment groups like the 
Well-Armed Women, your platforms continually shut down law-
abiding citizens in constitutional discussions and commerce 
that don't align with Big Tech views and the worldview, and 
this includes the First and Second Amendments that causes me to 
be concerned that you don't share the same freedom and 
constitutional concerns.
    It is not often I find myself agreeing with Bernie Sanders, 
but in an interview earlier this week, and I quote, he said, 
``If you are asking me do I feel particularly comfortable that 
the President of the United States should not express his views 
on Twitter, I don't feel comfortable about that,'' he went on 
to say, ``because yesterday was Donald Trump who is blamed, and 
tomorrow it could be somebody else.''
    Mr. Zuckerberg or Mr. Dorsey, do you believe the law should 
allow you to be the arbiters of truth, as they have under 
Section 230? Mr. Zuckerberg first.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think that it is good to 
have a law that allows platforms to moderate content. But as I 
have said today, I think that there--that we would benefit from 
more transparency and accountability.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. I don't think we should be the arbiters of 
truth, and I don't think the government should be, either.
    Mr. Walberg. Gentlemen, I agree.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Walberg. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cardenas for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and ranking 
members, for having this important hearing. I would like to 
submit to the record a National Hispanic Media Coalition letter 
against Spanish-language disinformation on social media. If we 
could submit that for the record, I would appreciate that.
    [The letter appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Cardenas. Also, my first question is to you, Mr. 
Zuckerberg. In 2020, Facebook brought in approximately $86 
billion revenue in 2020. Is that about right, give or take?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think that is about right.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. Thank you. Good. How much of that revenue 
did Facebook invest in identifying misinformation, 
disinformation, and that portion of your business?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I don't know the exact answer. 
But we invest billions of dollars in our integrity programs, 
including having more than a thousand engineers working on this 
and 35,000 people doing content review across the company.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. And how many people do have full-time 
equivalents, in your company overall?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I don't know the exact number, 
but I think it is around 60,000.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. So you are saying over half of the people 
in your company are doing the portion of content review, et 
cetera, which is the main subject we seem to be talking about 
today?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. No, Congressman, because you asked about 
full-time employees, and some of the content reviewers are 
contractors.
    Mr. Cardenas. Oh, OK. All right. Well, there seems to be a 
disparity between the different languages that are used on your 
platform in America. For example, there was a study published 
in April, and over 100 items of misinformation on Facebook in 
six different languages was found, and 70 percent of the 
Spanish-language content analyzed had not been labeled by 
Facebook as compared to 30 percent of the English-language 
misinformation that had not been labeled. So there seems to be 
a disparity there.
    What kind of investment is Facebook making on the different 
languages to make sure that we have more of an accuracy of 
flagging those disinformation and misinformation?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, thanks. We have an 
international fact-checking program where we work with fact-
checkers in more than 80 countries and a bunch of different 
languages.
    In the U.S. specifically, we have Spanish-speaking fact-
checkers as well as English-speaking fact-checkers. So that's 
on the misinformation side. But also, when we create resources 
with authoritative information, whether it is around COVID 
information or election information, we translate those hubs so 
that way they can be available in both English and Spanish. And 
we make it so people can see the content in whatever language 
they prefer.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. So basically you are saying it is 
extensive?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, this is certainly something 
that we invest a lot in. And it will be something that we 
continue to invest more in.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. I like the last portion. I do believe, 
and would love to see you invest more.
    My 70-plus-year-old mother-in-law, who is primarily a 
Spanish speaker, commented to me the other day that her friends 
who communicate mainly in Spanish--and they do use the 
internet, they use some of your platforms, gentlemen--that they 
were worried about the vaccine and that somebody is going to 
put a chip in their arm.
    For God's sakes, I mean, that to me just was unbelievable 
that they would comment on that. But they got most of that 
information on the internet, on various platforms. Clearly, 
Spanish language disinformation is an issue, and I would like 
to make sure that we see all of your platforms address these 
issues, not only in English but in all languages.
    I think it is important for us to understand that a lot of 
hate is being spewed on the internet, and a lot of it is coming 
through many of your platforms. For example, there are 23 
people dead in El Paso because somebody filled this person's 
head with a lot of hateful nonsense, and he drove to 
specifically kill Mexicans along the Texas-Mexican border.
    Eight people are dead in Atlanta because anti-Asian hatred 
and misinformation has been permitted to spread and allowed on 
these platforms unchecked, pretty much unchecked. The spread of 
hatred and incitement of violence on platforms is a deadly 
problem in America, and we need to see that it stops.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, do you believe that you have done enough to 
combat these kinds of issues?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I believe that our systems--
and that we have done more than basically any other company. 
But I think that there is still a problem and there is still 
more that needs to be done.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. That is good. You would like to do more. 
Thank you.
    I only have 15 seconds so I am going to ask this question 
to all three of you: Do you think that each one of your 
organizations should have an executive-level individual in 
charge of this department reporting directly to the CEO? Do you 
think you agree that that should be the case? Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we have an executive-level 
person who is in charge of the integrity team that I talked 
about. He is on my management team.
    Mr. Cardenas. Reports directly to you?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, he does not. I only have a few 
direct reports. A lot of people on the management team report 
to them.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. Thank you. To the other two witnesses, 
very quickly?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, we have senior executives, 
including someone who reports directly to me, who oversees 
trust and safety across all of these areas.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. We do. We do.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you so much. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carter for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you 
for being here.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, I would like to start with you. And I 
wanted to ask you, you are aware, as all of us are, of the 
disaster that we have at the Southern border [audio disruption] 
indicate that human smugglers have been using social media, 
including Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram, to coordinate 
their operations in transporting illegal immigrants into the 
United States--things like, what to say to authorities, 
transportation tips, and other forms of information that are 
being traded on your platform to evade authorities and 
contribute to the crisis, this disaster at the border.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, do you feel complicit in any way that your 
platform is assisting in this disaster?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, first let me say that what is 
happening at the border is----
    Mr. Carter. I am not--we know what is happening at the 
border. I am asking you specifically about your platform. Do 
you feel complicit in what your platform is doing to assist in 
this disaster?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we have policies and we are 
working to fight this content. We have policies against scams 
in pages, groups, and events like the content that you are 
talking about. We are also seeing the State Department use our 
platform to share factual information with people about----
    Mr. Carter. I am not talking about facts. I am talking 
about--I am talking about coyotes who are using your platform 
to spread this kind of information to assist in this illegal 
activity that is resulting in horrible conditions for these 
people who are trying to come across that border.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, that is against our policies, 
and we are taking a lot of steps to stop it. And again, let me 
just say that I think the situation at the border is really 
serious and we are taking it very seriously.
    Mr. Carter. Well, and I hope you will look into this, these 
reports that your platform is being used by these traffickers. 
This is something we need your help with. I hope you feel the 
sense of responsibility, sir, to help us with this, because we 
certainly need it.
    Let me ask you something. You dedicated a lot of your 
written testimony to election issues. And even today, during 
this hearing, you have been very public in pushing back about 
the election claims in November. Yet when Facebook has been 
essentially silent on the attempted theft of the certified 
election in Iowa of Representative Miller-Meeks. Why is that? 
Why are you silent on that, yet you are not silent on other 
elections?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think what we saw leading up 
to January 6 was unprecedented in American history, where you 
had a sitting President trying to undermine the peaceful 
transfer of power----
    Mr. Carter. You determined which one is important and which 
one is not. This seat to these people who elected this duly 
certified representative, this is the most important thing to 
them as well.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think part of what made the 
January 6th events extraordinary was not just that the election 
was contested, but that you got folks like the President----
    Mr. Carter. What--OK. Let me ask you this: What is it that 
makes this particular issue irrelevant, that you are not even 
covering it?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I didn't say that it is 
irrelevant. But on January 6th, we had insurrectionists storm 
the Capitol, leading to the death of multiple people.
    Mr. Carter. My time is--Mr. Zuckerberg, I am aware of that. 
I was there. I understand what happened. But again, will you 
commit to treating this as a serious election concern? What is 
going on----
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we--I will commit to that. And 
we apply our policies to all situations. And I think that this 
is different from what happened on January 6th, but we apply 
our policies equally in these cases.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Dorsey, you, too, have been very silent on 
this issue on your platform. Will you commit to treating this 
as a serious concern, the attempted theft of the certified seat 
in Iowa?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes. We are looking for all opportunities to 
minimize anything that takes away from integrity of elections.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Mr. Dorsey, while I have got you, let me 
ask you: You have started a new program. It is called the Bird 
Watch, and it allows people to identify information in tweets 
that they believe is misleading. And they write notes to 
provide context in an effort to stop misleading information 
from spreading.
    Have you seen--we have seen mobs of Twitter users cancel 
others. And even when the information they share is accurate, 
why do you think Bird Watch is going to work, given the culture 
that you created on your platform?
    Mr. Dorsey. Well, it is an experiment. We wanted to 
experiment with a more crowdsourced approach than us going 
around and doing all this work.
    Mr. Carter. Don't you think that is kind of a dangerous 
experiment, when you are taking off true information?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. No. It is an alternative. And I think----
    Mr. Carter. An alternative.
    Mr. Dorsey. I think we need to experiment as much as 
possible to get to the right answers. I think it states----
    Mr. Carter. OK. Well, that is fine as long as you are not 
the one being experimented on, as long as you are not the one 
that the information is going----
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair announces that we are going to take a recess now 
for 15 minutes. So the committee will stand in recess until 
3:18, and then we will come back promptly. I call the committee 
in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Doyle. OK. I will call the committee back to order and 
ask all Members and witnesses to come back online.
    [Pause]
    Mr. Doyle. We will get started. The Chair recognizes Mrs. 
Dingell for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having 
this hearing, and to everyone for testifying today.
    We can all agree that social media companies have a 
responsibility to reduce and eliminate the impact of 
disinformation on their platforms. Mr. Zuckerberg, in the fall 
of 2020 you made numerous assurances to Congress that you had a 
handle on militia and conspiracy networks. We know, however, 
that Facebook private groups and the algorithms that recommend 
them have assisted in radicalizing users and facilitated 
terrorism, violence, and extremism against individuals, 
including the Governor of my State of Michigan. Racial and 
ethnic minorities, including Muslims and, recently, Asian 
Americans, are facing growing racist hate online and violence 
offline. Last year I sent you multiple letters about these 
issues, so I know you are aware of them.
    In October of 2020, Facebook temporarily decided to stop 
recommending political or civic groups on its platforms, a 
change it has now made permanent. But to be honest, despite 
what you did in October, we had an insurrection that stormed 
the Capitol on January 6.
    I seriously question Facebook's commitment to actually 
stopping extremism. In a recent investigative report, a former 
Facebook AI researcher said he and his team conducted study 
after study confirming the same basic idea: Models that 
maximize engagement increase polarization. And you yourself 
have said that the more likely content is to violate Facebook 
community standards, the more engagement it generally receives. 
Engagement is the key to Facebook's growth and success, and the 
stock markets rewarded you for it even as you have been 
criticized for promoting extremism and racist content, 
including in a 2020 Facebook civil rights audit. The two seem 
to go hand in hand. As Facebook was also the most cited social 
media site in charging documents that the Justice Department 
filed against the Capitol insurrectionists.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, do you still maintain that the more likely 
user content is to violate Facebook community standards, the 
more engagement it will receive? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, thanks for raising this 
because I think that there has been a bunch of inaccurate 
things about this shared today.
    Mrs. Dingell. OK.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. There seems to be a belief--------
    Mrs. Dingell. Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sorry. This is a nuanced topic. So if you 
are OK with it, I would like to----
    Mrs. Dingell. You have to keep it short. But I will give it 
a second since I want to----
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sure. So----
    Mrs. Dingell [continuing]. That is a victim of this hate.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. People don't want to see misinformation or 
divisive content on our services. People don't want to see 
clickbait and things like that. While it may be true that 
people might be more likely to click on it in the short term, 
it is not good for our business or our product or our community 
for this content to be there. It is not what people want, and 
we run the company for the long term with a view towards 10 or 
20 years from now.
    And I think that we are highly aligned with our community 
in trying to not show people the content that is not going to 
be meaningful to them.
    Mrs. Dingell. OK, Mr. Zuckerberg. I am going to--I only 
have 2 minutes left. Do you still agree with the statement in 
Facebook's most recent 10-K filing that the first risk related 
to your product offerings is ``our ability to add and retain 
users and maintain levels of user engagement with our 
products''? Just a yes or no, please.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I think that that is 
generally right. I mean, for any product, the ability to 
building something that people like and use is something that 
is a risk if we can't do that.
    Mrs. Dingell. OK. So do you still agree with the statement 
of your CFO on a recent earnings call that the changes to group 
recommendations so far wouldn't affect your engagement? Yes or 
no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, there are so many different 
parts of the service that I think it is probably right----
    Mrs. Dingell. Can I just----
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. That not recommending 
political or civic groups probably isn't going to meaningfully 
decrease engagement. But we have taken a lot of HR steps, 
including reducing viral videos by about 50 million hours of 
watching a day, which have had a meaningful impact on 
engagement. But we do that because it helps make the service 
better and helps people like it more, which I think will be 
better for both the community and our business over the long 
term.
    Mrs. Dingell. OK. Mr. Zuckerberg, I am sorry to have to do 
this in 5 minutes. But given your promises in the fall, the 
events that transpired on January 6, and your two incentives 
that you yourself admit, I find it really difficult to take 
some of these assurances you are trying to give us today 
seriously.
    I believe that regulators and independent researchers 
should have access to Facebook and other large social media 
platforms' recommendation algorithms, not just for groups but 
for any relevant feature that can be exploited or exploit 
private user data collected by the company to support 
extremism. And I support legislation to do so.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, given your inability to manage your 
algorithms or your unwillingness to reduce controversial 
content, are you opposed to a law enabling regulators to access 
social media algorithms or other information technology that 
result in the promotion of harmful disinformation and extremist 
content?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Well, Congresswoman, while I don't 
necessarily agree with your characterization, I do think that 
giving more transparency into the systems is an important 
thing. We have people working on figuring out how to do this.
    One of the nuances here in complexity is that it is hard to 
separate out the algorithms versus people's data which kind of 
goes into that to make decisions, and the data is private. So 
it is tough to make that public and transparent. But I do think 
that this is an important area of study on how to audit and 
make algorithms more transparent.
    Mr. Doyle. OK. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say that 
Democrats repeating disinformation about the motives of the 
murder in Atlanta during a hearing on disinformation is irony 
at its worst. The murderer admitted that he was a sex addict. 
The problem was addiction, mental illness. While my thoughts 
and prayers go out to the families who were impacted by this 
hideous crime, it was not a hate crime, and to say so is 
disinformation.
    Mr. Dorsey, is it OK for a white male to tweet a picture of 
a KKK Klansman hood to a black woman?
    Mr. Dorsey. No. That would go against our hateful conduct 
policy.
    Mr. Duncan. Just this week, black conservative commentator 
Candice Owens was sent a tweet from a white liberal depicting a 
KKK hood. And your support center said that that racist 
harassment of a conservative didn't violate your terms of 
service. What do you have to say about that?
    Mr. Dorsey. We removed that tweet.
    Mr. Duncan. OK. Thank you for doing that. Also this week, 
Syrian refugee Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, a Biden-supporting 
Muslim, allegedly murdered 10 people at a grocery store in 
Boulder, Colorado. Your support center told Newsweek that 
referring to this gentleman as a white Christian terrorist 
wasn't a violation of your misinformation policy. What do you 
have to say about that?
    Mr. Dorsey. I don't know that case, but we can follow up 
with you on that.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. Your promises from the last hearing 
that you will work on this or make it better rang completely 
hollow sometimes, so I ask that you do.
    You have censored and taken down accounts of conservatives, 
Christian, and even pro-life groups. At the same time, 
liberals, tyrants, and terrorists continue to have unfettered 
access on Twitter. You were able to take down the account of a 
sitting United States President while he was still President. 
But you continue to allow State sponsors of terror to use 
Twitter as a platform, including the Ayatollah Khoumeini, Javad 
Zarif of Iran, or even Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
    You act like judge and jury and continue to hide behind the 
liability protections in Section 230 of the Communications 
Decency Act, which Congress set up to foster a free and open 
internet. You think you are above the law because, in a sense, 
Congress gave you that power, but Congress gave you that 
liability shield to one end: that was the protection of 
innocent children. Catherine McMorris Rodgers knocked it out of 
the park today, hammering the point where children are 
vulnerable.
    But let's look at the John Doe vs. Twitter case that is 
ongoing right now. According to the National Center on Sexual 
Exploitation, a teenage boy, a victim of child sex trafficking, 
had images of his abuse posted on Twitter. One of those videos 
went viral, and he became the target of bullying to the point 
of being suicidal. He contacted you to alert you that his sex 
abuse images were on your platform. You failed to take them 
down. His mother contacted you to alert you, and again you 
failed to take them down.
    They called the police and they followed up with you with a 
police report. Your support center told the family that, after 
review, the illegal video was not a violation of your terms of 
service. In the meantime, the illegal video accrued over 
167,000 views.
    It took a threat from a Homeland Security agent to get 
Twitter to take down the video. Even then you took no action 
against the accounts that were sharing it and continue to share 
sexually explicit videos of minors in clear violation of the 
law and in clear violation of your duties under Section 230 of 
the Communications Decency Act, as they were passed.
    So in the eyes of Twitter, it is better to be a pedophile 
pornographer, a woke racist, or a state sponsor of terror than 
it is to be a conservative, even a conservative President. You 
have abused the Section 230 liability shield we gave you to 
protect children and used it to silence conservatives instead.
    As we have heard today, your abuses of your privilege are 
far too numerous to be explained away and far too serious to 
ignore. So it is time for your liability shield to be removed--
your immunity shield and the immunity shield of other woke 
companies who choose to score political points with their 
immunity shields rather than protect children.
    My colleagues have been asking you if you deserve to 
continue to receive immunity under Section 230. Let me answer 
the question for you: No, you don't. You all think you do, but 
you don't because you continue to do a disservice to that law 
and its intent.
    The United States Constitution has the First Amendment, and 
that should be your guide. Protecting the speech of users of 
your platform instead of trading them in like hostages and 
forcing things through algorithms to lead them down a path.
    The American people really are tired of you abusing your 
rights, abandoning their values. So one of the Christian 
leaders that you banned, Mr. Dorsey, had as her last post a 
Scripture verse that you took down. And I want to leave it here 
today, Psalm 34:14. ``Depart from evil and do good; seek peace 
and pursue it.'' Rather than silence that wise advice, I 
strongly suggest that you follow it.
    Now, I have heard a lot of stuff on this hearing today 
about 230 protections. I challenge my colleagues to really get 
serious about doing something about this liability shield so 
that we do have a fair and free internet and people aren't 
censored.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Kelly for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses 
who are testifying today.
    The business model for your platforms is quite simple: Keep 
users engaged. The more time people spend on social media, the 
more data harvested and targeted ads sold. To build that 
engagement, social media platforms amplify content that gets 
attention. That can be cat videos or vacation pictures, but too 
often it means content that is incendiary, contains conspiracy 
theories or violence.
    Algorithms in your platforms can actively funnel users from 
the mainstream to the fringe, subjecting users to more extreme 
content, all to maintain user engagement. This is a fundamental 
flaw in your business model that mere warning labels, temporary 
suspension of some accounts, and even content moderation cannot 
address. And your company's insatiable desire to maintain user 
engagement will continue to give such content a safe haven if 
doing so improves your bottom line.
    I would like to ask my first question of all the witnesses. 
Do each of you acknowledge that your company has profited off 
harmful misinformation, conspiracy theories, and violent 
content on your platform? Just say yes or no. Starting with Mr. 
Dorsey, yes or no?
    Mr. Dorsey. No. That is not our business.
    Ms. Kelly. Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. No, Congresswoman. I don't think we profit 
from it. I think it hurts our service.
    Ms. Kelly. Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, it is certainly not our intent, 
and we definitely do not want such content. And we have clear 
policies against it.
    Ms. Kelly. Well, since you all said no, can you please 
provide to me in writing how you manage to avoid collecting 
revenue from ads either targeted by or served on such content? 
So I will be expecting that.
    There is a difference between a conversation in a living 
room and one being pumped out to millions of followers, from 
discouraging voting and COVID-19 misinformation to encouraging 
hate crimes. The harms are real and disproportionate.
    Do you acknowledge that such content is having especially 
harmful effects on minorities and communities of color? Yes or 
no again? I don't have a lot of time, so yes or no? Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes.
    Ms. Kelly. Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. Yes.
    Ms. Kelly. Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes. I think that's right.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you. If your financial incentive is that 
human psychology leads to the creation of a system that 
promotes emotionally charged content that is often harmful, do 
you believe that you can address the--do you believe that you 
will always need to play Whac-a-mole on different topics? Mr. 
Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I do think that we can take 
systematic actions that help to reduce a large amount of this. 
But there will always be some content that gets through those 
systems that we will have to react to.
    Ms. Kelly. Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. That is not our incentive, but I agree with 
Mark. Our model is to constantly integrate. We are going to 
miss some things, and we will go too far in some cases.
    Ms. Kelly. Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. I agree largely with what Mark and Jack said. 
And we--a lot of channels, we remove thousands of misleading 
election videos. There are many involving threats, and we are 
very vigilant.
    Ms. Kelly. OK. More transparency and research into the AI 
models you use is needed. I understand that they are constantly 
evolving and proprietary. However, those obstacles must not be 
insurmountable. Would you agree to some type of test bed to 
evaluate your procedures and technology for disparate impacts? 
And would you welcome minimal standards set by the government? 
I only have 44 seconds.
    Mr. Dorsey. I will go. You are not calling us. But we--yes, 
we are interested in opening all this up and going a step 
further in having a protocol. I don't think that should be 
government-driven, but it should be open and transparent that 
the government can look at it and understand how it works.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I agree that this is an area where research 
would be helpful. And I think some standards, especially 
amongst the civil rights community, would be helpful guidance 
for the companies.
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, we work with many third parties. 
I just mentioned the HUD collaboration we had. Definitely would 
be open to conversations about minimum standards. It is an 
important area.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dunn for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Many of the questions today deal with personal arms. But 
there are long-term economic and security arms to our country I 
would like us to keep in mind as well.
    I represent Florida's 2nd Congressional District, which is 
proud to host a large presence of the U.S. military, including 
civilian support companies. One of these is Applied Research 
Associates, which is doing great work with our military in the 
field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
    I agree with our Nation's top national security experts on 
the critical importance of the United States maintaining its 
competitive edge in AI. And I share the concern of former 
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who warned just a few weeks ago of the 
grave consequences should we lose that edge to China.
    Leader Rodgers led a bipartisan bill enacted last year, the 
American Compete Act, to lay out clear AI strategy. We all 
recognize that China is not a good place to do business, 
evidenced by the fact that all of your respective main products 
and services are banned there. It is clear that the influence 
of the Chinese Communist Party permeates the entire corporate 
structure in China. Xi Jinping himself stated his goal of 
integrating the party's leadership into all aspects of 
corporate governance.
    Let's be clear with each other. It is impossible to do 
business in China without either directly or indirectly aiding 
the Chinese Communist Party. It is also important to state for 
the record that each of your business models involve collecting 
data from individuals who use your product and then using that 
data for some other purpose.
    Mr. Pichai, I am deeply concerned with Google's pursuit of 
and investment in artificial intelligence research in China, 
widely reported over the last few years. First and foremost, 
can you assure Americans that their personal data, regardless 
of how you think you have de-identified it--data you collect 
when they use Google and which is central to your algorithms--
is not used in your artificial intelligence collaboration with 
the Chinese Government?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, I want to correct any 
misperceptions here. We do not have an AI research center in 
China now. We had a limited presence working on open source 
projects, primarily on open source projects and around K 
through 12 education with a handful of employees. We don't have 
that anymore. Compared to our peers, we don't offer our core 
services in China, products like search, YouTube, Gmail, et 
cetera.
    Mr. Dunn. I am going to have to reclaim my time because it 
is limited. But I want your team to follow up with me because I 
am honestly somewhat skeptical. I think you had three centers 
there in China. And I want to know more about what they are 
doing and also what material they are using.
    And I want to be clear. I am not just suggesting that 
simply doing business in a country means that you endorse all 
their policies. As a former businessman myself, I know the 
politics all too often get in the way of what we are trying to 
do. However, Google's own list of artificial intelligence 
principles states that it will not collaborate on technologies 
to gather or use information for surveillance, violating 
international accepted norms or contravenes widely accepted 
principles of international law and human rights.
    We know that the Chinese Communist Party is using 
artificial intelligence technology to spread misinformation and 
suppress the prodemocracy movement in Hong Kong as well as 
using that technology in its genocidal crimes against the 
Uyghurs, including murdering them for their organ harvesting.
    Once again, can you be sure that none of the work you are 
doing in collaboration with the Chinese Government is not 
aiding them in this ability?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, happy to follow up and clarify the 
limited work on AI we undertake. It is primarily around open 
source projects. And very happy to engage and very specifically 
follow up on what we do.
    Mr. Dunn. Well, I think that is great. And I know I am 
running out of time here, but I ask that we continue this 
dialogue. And I think Google would be very well served by 
promoting greater transparency in all of its actions regarding 
artificial intelligence in China. Your customers have a right 
to know about this.
    In 2018, Diane Greene, former CEO of Google Cloud, noted, 
``We believe the uses of our cloud and artificial intelligence 
will prove to be overwhelmingly positive for the world. But we 
also recognize we cannot control all downstream uses of our 
technology.''
    Well, a good place to start would be to end this dangerous 
artificial intelligence research relationship with China. So 
with that, Mr. Pichai, thank you. Thank you, all the members of 
the witness panel.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to you and 
Chairman Pallone and Chairwoman Schakowsky, thank you for 
convening today's hearing and for our witnesses for joining us.
    In July of last year, I led more than 30 of my colleagues, 
including several on this committee, in a letter to your 
companies asking what you were doing to halt the spread of 
climate change disinformation on your platforms. As my 
colleagues and I clearly expressed in our letter, climate 
change is a real and urgent threat, and the spread of 
disinformation on your platforms is underlining that fact.
    For instance, the World Health Organization estimates that 
climate change causes 150,000 deaths annually, a number that 
will only increase in the coming years. All this begs a simple 
question: Why do your platforms not treat climate change 
disinformation with a sense of immediacy and alarm?
    Mr. Zuckerberg, Facebook recently implemented the Climate 
Change Information Center, which directs users to a landing 
page with climate change facts from researchers and 
organizations. Are you able to share data on how widespread a 
problem climate change disinformation is on your platform and 
how much the Climate Change Information Center has reduced it?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sure. Thanks, Congressman. Our approach to 
fighting misinformation--of which climate misinformation, I 
think, is a big issue, so I agree with your point here. We take 
a multipronged approach. One is to try to show people 
authoritative information, which is what the Climate 
Information Center does.
    But then we also try to reduce the spread of misinformation 
around the rest of the service through this independent third-
party fact-checking program that we have in which one of the 
fact-checkers is specifically focused on science feedback and 
climate feedback type of issues.
    Overall, I would be happy to follow up and share more 
details on what we have seen across those. But this is 
certainly an area that I agree is extremely important and needs 
multiple tactics to address.
    Mr. McEachin. Well, thank you. And it is my understanding 
that this climate center was modeled after your COVID-19 
Information Center. However, different standards still apply 
for both organic content and paid-for advertising for climate 
change versus COVID-19.
    Why does Facebook not apply the same standards of fact-
checking on climate change that it does on COVID-19 content?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, you are right that the Climate 
Information Center was based off our work on the COVID 
Information Center and Election Information Center. In terms of 
how we treat misinformation overall, we divide the 
misinformation into things that could cause imminent physical 
harm--of which COVID misinformation that might lead someone to 
get sick or hurt or vaccine misinformation falls in the 
category of imminent physical harm--and we take down that 
content.
    Then other misinformation are things that are false but may 
not lead to imminent physical harm. We label and reduce their 
distribution but leave them up. So that is the broad approach 
that we have, and that sort of explains some of the differences 
between some of the different issues and how we approach them.
    Mr. McEachin. Mr. Pichai--and I hope I am pronouncing that 
correctly, sir--YouTube has employed contextualization tools 
linking viewers to similar sources as Facebook's Climate 
Center. That being said, you restricted but have not removed 
some repeat offenders from your platform such as Prager 
University, a nonaccredited university producing climate change 
denial content.
    Are you not concerned that by restricting those videos and 
not removing repeat offenders, that people who are determined 
to find those videos to validate their fears will indeed find 
them and share them with others?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, it is an incredibly important 
area. In general, in these areas we rely on raising 
authoritative information, both by showing information panels 
as well as raising scientific content, academic content, and 
journalistic content so our algorithms rank those types of 
content higher for an area like climate change, similar to 
election integrity and COVID.
    And obviously it is an area where there is a range of 
opinions people can express. We have clear policies, and if it 
is violative, we remove. If it is not violative but if it is 
not deemed to be of high quality, we don't recommend the 
content. And that is how we approach it, and we are committed 
to this area as a company.
    We lead in sustainability. We have committed to operating 
24/7 on a carbon-free basis by 2030. And it is an area where we 
are investing significantly.
    Mr. McEachin. Well, thank you. I have run out of time. Mr. 
Dorsey, I apologize to you. Perhaps we will have an opportunity 
to have a conversation.
    Mr. Chairman, I give you my 2 seconds.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 
back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 
witnesses.
    My first comment is to point out that in her 2019 
Presidential campaign, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat, 
called for the breaking up of your companies. Several weeks 
ago, in a speech at CPAC, Senator Josh Hawley, Republican, also 
said that Big Tech companies should be broken up. I don't think 
I need to point out the irony of Josh Hawley validating 
Elizabeth Warren at CPAC.
    There seems to be a train wreck coming. Unfortunately, the 
very few tools that we have in our tool bag are regulation and 
breaking up. Mr. Zuckerberg, I read through your terms of 
service, including the dense community standards document. In 
your terms of service, you state that you cannot control and do 
not take responsibility for content posted on your platform.
    The community standards document, which is frequently cited 
as why content is or is not censored, says you sometimes make 
content moderation decisions based off what is considered best 
for the public interest or public discourse.
    I know in your testimony you said that companies need to 
earn their liability protections. That is great. But that 
doesn't address the concerns people understandably share about 
your past or current views on what is or is not acceptable.
    How do you claim you cannot take responsibility and 
therefore should maintain your liability protections for 
content posted on your site, but at the same time state that 
your platform or monitored content based off what is in the 
public's best interest? That appears to be two-sided.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, thanks. People use our 
services to share and send messages billions of times a day. 
And it would be impossible for us to scan or understand 
everything that was going on, and I don't think that our 
society would want us to take the steps that would be necessary 
to monitor every single thing. I think that we would think that 
that would infringe on our freedoms.
    So broadly, I think it is impossible to ask companies to 
take responsibility for every single piece of content that 
someone posts, and that, I think, is the wisdom of 230. At the 
same time, I do think that we should expect large platforms to 
have effective systems for being able to handle, broadly 
speaking, categories of content that are clearly illegal.
    So we have talked today about child exploitation and 
opioids and sex trafficking and things like that. And I think 
it is reasonable to expect that companies have systems that are 
broadly effective, even if they are not going to be exactly 
perfect, and there are still going to be some pieces of content 
that inevitably get through, just like no police department in 
the city is able to eliminate all crime.
    Mr. Curtis. I am going to jump in only because we are out 
of time. I would love to spend more time on that with you.
    Let me also ask you. Utah is known for Silicon Slopes, our 
startup community. You have called for government regulation, 
but some view this with skepticism because larger companies 
tend to deal with regulation much better than small companies.
    If you think back to your college days, the early startup 
phase of Facebook, what challenges do you see for startups to 
compete and what cautions should Congress consider as we look 
at regulations that potentially could be a barrier for 
companies that might be your future competition?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Thanks. I think that this is a really 
important point whenever we are talking about regulation. And I 
want to be clear that the recommendations that I am making for 
Section 230 I would only have applied to larger platforms.
    I think it is really critical that a small platform, the 
next student in a dorm room or in a garage, needs to have a 
relatively low--as low as possible regulatory burden in order 
to be able to innovate and then get to the scale where they can 
afford to put those kind of systems in place. So I think that 
that is a really important point to make.
    But I think that that goes for the content discussions that 
we are having around 230. It probably also applies to the 
privacy law that I hope that Congress will pass this year or 
next year to create a Federal U.S. privacy standard. And I also 
think that we should be exploring proactively requiring things 
like data portability that would make it easier for people to 
take data from one service to another.
    Mr. Curtis. I want to thank you. I have got just a few 
seconds left. And Mr. Pichai, this is a little bit off topic so 
I am simply going to ask this question and submit it for the 
record and not ask for a response.
    Almost a decade ago your company started Google Fiber. You 
introduced Kid Speed and free internet to all the residents of 
my home city, Provo, Utah. Sadly, it seems like your efforts to 
do this across the country were slowed down or even stopped by 
excessive government regulations. I would love you to share off 
the record--and I will submit it for the record--why government 
is making it so hard to expand internet across the country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield my time.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    When television, radio, traditional newspapers, political 
blogs, and even private citizens spread lies, they can be sued 
and held liable for damages or FCC fines. But pursuant to 230, 
you all can't be sued. You have immunity. But it ain't 1996 
anymore, is it? Meanwhile, lies are spreading like wildfire 
through platforms. Americans are getting hurt or killed. And 
the reason is your algorithms.
    I want you to all know I was held captive in the gallery 
during the Capitol insurrection. I was surrounded by domestic 
terrorists that killed a Capitol police officer, ransacked the 
Capitol, and almost disrupted a Presidential election. And many 
of these domestic terrorists plotted on your platforms. I think 
we all understand by now this violence is real. And so this is 
why we are here today, in the committee of jurisdiction, with 
power to protect our fellow Americans.
    Mr. Zuckerberg had mentioned effective moderation systems. 
So now we know you have systems that can prevent many of these 
harms. Thank you for your statements supporting accountability 
today, and even for championing support of accountability now.
    So the question is: What specific changes to Section 230 do 
you support to ensure more accountability? Mr. Zuckerberg just 
mentioned categories of content that are clearly illegal, U.S. 
privacy standards, and data portability as three standards we 
should be looking at.
    Mr. Pichai, should we be creating these standards and then 
holding platforms accountable if they violate them under 230?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, first of all, there are many ways 
and there are many laws today which do hold us liable. FTC has 
oversight, we have a consent decree with the FCC, COPPA, HIPAA, 
et cetera, and for example areas where there are privacy laws, 
and we have called for Federal privacy legislation, but in 
Europe, the GDPR. In California, we have privacy State 
legislation. We are both accountable as well as we are subject 
to private plaintiff action against these statutes.
    Mr. Soto. So Mr. Pichai, you agree with these categories 
that were just outlined by Mr. Zuckerberg. Is that correct?
    Mr. Pichai. I definitely think what Mark is talking about 
around lines of transparency and accountability are good 
proposals to think through. There are various legislative 
proposals, among those----
    Mr. Soto. Excuse me. My time is--Mr. Dorsey, do you think 
we should be establishing categories of content that are 
clearly illegal, U.S. privacy standards, and data portability, 
as well as penalties for violation of those standards?
    Mr. Dorsey. I believe, as we look upon 230 and evolutions 
of it, inputting upon it, I think we need more transparency 
around content moderation practices, not just policies. I think 
we need more robust appeals processes. And I think the real 
issue is algorithms and giving people more choice around 
algorithms, more transparency around algorithms. So if there is 
any one I would pick, it would be that one. It is a tough one, 
but it is the most impactful.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Dorsey.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, political misinformation spread rampantly, 
unfortunately, in Spanish in Florida's Hispanic community on 
Facebook in the 2020 Presidential election even with the 
political ad ban. How do you think this happens? Mr. 
Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, it is--I do still think that 
there is too much misinformation across all of these media that 
we have talked about today. How did it happen? I mean, it is--I 
think we have talked to a lot today about algorithms. I 
actually think a lot of this stuff happens in what we refer to 
as deterministic products like messaging, right? Someone sends 
a text message to someone else. There is no algorithm there 
determining whether that gets delivered. People can just send 
that to someone else.
    A lot of this stuff, I think, unfortunately was amplified 
on TV and in traditional news as well. There was certainly some 
of this content on Facebook, and it is our responsibility to 
make sure that we are building effective systems that can 
reduce the spread of that. I think a lot of those systems 
performed well during this election cycle. But it is an 
iterative process, and there are always going to be new things 
that we will need to do to keep up with the different threats 
that we face.
    Mr. Soto. Mr. Zuckerberg, will you commit to boosting 
Spanish-language moderators and systems on Facebook, especially 
during election season, to help prevent this from happening 
again in Spanish language?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, this is already something that 
we focus on. We already beefed up and added more capacity to 
Spanish language fact-checking and Spanish language 
authoritative information resources. And that is certainly 
something that we hope to build on in the future. So the answer 
to your question is yes.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Lesko for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 
witnesses.
    I represent constituents in the great State of Arizona, and 
most of my constituents just want to be treated fairly, 
equitably, impartially, and they want to make sure that their 
private information stays private.
    Mr. Pichai, does Wikipedia influence Google's search 
results?
    Mr. Pichai. We do index, and Wikipedia is in our index. And 
for certain queries, if an answer from Wikipedia rises to the 
top of our ranking, yes, we do rely on it.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    Mr. Dorsey, did you personally decide to ban President 
Trump from your platform?
    Mr. Dorsey. We have a process that we go through to get 
there, and that came after a warning.
    Mrs. Lesko. And did you make the final decision?
    Mr. Dorsey. Ultimately, I have final responsibility.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    And Mr. Pichai, in July 2018 the Wall Street Journal 
reported that Google let hundreds of outside developers scan 
the inboxes of millions of Gmail users. Mr. Pichai, do Google 
employees review and analyze Gmail users' content?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, we take privacy very seriously. 
We don't use the data from Gmail for advertising, and our 
employees generally do not access it, only in narrow cases, 
either to troubleshoot with the right consent and permissions. 
There are prohibitions with enough checks and balances.
    Mrs. Lesko. So I think what you are saying is occasionally 
your Google employees do review and analyze.
    I have another question regarding that. Does Google share 
Gmail users' emails or analysis of your emails with third 
parties?
    Mr. Pichai. We do not sell any data. I think what you are 
referring to is users could give API access to third-party 
developers--for example, there are applications which could 
give travel-related information. So this is a user choice, and 
it is an API on top of the platforms. We have done numerous 
steps to make sure users have to go through multiple steps 
before they would give consent to a third party.
    Mrs. Lesko. And so I have looked through your Google 
Privacy Statements and User Content, and I still have concerns 
about that. I am very concerned. I have Gmail accounts, just 
like millions of people, and I don't know if you are looking at 
them. I don't know who is looking at them. I don't know who is 
sharing them. I don't know what you are doing with them.
    Mr. Pichai. If I----
    Mrs. Lesko. You make me concerned. Mr.--I only have----
    Mr. Pichai. If I could clarify one thing I said there?
    Mrs. Lesko. Yes.
    Mr. Pichai. Only if a user asks us to troubleshoot an 
account, with that user's permission. But we do not look into 
users' email contents, and we do not share the contents with 
anyone else without the user's asking us to do so.
    Mrs. Lesko. However, the Wall Street Journal had this 
article saying that hundreds of developers were reviewing the 
email contents. So I have to move on to another question 
because I only have a short time.
    Mr. Dorsey, Twitter denied the Center for Immigration 
Studies the ability to promote four tweets that contained the 
phrases ``illegal alien'' and ``criminal alien,'' even though 
those are the correct legal terms. Mr. Dorsey, if there is a 
warning posted related to a border threat, how will Twitter 
algorithms react to the use of the word ``illegal'' versus 
``undocumented''?
    Mr. Dorsey. Well, it isn't about our algorithms. It is 
interpretation against our policy and if there are violations. 
But we can follow up with you on how we handle situations like 
that.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, this is the legal term, is ``illegal 
alien.'' That is in law, in legal terms. I don't understand why 
you would not allow that. That is the legal, factual term. And 
with that, I am going to ask another question.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, this has been brought up before. Do you 
believe that your platform harms children?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I don't believe so. This is 
something that we study and we care a lot about. Designing 
products that improve people's well-being is very important to 
us. And what our products do is help people stay connected to 
people they care about, which I think is one of the most 
fundamental and important human things that we do, whether that 
is for teens or for people who are older than that.
    And again, our policies on the main apps that we offer 
generally prohibit people under the age of 13 from using the 
services.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halloran for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halloran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am enlightened. 
Thank you to the panel today.
    I am enlightened by what I have heard today: three of the 
most knowledgeable business people in the word, with beautiful 
profit centers, business models, a sense of the future 
direction that your companies want to go in, standards that are 
in many cases reliable but others not very much so, and a very 
big concern by the Congress of the United States on the 
direction you want to go in versus what is good for our Nation 
in total.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, last October Facebook announced it removed 
a network of 202 accounts, 54 pages, and 76 Instagram accounts 
for violating your coordinated inappropriate behavior policy. A 
really forged network was based in [audio disruption] Arizona 
and ran its disinformation operation from 2018 to 2020 by 
creating fake accounts and commenting on other people's content 
about the 2018 midterm election, the 2020 Presidential 
election, COVID-19, and criticism and praise of creation of 
certain political parties and Presidential candidates. Sadly, 
Facebook only acted after a Washington Post investigation 
reported its findings.
    While your testimony states since 2017 Facebook has removed 
over 100 networks of accounts for engaging in coordinated, 
inauthenticated behavior, where did Facebook fail by not 
finding this network over the course of a number of years? Mr. 
Zuckerberg,
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Well, Congressman, we have a team of--I 
think it is more than 300 people who work on counterterrorism 
at this point, and basically trying to work with law 
enforcement and across the industry to basically find these 
networks of fake accounts and authentic accounts that are 
trying to spread behavior.
    And I think we have gotten a lot more effective at this. I 
can't say that we catch every single one, but certainly I think 
we have gotten a lot more effective, including just this week 
we announced that we took down a network of Chinese hackers 
that were targeting Uyghur activists outside of China.
    So we have gotten more sophisticated at this. Sometimes 
when we start finding a lead, we need to wait to kind of see 
the full extent of the network so we can take down the whole 
network. So that is a tradeoff that sometimes we are able to 
discuss with law enforcement and other times not, in terms of 
how we do enforcement. But overall, I think this effort has 
gotten a lot more sophisticated over the last 4 years.
    Mr. O'Halloran. So you are happy with the amount of 
personnel that you have working on these issues?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think we have one of the 
leading teams in this area. We went from more than----
    Mr. O'Halloran. Are you happy with--the question was: Are 
you happy with the amount of people you have working, the 
capacity that you have to take care of these issues?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think that the team is well-
staffed and well-funded. We spend billions of dollars a year on 
these kind of content and integrity and security issues across 
the company. So I think that that is appropriate to meet the 
charge. And there are always things that we are going to want 
to do to improve the tactics of how we find this, and a lot of 
that over the last several years has been increasing the work 
that we do with law enforcement and the intelligence 
community----
    Mr. O'Halloran. I am going to move on to another question, 
Mr. Zuckerberg. Thank you very much. I do want to say that, 
again, you are a bright, intelligent CEO. You know in advance 
what you want. Your algorithms are created by your company and 
the other companies. You have control over those algorithms.
    And so the idea that you have to work maybe in this 
direction, Mr. Zuckerberg, Facebook's most recent community 
standards enforcement report states that 2.5 million pieces of 
content related to suicide and self-injury were removed in the 
fourth quarter of 200 due to increased reviewer capacity.
    You can do this if you want to do all this stuff. Very 
briefly explain what policies Facebook put in place to reviewer 
capacity, not just on that issue but across the--how much over 
time has this occurred that you continue to increase reviewer 
capacity?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sure, Congressman. The biggest thing that 
we have done is automated a lot of this by building AI tools to 
identify some of this. So now, for example, more than 98 
percent of the hate speech that we take down is done by an AI 
and not by a person. I think it is 98 or 99 percent of the 
terrorist content that we take down is identified by an AI and 
not a person. And you mentioned the suicide content as well, 
which I think a high 90s percent is identified by AI rather 
than----
    Mr. O'Halloran. Mr. Zuckerberg, I am over my time. I want 
to thank the chair, and I also want to state very briefly that 
you have a lot of work to do, you and your other cohorts on 
this panel. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Pence for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairs Doyle and Schakowsky and 
Ranking Members Latta and Bilirakis, for holding this joint 
subcommittee meeting hearing. And thank you to the witnesses 
for appearing before us today.
    The extent to which your platforms engulf our lives is 
reminiscent to the all-encompassing entities we have seen over 
the past century. In the early 1900s, Standard Oil had a 
monopoly on over 90 percent of our country's refining business. 
By the 1970s, if you used a telephone it was going to be Ma 
Bell's system.
    In each instance, you could choose not to use either 
product. But participation in society demanded that you use 
both. In a similar sense, it is difficult if not impossible to 
participate in society today without coming across your 
platforms and using them. We could choose not to use them, but 
like oil and telecommunications, it is considered essential, 
and so many other people do use it.
    Even the government has become an equal contributor. Each 
Member of Congress and every Senator is all but required to use 
your platforms to communicate with their constituents while we 
are in Washington, DC. I know you understand that your 
platforms have a responsibility to act in good faith for 
Hoosiers and all Americans.
    Unfortunately, regularly my Facebook and Twitter accounts, 
like many of my peers and other people I know, are littered 
with hateful, nasty arguments between constituents that stand 
in complete opposition to the ideas of civil discourse that 
your platforms claim to uphold and that you have referenced 
today.
    I am sure you are aware that official government accounts 
have restrictions that significantly limit our ability to 
maintain a platform that is a productive resource of 
information to the public. They have essentially become a micro 
town hall without a moderator on social media.
    I agree with all your testimonies that a trust deficit has 
been growing over the past several years. And as some of you 
have suggested, we need to do something about it now. The way 
in which you manage your platforms in an inconsistent manner, 
however, has deepened this distrust and devolved the public 
conversation.
    My constituents in southeast Indiana have told me they are 
increasingly mistrustful of your platforms, given how you 
selectively enforce your policies. There are just a few 
examples of how this has occurred. Members of the Chinese 
Communist Party have verified Twitter accounts to regularly 
peddle false and misleading claims surrounding the human rights 
violations we know are occurring in northern China.
    Twitter gives the Supreme Leader of Iran a megaphone to 
proclaim derogatory statements endorsing violence against the 
U.S. and Western culture. Twitter accounts associated with the 
Supreme Leader have called Israel a ``cancerous tumor'' and 
called for the eradication of the Zionist regime. This happens 
as he also bans the service for his own people to restrict 
their free expression.
    Mr. Dorsey, clearly you need to do more to address content 
that violates your policies. I have two questions for you. Why 
is the Chinese Communist Party allowed to continue the use of 
your platform after pushing propaganda to cover up human rights 
abuses against Muslims in Northern China? And two, why does the 
Supreme Leader of Iran still half a platform to make threats 
against Israel and America?
    Mr. Dorsey. So first and foremost, we do label those 
Chinese accounts so that people have context as to where they 
are coming from. That is on every single tweet, so people 
understand the source. We think that is important.
    We are reviewing our world leaders policy. We are actually 
taking public comment review right now. So we are enabling 
anyone to give us feedback on how----
    Mr. Pence. If I may interrupt you quickly, Mr. Dorsey. On 
that very point, Iran has been supporting Hezbollah, and it is 
not just saber-rattling, as you have made the statement, or 
your company has made the statement. They have done serious 
damage to whole countries and people, and as I served in the 
military, they killed hundreds of Marines many years ago. So I 
don't know what you have to study about this.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Miss Rice for 5 minutes.
    Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dorsey, what is winning, Yes or No, on your Twitter 
account poll?
    Mr. Dorsey. Yes.
    Miss Rice. Hmm. Your multitasking skills are quite 
impressive.
    In December of 2020, the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs released a report entitled, ``Hijacking Our Heroes: 
Exploiting Veterans Through Disinformation on Social Media.'' I 
ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that this report be 
submitted for the record.
    Mr. Doyle. So ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210325/111407/
HHRG-117-IF16-20210325-SD028.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Miss Rice. Thank you. I bring up the report today because 
it is very--deeply disturbing, the investment of our veterans 
and military service members in the violence that took place on 
January 6. It is estimated that 1 in 5 people charged in 
connection with the attack have served or are currently serving 
in the U.S. military.
    It should come as no surprise to those testifying today 
that for years nefarious actors have learned how to harness the 
algorithms on all of your platforms to introduce content to 
veterans and military service members that they did not 
actively seek out for themselves. Veterans and military service 
members are particularly targeted by malicious actors online in 
order to misappropriate their voices, authority, and 
credibility for the dissemination of political propaganda.
    We have to do better for those who have served our country. 
Mr. Zuckerberg, do you believe that veterans hold a special 
status in our communities and have military training, making 
them prime targets for domestic terrorists and our adversaries 
seeking to foment insurrection?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I certainly believe that 
veterans hold a special place in our society. I haven't seen 
much research----
    Miss Rice. Did you see on the National Mall and at the 
Capitol there were rioters who arrived in combat gear who were 
armed with tactical equipment? Did you see those images, yes or 
no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes.
    Miss Rice. OK. Have you personally talked to the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, IAVA, about disinformation 
campaigns targeting veterans?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. No, Congresswoman, I have not personally, 
although our team certainly is in contact with a number of 
these groups as we set up our policies.
    Miss Rice. Have you talked to the Vietnam Veterans of 
America about disinformation campaigns targeting veterans?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I can get back to you on 
whether our team has consulted with them specifically. But 
broadly, what our teams----
    Miss Rice. Please do. Do you believe that veterans and 
military service members are just like other Americans in that 
they are susceptible to the impulses in human psychology that 
Facebook exploits to drive engagement? Do you believe that they 
are susceptible in that way? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, there is a lot in your 
characterization there that I disagree with.
    Miss Rice. No, no. It is a question of do you think they 
are susceptible to that kind of information coming at them? Yes 
or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I believe that----
    Miss Rice. OK. So given your answers, I am not convinced 
that you have the appropriate resources devoted to the problem 
of mitigating the real-world effects of content that is 
designed to mislead and radicalize your users, especially those 
who are veterans and military service members.
    Would you support legislation that would require you to 
create an Office of Veterans' Affairs that reports to the CEO 
and works with outside veterans service organizations to ensure 
our enemies don't gain ground trying to radicalize our brave 
men and women who serve in our military? Would you support that 
legislation?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I think the details matter a 
lot. So I would be happy to follow up with you or have our team 
follow up with your team to discuss this. But in general, I do 
think that----
    Miss Rice. We will take you up on that, Mr. Zuckerberg. It 
is just a broad stroke: Do you believe that you could find your 
way to support legislation that would have as its goal the 
protection of our military active duty and veterans? In 
principle?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I think in principle, I think something 
like that could certainly make sense.
    Miss Rice. So I wrote to you, Mr. Zuckerberg, last month 
requesting information about Facebook's efforts to curb 
disinformation campaigns that specifically targeted American 
service members and victims. I am just curious if you know how 
many public groups with the word ``veteran'' or public pages 
with the word ``veteran'' did you remove from your platform 
after January 6th in association with misinformation about the 
2020 election or the attack on the Capitol?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I don't know the answer off 
the top of my head, but I would be happy to get back to you 
with that.
    Miss Rice. Thank you. We believe that you should be 
tracking that information. Your platform was in fact a crime 
scene after January 6, and we need that information and data to 
understand how the attack happened.
    I want to thank all three of you for coming here today and 
spending so much time with us. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Armstrong for 5 minutes.
    Is Mr. Armstrong here? You need to unmute, Kelly.
    Mr. Armstrong. All right. Sorry about that. Can you hear 
me?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes. We can hear you.
    Mr. Armstrong. All right. Thank you.
    No other industry receives such bipartisan scrutiny--
disinformation, content moderation, deplatforming, antitrust, 
privacy, and the list continues to grow. We discuss these 
things too often in isolation, but they are all related, and it 
starts with the fact that your users aren't your customers. 
They are the product. More specifically, the data that you 
collect from your users is the product.
    You are incentivized to collect and monetize user data for 
behavior advertising. This results in the collection of even 
more user data. And data is unique as a business asset. It 
doesn't deplete. Data is perpetual and reinforcing. Data begets 
more data. Massive data collection expands your market share, 
which harms competition.
    That is why censorship is so concerning to all of us. Your 
platforms have a stranglehold on the flow of modern 
communication, and I think we absolutely have to resist the 
urge of content moderation and censorship. In 1927, Justice 
Brandeis wrote: ``The remedy to apply is more speech, not 
enforced silence.'' I think that statement still holds true 
today.
    Yet your platforms don't simply silence certain speech. 
Your algorithms are designed to reinforce existing 
predispositions because you profit by keeping users locked into 
what they already enjoy. This leads to information siloes, 
misinformation, extremism on both sides, and even more data 
collection, which repeats the cycle.
    Mr. Pichai, you testified before the House Judiciary 
Committee last year, and at that hearing I raised several 
examples of Google's consolidation of the ad tech stack. Your 
answers large reiterated the privacy justifications, which I 
understand and support. However, my question was whether 
Google's consolidation of both the buy and sell sides of 
digital advertising would further harm competition.
    Since then I have reviewed Google's privacy sandbox and the 
FLoC proposal, which is an alternative group identifier to 
replace third-party cookies. Again, I understand and I 
appreciate the privacy justification. But--and this is my 
question: How will these actions not further entrench Google's 
digital advertising market share and harm competition?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, as you rightfully point out, 
privacy is really important, and we are trying to get that 
correct. Users are giving clear feedback in terms of the 
direction they would like to take. Advertising allows us to 
provide services to many people who wouldn't otherwise be able 
to use services, and we are trying to provide relevant ads, 
protecting their privacy. And that is what FLoC is working on. 
We will----
    Mr. Armstrong. I am going to move on because I understand 
the privacy. I understand the privacy. And I understand the 
rationale of eliminating individual-level tracking in favor of 
cohorts and the potential privacy benefits of user data in CRO 
method device level.
    But this is still eliminating competitors' access to user 
data at a time when you already control 60 percent of the 
browser market. I have real concerns that FLoC will incentivize 
more first-party data collection, which will not actually 
benefit user privacy. Instead of spreading it amongst a lot of 
different companies, it will just all be with you. And so I 
guess my point is Congress needs to conduct careful oversight 
as the privacy sandbox and FLoC are introduced. And we need to 
ensure that the user privacy increases and that competition is 
not stifled further.
    But I do have one question, and it is important. I am going 
to ask all three of you. When we are conducting competition 
analysis in the tech industry, should nonprice factors like 
privacy be considered? And I will start with you, Mr. Pichai.
    Mr. Pichai. I think so. I think privacy is very important, 
and we have called for comprehensive Federal privacy 
legislation. And to clarify, Google doesn't get any access to 
FLoC data. It is protected. And then we will publish more 
papers on it.
    Mr. Armstrong. All right. And I understand completely. But 
you are forcing--I mean, you are forcing advertisers into the 
ad stack. I mean, that is--I don't discount it increases 
privacy. That is not--I think this is a real problem because I 
think they are in conflict with each other.
    But Mr. Dorsey, do you think when we are conducting 
competition analysis in the tech industry, nonprice factors 
should be considered?
    Mr. Dorsey. Not sure exactly what you mean, but open to 
further discussion on it.
    Mr. Armstrong. All right. How about you, Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes, Congressman. My understanding is that 
the law already includes the quality of products in addition to 
price.
    Mr. Armstrong. And I will just say I appreciate you talking 
about the difference between big platforms and small platforms 
because I think in our history of trying to regulate big 
companies, Congress has already done a really good job at 
harming the smaller companies worse.
    And with my last 6 seconds because this isn't the 
appropriate hearing, but I am going to ask: Please all do a 
better job of making sure artists get paid for their work on 
your platforms. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It has often been said that lies travel faster than truth, 
and we have seen that play out with devastating consequences on 
social media platforms today. This concerns me greatly, not 
just as a father or a lawmaker but as someone ready to see the 
past divisions that have dominated our country for the past 
several years, and really decades, really.
    But it is hard to see how this can change when the CEOs of 
the largest social media platforms repeatedly say they will fix 
their ways, only to keep spreading harmful lies and 
misinformation. I want to give you an example.
    Last August here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the North 
Texas Poison Control Center felt the need to warn people 
against ingesting bleach or other disinfecting products as a 
cure to prevent COVID-19. Despite efforts of your companies to 
take down such harmful mis- or disinformation calls to the 
North Texas Poison Control Center about disinfectant, ingestion 
rates were much higher than usual and statewide calls about 
bleach products were up over 70 percent compared to the year 
before. The North Texas Poison Center pointed this out largely 
to misinformation online as the cause for these increases.
    And as we know, in the lead-up to the last elections Black 
communities were specifically targeted for disinformation 
campaigns designed to suppress the vote, especially in 
battleground States. And right now there are sites up that are 
discouraging Black people from getting the COVID-19 
vaccination. I know a lady that was put in Facebook jail for 30 
days because all she did was repost one of the faulty posts 
saying Black folks aren't falling for this business, and she 
was put in Facebook jail for 30 days.
    Now, even if these posts were eventually taken down or 
otherwise labeled as false, again, lies travel a lot faster 
than truths. Your companies have been largely flat-footed when 
it comes to getting out ahead of these issues, and it is time 
for something to change.
    That is why I am exploring legislation that would establish 
an independent organization of researchers and computer 
scientists who could help by identifying and warn about 
misinformation trends before they become viral. This early-
warning system would help social media sites, the public, and 
law enforcement so that when dangerous conspiracies or 
disinformation is spreading, they can be on alert and hopefully 
slow its effect.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, would you support legislation that would 
alert all Facebook or Instagram users of harmful disinformation 
and conspiracy theories spreading across your platforms?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think we need to look into 
that in more detail to understand the nuances. But in general, 
I agree that it is our responsibility to build systems that can 
help slow the spread of this kind of misinformation. And that 
is why we have taken all the steps that I have outlined today, 
from building in an unprecedented independent fact-checking 
program to taking down content that could cause imminent 
physical harm to the work in the COVID Information Center and 
the Voting Information Center and the Climate Information 
Center to promote authoritative information across our 
services. So I certainly think that there is a lot to do here.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dorsey, would you support legislation 
for an early-warning system across Twitter?
    Mr. Dorsey. I would be open to reviewing the details. I 
just don't think it will be effective. And it will be very much 
Whac-a-mole. I think that the more important thing is to, as I 
said in my opening remarks, get much more of an open standard 
and protocol that everyone can have access to and review.
    Mr. Armstrong. And Mr. Pichai? For Google and YouTube and 
that? I have a 14-year-old at home that watches YouTube. What 
about you for those platforms?
    Mr. Pichai. Already today in many of these areas, we show, 
proactively, information panels. So for example on COVID, we 
have showed a lot of information from CDC and other experts, 
and we had views of over 400 billion. And so conceptually, 
showing proactive information, including information panes, I 
think makes sense to me.
    Mr. Armstrong. OK. Well, thank you. I appreciate the time, 
Mr. Chairman. I am worried. I think that we need to act quickly 
and that we are running out of time and that we need these 
companies to take affirmative action on addressing some of 
these issues.
    I yield back my time. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 
back.
    The Chair now yields 5 minutes to Ms. Craig.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, thank you so much for joining us today. As 
cochair of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus in the U.S. Congress, I 
would like to ask you a few questions about an incident that 
occurred several weeks ago now. And I would appreciate a simple 
yes-or-no answer. Most of these have absolutely no room for 
nuance. These aren't trick questions. I would just like to 
clarify a few facts.
    So on February 25th, Facebook took down a video hosted by 
my colleague Representative Marie Newman in which she places 
the transgender flag outside her office. Is that correct, to 
your knowledge? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I am not aware of this.
    Ms. Craig. You are not aware of this?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. No.
    Ms. Craig. Well, the answer is yes. Facebook took her video 
down. According to Representative Newman, the reason Facebook 
gave for taking down the video was that it violated Facebook's 
community standards on hate speech and inferiority. Does that 
seem right to you, that if someone put up a trans flag and took 
a video of it and posted it on your platform, that it should be 
put down?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, no. That doesn't seem right 
to me. But I would need to understand the specifics of the case 
in more details.
    Ms. Craig. Yes. Thank you. The answer is no, it is 
absolutely not right.
    Meanwhile, across the hall, Representative Marjorie Taylor 
Greene from Georgia posted a video to Facebook. Her video 
showed her putting up a transphobic sign so that Representative 
Newman, the mother of a trans child, could ``look at it every 
time she opens her door.'' Facebook allowed Representative 
Greene's video to remain online. Is that right? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I am not aware of the 
specifics. But as I have said a number of times today, we do 
make mistakes, unfortunately, in our content moderation, and we 
hope to fix them as quickly as possible----
    Ms. Craig. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time. The 
answer was yes, Representative Greene's video was allowed to 
remain online. Representative Newman reached out to Facebook, 
and a few hours later her video was restored with a perfunctory 
apology. But Representative Greene's video was never taken 
down. I am not even going to ask you if I am getting that 
right, as I was, because you obviously don't know.
    Are you aware that Facebook has repeatedly flagged the 
transgender flag as hate speech and that trans-positive content 
ends up being taken down while transphobic content, like 
Representative Greene's video, is not taken down and is often 
shared widely? Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I am now aware of that 
specifically, but this is an instance of a broader challenge in 
identifying hate speech, which is that there is often a very 
nuanced difference between someone saying something that is 
racist versus saying something to denounce something that 
someone else said that was racist.
    And we need to build systems that handle this content in 
more than 150 languages around the world, and we need to do it 
quickly. And, unfortunately, there are some mistakes in trying 
to do this quickly and effectively.
    Ms. Craig. Mr. Zuckerberg, I am going to give you your 
nuance this one time.
    As it exists today, do you think your company is going to 
get these content moderation decisions right on the first try 
eventually?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, if what you are asking is 
are we ever going to be perfect, the answer is no. I think that 
there will always be some mistakes, but I think we will get 
increasingly accurate over time. So for example, a few years 
back, we identified----
    Ms. Craig. Mr. Zuckerberg, I only have a couple of minutes, 
or 1 minute left, so I am going to continue here.
    As has been mentioned repeatedly throughout today, we just 
don't have faith that your companies have the proper incentives 
to proactively contemplate and address basic human rights. With 
that in mind, would you support legislation requiring social 
media companies to have an Office of Civil Rights reporting to 
the CEO, and that would mean you would have to reconsider your 
corporate structure, including the civil rights and human 
rights of the trans community?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, we took the unprecedented 
step of hiring a VP of civil rights, and I think we are one of 
the only companies that has done something similar to what you 
are saying.
    Ms. Craig. Well, I hope that you do better, then, because 
this example I am giving you was completely unacceptable. This 
panel has done something truly rare in Washington these days: 
It has united Democrats and Republicans. Your industry cannot 
be trusted to regulate itself.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Trahan for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to turn the focus back to our children. My 
husband and I have five. Our oldest is 27, our youngest is 6, 
and over the years I have noticed how technology has been 
increasingly designed to capture their attention. The more time 
my first-grader spends scrolling through an app, the less time 
she is playing outside or enjoying face-to-face interactions 
with us.
    Google and Facebook are not only doing a poor job of 
keeping our children under 13 off of YouTube and Instagram, as 
my colleagues have already mentioned today, but you are 
actively onboarding our children onto your ecosystems with apps 
like YouTube Kids, Facebook Messenger Kids, and now we are 
hearing Instagram for Kids. These applications introduce our 
children to social media far too early and include manipulative 
design features intended to keep them hooked.
    Mr. Pichai, when a child finishes a video on YouTube or 
YouTube Kids, does the next video automatically play by 
default? And I think this one is a yes or no.
    Mr. Pichai. Sorry, I was muted. Congresswoman, I have 
children, too. I worry about the time they spend online, and I 
agree with you it is an important issue.
    Mrs. Trahan. Yes.
    Mr. Pichai. We design YouTube----
    Mrs. Trahan. The autoplay function by default? That is a 
yes----
    Mr. Pichai. On the main app, it is there, and for each 
video there is an easy on/off toggle. Users have preference to 
select----
    Mrs. Trahan. But the default setting is yes. When a user 
who is predicted to be a teen is watching a YouTube video, are 
the number of likes displayed by default? Yes or no, please?
    Mr. Pichai. On all videos, I think we do have--across all 
videos we have.
    Mrs. Trahan. Right. And Mr. Zuckerberg, will the recently 
reported Instagram app for kids have endless scroll enabled? 
Yes or no?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sorry. Congresswoman, we are not done 
finalizing what the app is going to be. I think we are still 
pretty early in designing this. But I just want to say that----
    Mrs. Trahan. Are you not sure or are you not sharing 
features or--and look, another feature of concern is the filter 
that adds an unnatural but perfect glow for my 10-year-old to 
apply to her face. Is that feature going to be part of 
Instagram for Kids?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I don't know. I haven't 
discussed this with the team yet.
    Mrs. Trahan. Well, look, please expect my office and many 
others to follow up, given what we know about Instagram's 
impact on teen mental health. We are all very concerned about 
our younger children.
    And I just want to speak mother to father for a moment, 
fathers, because leading experts all acknowledge that social 
media sites pose risks to young people--inappropriate content, 
oversharing of personal information, cyberbullying, deceptive 
advertising--the list goes on. And those risks are exacerbated 
with more time children spend in these apps.
    Mr. Pichai, you mentioned that you have children, and I 
have also read you limit their screen time. What do you say 
when one of your children doesn't want to put their phone down?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, the struggle is the same, 
particularly through COVID. It has been hard to moderate it. 
And I do take advantage of the parental controls and the 
digital well-being tools. We can limit the time on their apps. 
And so we have prohibitions in place.
    Mrs. Trahan. I don't mean to cut you off, Mr. Pichai. But 
the last thing overworked parents need right now--especially 
right now--are more complex to-dos, which is what parental 
controls are. They need childcentric design by default.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, I understand your children are younger. But 
when they start using social media, what will you say when they 
are craving their tablet over spending time face to face with 
you or with friends?
    Mrs. Trahan. Well, Congresswoman, we haven't gotten to that 
point yet. But we are designing all of these tools--we designed 
Messenger Kids that the parents are in control. I think we have 
proven that that can be a good and safe experience. And I think 
that was one of the things that made us think that we should 
consider doing this for Instagram as well, by having it so that 
we have a parent-controlled experience and, as you say, 
childcentric experience for people under the age of 13----
    Mrs. Trahan. I am going--I am going to reclaim my time, 
only because. Connecting with others is one thing. Adding 
filters, no breaks for kids to take, and manipulating the 
design of these apps for our children is another. Look, this 
committee is ready to legislate to protect our children from 
your ambition.
    What we are having a hard time reconciling is that, while 
you are publicly calling for regulation--which, by the way, 
comes off as incredibly decent and noble--you are plotting your 
next frontier of growth, which deviously targets our young 
children and which you all take great strides, with infinitely 
more resources, in protecting your own children.
    This playbook is familiar. As some of my colleagues have 
pointed out, it is the same tactic we saw from alcohol 
companies and Big Tobacco: Start 'em young and bank on them 
never leaving, or at least never being able to. But these are 
our children, and their health and well-being deserve to take 
priority over your profits.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Fletcher for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairman Doyle. And thanks to you 
and Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking Members Latta and 
Bilirakis for holding this hearing today. I agree with my 
colleagues. There is a broad consensus on a range of issues, 
and I appreciate the discussion.
    As we have discussed extensively today, one of the big 
challenges of this rise of dangerous disinformation is that it 
denies us a basic set of shared facts to enable an informed 
debate like what we are having here today. And it is absolutely 
vital that we take charge and that we address this.
    What we have seen is that countries whose interests are not 
aligned with ours, extremist organizations and others, have 
used online social media platforms to engage and to amplify 
extremist content and disinformation, from the COVID-19 
pandemic to the January 6 insurrection, both of which we have 
talked about extensively.
    We have seen that the real-world cost of this unchecked 
spread of disinformation is in lies. And like my colleagues, I 
worry that the structure of many social media companies, 
including those we have before us today, prioritize engagement, 
including engagement with provocative or extremist content, 
over responsible corporate citizenship.
    So one of my greatest concerns regarding how extremist 
content and disinformation is allowed to spread on your 
platform is the lack of data transparency when it comes to 
independent analysis. Now, everyone has claimed they have an 
internal system, that it is about the systems, that you need 
good systems to remove and delete disinformation and extremist 
content.
    But we have no way to verify how effective those systems 
are. And that is a huge part of the challenge before us. I 
think we all would agree that we need data and information to 
make good policy and to write good legislation which will be 
coming out of this committee.
    So that brings me to a followup on my colleague Miss Rice's 
questions about data. As she mentioned, and it is my 
understanding that all three of your platforms chose to remove 
content that was posted regarding the Capitol insurrection on 
January 6. And I think we can all understand some of the 
reasons for that. But as a result, it is unavailable to 
researchers and to Congress.
    So my question for each of you is: Will you commit to 
sharing the removed content with Congress to inform our 
information of the events of January 6 and also the issues 
before us today about how to respond to extremist and dangerous 
content online?
    And I will start with Mr. Zuckerberg.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Thanks, Congresswoman. When we take down 
content that might be connected to a crime, I think we do, as a 
standard practice, try to maintain that so that we can share it 
with law enforcement if necessary. And I am sure our team can 
follow up to discuss that with you as well.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Sure. I appreciate that. And I understand 
that you have a legal obligation to cooperate with authorities 
and law enforcement in these cases. And I think that what I am 
talking about is also sharing it with us in Congress, and I 
appreciate your response there.
    Mr. Dorsey?
    Mr. Dorsey. We would like to do this, actually. We have 
been thinking about a program for researchers to get access to 
actions that we had to take. But all of this is subject to 
local laws, of course.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, and that may be something that we can 
help craft here. So I think that it is consistently something 
we have heard from researchers as well. It is a real area of 
challenge in not having the data. So I appreciate that.
    And Mr. Pichai? Do you also agree?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman--sorry, I was muted--we are 
working with law enforcement, and happy to connect with your 
office. And we cooperate as allowed by law while balancing the 
privacy of the people involved.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you. So I appreciate all of your 
willingness to work with us and to assist Congress in 
addressing this attack on our Capitol and our country.
    Another idea that I would like to touch base with you on in 
the time I have left, just over a minute, is the difference we 
see in how your platforms handle foreign extremist content 
versus domestic content. By all accounts, your platforms do a 
better job of combating posts and information from foreign 
terrorist organizations, or FTOs, like ISIS or al-Qaeda and 
others, where the posts are automatically removed, depending on 
keywords and phrases, et cetera.
    The FTOs are designated by the State Department. There are 
rigorous criteria to identify groups that wish to cause harm to 
Americans. Currently there is no legal mechanism or definition 
for doing the same for domestic terror and hate groups.
    Would a FSederal standard for defining a domestic terror 
organization similar to FTOs help your platforms better track 
and remove harmful content from your sites? Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I am not sure. I think 
domestically we do classify a number of white supremacist 
organizations and militias and conspiracy networks like QAnon 
as the same level of problematic as some of these other 
organizations that are able to take decisive action.
    I think where this ends up being more complicated is where 
the content is----
    Mrs. Fletcher. I hate to cut off, but I am going to run out 
of time. So your answer was, ``I am not sure.'' Could I just 
get a quick yes or no from Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, but very quickly because your time is 
expired. Very quickly.
    Mr. Dorsey. We need to evaluate it. We need to understand 
what that means.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Mr. Pichai?
    Mr. Pichai. We as domestic agencies focus on that, I think 
we are happy to work and cooperate there.
    Mr. Doyle. OK. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. It is my understanding we have--let's see--eight 
Members who were requesting to waive on for the hearing. I 
believe we have given all members of the subcommittees their 
opportunity to speak. So we will now start to recognize the 
Members waiving on. And first on the list here I see Mr. 
Burgess.
    Doc Burgess, are you with us?
    Mr. Burgess. Yes. Sorry. I couldn't find my cursor.
    Mr. Doyle. OK. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our 
witnesses for spending so much time with us. This is clearly a 
very important issue to every member of this committee 
regardless of which political party they identify with.
    I guess, Mr. Zuckerberg, let me just ask you a question 
because it strikes me, listening to your answers to both our 
colleague Jeff Duncan and our colleague Angie Craig--both 
coming at the issue from different directions--but the concern 
is that there was the exercise of editorial authority over the 
postings that were made on your website. Is that a fair 
assessment?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I am not sure what you mean. 
But I think content moderation and enforcing standards, I don't 
think that that is the same kind of editorial judgment that, 
for example, a newspaper makes when writing a post.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes. But maybe it is, because Mr. Duncan 
eloquently pointed out there was restriction of conservative 
speech. And our colleague, Angie Craig, eloquently pointed out 
how there was restriction of trans-affirming speech. So that 
strikes me that we are getting awfully close to the line of 
exercising editorial discretion.
    And forgive me for thinking that way, but if that is--and I 
am sure I am not alone in this--it does call into question, 
then, the immunity provided under Section 230. Maybe it is not 
a problem with the law itself, Section 230. Maybe the problem 
is that the mission has changed in your organization and other 
organizations.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I am not sure what you mean. 
But we have clear standards against things like terrorist 
content, child exploitation, incitement of violence, 
intellectual property violations, pornography--things that I 
would imagine that you agree with. And we can enforce----
    Mr. Burgess. All spelled out in the plain language of 
Section 230. But again, you are putting restrictions on 
conservative speech. Mr. Duncan eloquently pointed out how that 
is occurring. Angie Craig eloquently pointed out how you are 
putting restrictions on trans-affirming speech. None of those 
fall into any of the other categories that you are describing.
    Because to the casual observer, it appears that you are 
exercising editorial authority, and as such maybe you should be 
regulated as a publisher as opposed to simply someone who is 
carrying--who is indifferent to the content that they are 
carrying.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I think one of the virtues of 
Section 230 is it allows companies to moderate things like 
bullying that are not always clearly illegal content but that I 
think you and I would probably agree are harmful and bad.
    So I think it is important that companies have the ability 
to go beyond what is legally required. I do not think that that 
makes these internet platforms the same thing as a news 
publisher who is literally writing the content themselves. I do 
think we have more responsibility than maybe a telephone 
network, where----
    Mr. Burgess. Let me interrupt you in the interest of time 
because I want to pose the same question to Mr. Dorsey.
    Mr. Dorsey, every Presidential tweet that I read following 
the election had an editorial disclaimer appended to it by you. 
How does that not make you someone who is exercising editorial 
discretion on the content that you are carrying?
    Mr. Dorsey. Our goal with our labels was simply to provide 
connection to other data and provide context.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes. But you don't do that routinely with 
other tweets. It seemed to be a singular assignment that 
someone had taken on, to look at whatever the President is 
publishing. ``We are going to put our own spin on that.'' And 
again, that strikes me as an editorial exercise.
    And the only reason I bring this up and we are going to 
have these discussions, I recognize that smaller companies just 
starting out, the protection of Section 230 may be invaluable 
to them. But you all are no longer just starting out. You are 
established. You are mature companies. You exercise enormous 
control over the thought processes of not just an entire 
country but literally the entire world. You are exercising 
editorial discretion. I do think we need to revisit Section 230 
in the terms of, have you now become actual publishers as 
opposed to simply carriers of information?
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for allowing me 
to waive on.
    Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. While there 
are many issues I would like to raise with you, my most 
pressing unresolved questions revolve around what I saw and 
experienced on January 6, when I had to dive for cover in the 
House gallery as violent insurrectionists attempted to break 
down the doors and take the chamber.
    The rioters who breached the Capitol building were 
propelled by at least one bully that the election had been 
stolen from former President Donald Trump. They reached this 
false and dangerous conclusion, yet somehow in massive numbers. 
Their assault was not disorganized or isolated, and it was not 
coincidence.
    So Mr. Zuckerberg, you and your colleagues have downplayed 
the role Facebook played in helping the rioters mobilize on 
January 6. In light of growing evidence that suggests 
otherwise, including the fact that Facebook was the most cited 
social media in charging documents the Department of Justice 
filed against insurrectionists, do you still deny that your 
platform was used as a significant megaphone for the lies that 
fueled the insurrection?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, to be clear, I think part of 
the reason why our services are very cited in the charging docs 
is because we worked closely with law enforcement to help 
identify the people who were there. So I don't view that that 
collaboration with law enforcement should be seen as a negative 
reflection on our services.
    And as I have said a number of times to today, there was 
content on our services from some of these folks. I think that 
that was problematic. But by and large, I also think that by 
putting in place policies banning QAnon, banning militias, 
banning other conspiracy networks, we generally made our 
services inhospitable to a lot of these folks. And that had the 
unfortunate consequence of having those folks not use Facebook 
and use other places as well.
    So there is certainly more for us to do. But I stand behind 
the work that we have done with law enforcement on this and the 
systems that we have in place.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Pichai, can you affirmatively state that YouTube did 
not recommend videos with Stop the Steal content, white 
supremacy content, and other hate and conspiracy content that 
was seen by rioters at the Capitol?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, we had clear policies and we were 
vigorously enforcing this area. Just leading up to the 
election, we had removed hundreds of thousands of videos, and 
we had terminated 8,000 channels. And on the day of the riot, 
we were successfully able to take down inappropriate 
livestreams. We gave precedence to journalistic organizations 
covering the event. And that is the content we raised up on 
YouTube that day. And since then we have been cooperating with 
law enforcement as well.
    Mr. Tonko. So you're indicating that you did not recommend 
videos with Stop the Steal?
    Mr. Pichai. We were rigorously enforcing. We had clear 
policies around content that undermined election integrity. 
Once the States certified the election on December 8th, we 
introduced a Sensitive Events policy and we did take down 
videos which were violative. And so we have been monitoring it 
very closely.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Mr. Dorsey, are you confident that the conspiracy 
theorists or other purveyors of electoral misinformation and 
Stop the Steal on Twitter were not recommending to others?
    Mr. Dorsey. I can't say that I was confident, but I know we 
did work really hard to make sure that if we saw any 
amplification that went against the terms of service, which 
this would, we took an action immediately. We didn't have any 
up-front indication that this would happen, so we had to react 
to it quite quickly.
    Mr. Tonko. All right. Thank you. And who and what content 
your platforms recommend have real-world consequences, and the 
riot caused five deaths and shook our democratic foundations. 
And I believe that your platforms are responsible for the 
content you promote, and look forward to working with my 
colleagues to determine how to hold you accountable.
    Mr. Pichai, Google and YouTube often slip under the radar 
as a source of disinformation. But in the last election, bad 
actors used ads on Google Search to scam people looking for 
voting information, and YouTube failed to remove videos that 
spread misinformation about the 2020 vote results.
    So Mr. Pichai, when journalists pointed out in November 
that election misinformation was rampant on Google's YouTube, 
the company said it was allowing discussions of election 
processes and results. A month later YouTube said it would 
remove new content alleging widespread voter fraud in the 2020 
election. Why did YouTube wait a month to take action on 
election misinformation?
    Mr. Pichai. If I could clarify here, we were taking down 
videos leading up to the election. There is obviously a month 
from the date of election till there are due processes, co-
challenges, and we waited till this--we consulted with CISPA 
and Association of Secretaries of State. And on December 8, 
when the States certified the election, we started enforcing 
newer policies on December 9th.
    To be very clear, we were showing information from the 
Associated Press, and we were proactively showing information 
high up in our search results to give relevant information 
throughout this election cycle.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. McKinley for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this panel. You 
all have to be exhausted after being grilled all day long like 
this.
    So my questions are to Mr. Zuckerberg.
    When you came before our committee in 2018, you 
acknowledged that Facebook had used what you just said, ``clear 
standards,'' preventing the sale of illegal drugs on your site. 
But you were shown examples of active posts that traffickers 
were still using that platform unlawfully to sell prescription 
opioids. You did apologize and confirm that ``social media 
companies need to do a better job of policing these posts.''
    Now, 3 years later it appears a shell game is emerging. 
Facebook seems to have cleaned up its act, but you are now 
allowing Instagram, one of your subsidiaries, to become the new 
vehicle. Even though Instagram has the same policies against 
the sale of illegal substances, you are still allowing bad 
actors to push pills on your site.
    It didn't take long for our staff to find numerous 
examples. For example, here is oxycodone that is being sold on 
your site. Here is Ritalin that is being sold on your site. 
Here is Xanax and Adderall that is being sold on your site. So 
these posts have--they are not new. They have been active since 
last fall.
    If we can find posts this easily, shame on you for not 
finding them for yourself. Apparently you are not taking the 
warnings of Congress seriously. After drug manufacturers dumped 
millions of pills in our community, killing thousands, ravaging 
families, and destroying livelihoods, Congress responded by 
passing laws to hold them liable.
    If a retail store is selling cigarettes to underage kids, 
that store is held liable. So why shouldn't you be held liable 
as well? Do you think you are above the law? You are knowingly 
allowing this poison to be sold on your platform into our 
communities, to our children, to our vulnerable adults.
    Look. I have read Scott Galloway's book ``The Four.'' I 
encourage all the members on this committee to read his book. 
It is a perfect depiction of the arrogance of Big Tech 
companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon. He develops 
a very compelling argument as to why Big Tech companies should 
be broken into smaller companies, much like that occurred to 
AT&T in 1984.
    Maybe it is time for Congress to have an adult conversation 
about this loss of liability protection and the need to reform 
our antitrust laws. I don't think Congress wants to tell you 
how to run your company, but maybe it should.
    So Mr. Zuckerberg, let me close with this one question: 
Don't you think you would find a way to stop these illegal 
sales on your platforms if you were held personally liable?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. I keep on getting muted.
    Congressman, we don't want any of this content on our 
platforms, and I agree with you that this is a huge issue. We 
have devoted a lot of resources and have built systems that are 
largely quite effective at finding and removing the content. 
But I just think that what we all need to understand is that at 
the scale that these communities operate, where people are 
sharing millions or, in messages, billions of things a day, it 
is inevitable that we will not find everything, just like a 
police force in a city will not stop every single crime.
    Mr. McKinley. I agree.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. So I think that we should----
    Mr. McKinley. But I ask you the question very directly, 
Mark. Should you not be held liable when people are dying 
because your people are allowing these sales to take place? We 
did it with manufacturers. We do it to the stores. Why aren't 
we doing it to the salesman that allows this to take place?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Well, Congressman, I don't think we are 
allowing this to take place. We are building systems that take 
the vast majority of this content off our systems. And what I 
am saying----
    Mr. McKinley. We have been dealing with this for 3 years, 
Mark. Three years this has been going on. And you said you were 
going to take care of it last time, but all you do is switch 
from Facebook over to Instagram. They are still doing it now. 
And you are saying ``We need to do more.''
    Well, how many more families are going to die? How many 
more children are going to be addicted while you still study 
the problem? I think you need to be held liable.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, we are not sitting and 
studying the problem. We are building effective systems that 
work across both Facebook and Instagram. But what I am saying 
is that I don't think that we can expect that any platform will 
find every instance of harmful content. I think we should hold 
the platforms to be responsible for building generally 
effective systems at moderating these kinds of content.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. McKinley. I am not going to get an answer, Mike. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Ms. Blunt Rochester for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing 
me to waive onto this important hearing. And thank you to the 
witnesses.
    I want to focus on two areas: first, a consumer protection 
and safety issue, and second, more broadly, manipulation and 
privacy of our data.
    On consumer protection and safety, earlier this year two 
infants from two different families ended up in the intensive 
care unit in Wilmington, Delaware, after being fed homemade 
baby formula based on instructional videos viewed on YouTube. 
One infant suffered from cardiac arrest that resulted in brain 
damage.
    For years, the American Academy of Pediatrics has warned 
parents against homemade baby formulas because it puts infants 
at risk of serious illness and even death. And since at least 
2018, the FDA has recommended against the use of homemade 
formula. Even as recent as 29 days ago, the FDA issued an 
advisory against homemade formula.
    In February, my office informed your team, Mr. Pichai, and 
as a followup I have sent a letter requesting information and 
action on this issue in the hopes of a response by April 1st. 
Mr. Pichai, this is just a yes-or-no question: Can I count on a 
response to my letter by the deadline of April 1st?
    Mr. Pichai. Congresswoman, definitely yes. Heartbreaking to 
hear the stories. We have clear policies. Thanks for your 
highlighting this. I think the videos have been taken down, and 
we are happy to follow up and update the team.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. We checked today. For years, these 
videos have clearly violated your own stated policy of banning 
the videos that endanger the, as you say, ``physical well-being 
of minors.'' And so I am pleased to hear that we will be 
hearing back from you.
    And while we are considering Section 230, what is clear 
from this hearing is that we should all be concerned by all of 
your abilities to adequately--and just as importantly, 
rapidly--moderate content. In some of these cases, we are 
talking life and death.
    Second, as many of my colleagues have noted, your companies 
profit when users fall down the rabbit hole of disinformation. 
The spread of disinformation is an issue all of us grapple with 
from all across the political specimen. Disinformation often 
finds its way to the people most susceptible to it because the 
profiles that you create through massive data collection 
suggest what they will be receptive to.
    I introduced the DETOUR Act to address common tactics that 
are used to get such personal data as possible. And these 
tactics are often called ``dark patterns,'' and they are 
intentionally deceptive user interfaces that trick people into 
handing over their data.
    For the people at home, many of you may know this as when 
you go on an app, it doesn't allow you to have a No option, or 
it will insinuate that you need to do something else, install 
another program like Facebook Messenger app to get on Facebook.
    You all collect and use this information. Mr. Pichai, yes 
or no: Would you oppose legislation that banned the use of 
intentionally manipulative design techniques that trick users 
into giving up their personal information?
    Mr. Pichai. We definitely are happy to have oversight on 
these areas and explain what to do.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. I have to go to Mr. Dorsey. 
Mr. Dorsey, yes or no?
    Mr. Dorsey. Open to it.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Zuckerberg?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I think the----
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes or no, please.
    Mr. Zuckerberg [continuing]. Principle makes sense, and the 
details matter.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. Mr. Zuckerberg, your company 
recently conducted this massive ad campaign on how far the 
internet has come in the last 25 years. Great ad. You end it 
with a statement: ``We support updated internet regulations to 
address today's challenges.'' Unfortunately, the proposal that 
you direct your viewers to fails to address dark patterns, user 
manipulation, or deceptive design choices.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, will you commit now to include deceptive 
design choices as part of your platform for better internet 
regulations?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I will think about it. My 
initial response is that I feel there are other areas that I 
think might be more urgently in need.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. That might be your--if you say this is 
a desire of yours to address the issues that we face today, 
dark patterns goes back to 2010, this whole issue of deceptive 
practices. And I hope that you will look into it.
    I will say--Mrs. Trahan and others have mentioned--she 
mentioned our children. Others have mentioned seniors, 
veterans, people of color, even our very democracy, is at stake 
here. We must act and assure you--we will assure you we will 
act.
    Thank you so much, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back 6 
seconds.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady yields 
back.
    And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    According to new data from the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, Siler Pythian found the vast majority 
of child exploitation reports from Big Tech sites. Facebook had 
the most, 20.3 million. Google was second with 546,000-plus. 
Twitter had 65,000-plus. Put in perspective, MindGeek, the 
Canada-based parent company of major portion websites, had 
13,229. Facebook claims 90 percent of the flagged incidents 
were duplicates. All right. Let's accept that. That still 
leaves over 2 million incidents--2 million incidents.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, yes or no, does Facebook have a problem 
with child exploitation on its platform?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, this is an area that we work 
on a lot. But the recent why those numbers are so high is 
because we are so proactive about trying to find this and send 
it to NCMEC and others who are doing good work in this area. We 
send content and flags over to them quite liberally, whenever 
we think that we might see that something is at issue.
    And that is, I think, what the public should want us to do, 
not criticize us for sending over a large number of flags but 
should encourage the companies to do it.
    Mr. Griffith. So you are admitting that you all have a 
problem, and this is one way you are trying to work on it.
    Mr. Pichai, yes or no: Do you agree with Mr. Zuckerberg 
that you all have a problem? Are you there?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, sorry, I was muted. This is an 
area which we invest very heavily. We have been praised by 
several authorities. We work proactively----
    Mr. Griffith. So the answer is yes.
    Mr. Dorsey, yes or no: Do you agree?
    Mr. Dorsey. If we see any problems, we try to resolve them 
as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Griffith. But you do have problems, and that is why you 
are trying to resolve them. I get that. The problem is, when 
you are talking about millions of incidents, and we take 90 
percent of them as duplicates from the Facebook data, that is 
millions of incidents that are happening where our children are 
being exploited with child pornography on you all's sites. We 
have got to do better.
    I think you all need, for everything that we have talked 
about today, an independent industrywide review team like the 
electronic industry did with the Underwriters Laboratory nearly 
150 years ago. I told you all that when you were here before. 
Nobody has done anything. I don't think it needs to be within 
your company. I think it needs to be outside.
    And on that vein, I would say to Google, special permission 
was given to Moonshot CVE to target ads against extremist 
keywords. Moonshot then directed thousands of individuals who 
searched for violent content to videos and posts of a convicted 
felon who espouses anti-law-enforcement, anti-Semitic, and 
anarchist viewpoints.
    Mr. Pichai, are you aware of this problem?
    Mr. Pichai. Congressman, I am not aware of the specific 
issue. Last year we blocked over 3.1 billion bad ads, 6,000 ads 
per minute. And so we enforce vigorously. But I am happy to 
look into this specific issue and follow up back with you.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, here is what happened. You partnered 
with an outside group that didn't do their job. What are your 
standards when you partner with an outside group? What are your 
standards, and what are your philosophy? Because they sent 
people who were already looking for violence to a convicted 
felon with anarchist and anti-Semitic views.
    Mr. Pichai. There is no place for hate speech, and I am 
disappointed to hear of this. We will definitely look into it 
and follow up back with you.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, and I appreciate that. I recognize 
that. But I have the same concerns that Mr. McKinley had. And 
you weren't here last time, but we heard these same kinds of 
things about how ``we are going to work on it'' and how ``we 
are going to get these problems resolved.'' And I forget when 
that hearing was, but a year or so ago.
    And yet we continue to have the same problems, where 
political candidates' information is being taken down because 
for some reason it is flagged, where conservatives and people 
on the left are being hit and taken down. And I agree with many 
of the sentiments on both side of the aisle that, if you all 
aren't doing anything and it appears that you are not moving 
fast enough, we have no choice in Congress but to take action.
    I don't want to. I would rather see you all do it, like the 
electric industry did with Underwriters Laboratory. But nobody 
is doing that. Nobody is coming up with a group that both sides 
of the aisle and the American families can feel comfortable 
with. And so we are going to have to take action, and it is 
probably going to be this year.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Schrier for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am a pediatrician, and I have spent my life calming 
patients who are nervous about vaccines because of online 
misinformation. In fact, that is why I introduced a Vaccines 
Act when I was a new Member of Congress. Did you know that 
there are doctors who, after spending their entire day on the 
front line fighting this virus, come home at night and spend 
their scarce free time and family time fighting misinformation 
about vaccines online? And this misinformation, of course, 
comes primarily from Facebook and Twitter.
    So the question is: Why do they do that? Well, they do it 
because of things like this that happened after I introduced 
the Vaccines Act. Here are some overt threats:
    ``Keep shoving this vaccine monitor down people's throats 
and expect riots.''
    ``Be careful. You will answer for this tyranny one day.''
    ``She needs to just disappear. Can we vote her out of 
office? I am enraged over these poison pushers.''
    ``We have weapons and are trained to fight off possible 
forced vaccinations. I will die protecting my family.''
    And then there is just the misinformation.
    ``It says 'safe and effective' many times, yet no vaccine 
has been studied in a double-blind study.'' False.
    ``Who is going to take this vaccine? I heard rumors that it 
changes a person's DNA.'' False.
    ``You do not give''--excuse my language--``You do not give 
a shit about the health and welfare of our children. This 
horrid vaccine has already killed 600 people. You are 
deplorable.'' And of course that again is false.
    So while the overt threats are unsettling, particularly 
after January 6, I think about this whole ecosystem, your 
ecosystem, that directs a hostile sliver of society, en masse, 
to my official Facebook page. And these are not my 
constituents. In fact, most came from two specific groups that 
directed their members to my page.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, I have some questions for you. I know you 
understand these issues are important, and sometimes 
misinformation can be very hard to spot. Would you agree?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I agree with both of those. 
This is important, and the enforcement processes can be 
difficult.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. And I heard your answer earlier to 
Representative Upton's question, that there are 35,000 people 
doing content review of posts that have been flagged by users 
and AI. Can you tell me what ``content review'' means and how 
many of those 35,000 are dedicated to topics regarding health?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, yes. What the people are 
doing overall is, you know, content gets flagged, either by the 
AI systems or by another person in the community. And if the AI 
can't by itself determine that something either violates or 
doesn't, then it gets flagged for human review and human 
judgment. And the 35,000 people go through all those different 
queues, focused on all the different types of harms that we 
have discussed today.
    I don't have the number off the top of my head about how 
many of them are focused on vaccine misinformation. But, as you 
know, we have a policy that doesn't allow vaccine 
misinformation, and we work with the WHO and CDC to take down 
false claims around COVID, and the vaccines around that, that 
could cause harm.
    Ms. Schrier. That is where it really gets tricky, because 
you have to have experts and healthcare professionals who 
really understand. Are your people trained in healthcare to 
really even be able to discern what is real, what is fake, and 
what to take down?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, the people who set the 
policies either are experts in these areas or engage in a 
consultative process where they talk to a lot of these 
different folks. In this case, we largely defer to the CDC and 
WHO on which claims they think are going to be harmful. And 
then we try to break that down into kind of very simple 
protocols that the 35,000 people can follow and that we can 
build into AI systems to go find as much of that content 
proactively as possible without requiring all those people to 
be medical experts.
    Ms. Schrier. So with my short time remaining I would love 
to jump to that part about the CDC because I want to turn my 
attention to the COVID resource center that you describe as a 
central part of your efforts to fight misinformation directed 
over 2 billion people to the COVID-19 Information Center.
    But on the information page, almost all of the content 
links to additional Facebook pages. It looks to me like an 
extension of Facebook's walled garden that just keeps users on 
the site instead of leading directly to authoritative, trusted 
sources like the CDC.
    So knowing that your platform is a large source of 
misinformation, did you consider just referring people directly 
to sites like the CDC rather than keeping them within your 
platform?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congresswoman, I think we have considered 
both, and I think we have done both in different cases. The 
team is very focused on building this in the way that is going 
to be most effective at getting people to actually see the 
content, and I believe that they have concluded that showing 
content from people within a person's community that they are 
going to trust on the service is one of the most effective 
things that we can do.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crenshaw for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here. It has been a long one.
    I have been on some social media longer than anyone in 
Congress, I think. I was one of the first schools to have 
Facebook back in 2004. And it seemed to me that the goal of 
social media was simply to connect people.
    Now, the reason we are here today is because, over time, 
the role of social media has expanded in an extraordinary way. 
Your power to sway opinions and control narratives is far 
greater than the U.S. Government's power ever has been.
    So I noticed a trend today. There is a growing desire from 
many of my colleagues to make you the arbiters of truth. See, 
they know you have this power and they want to direct that 
power for their own political gain. Mr. Zuckerberg, since 
Facebook was my first love, I am going to direct questions at 
you. And this isn't a trick question, I promise.
    Do you believe in the spirit of the First Amendment--free 
speech, robust debate, basically liberal values?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Crenshaw. See, my colleagues can't infringe on the 
First Amendment. The American people in their speech are 
protected from government, as they should be. My colleagues, 
this administration, they can't silence people they disagree 
with no matter how much they want to.
    But I do think they want to. Just in this hearing, I have 
heard Democrats complain about misinformation, by which they 
clearly mean political speech they disagree with. They have 
complained today that Prager University content is still up. I 
have heard them accuse conservative veterans of being tinfoil-
hat-wearing extremists, and that opinions on climate change 
that they disagree with should be taken down.
    This is quite different from the Republican complaint that 
illegal content needs to be addressed. There is a growing 
number of people in this country that don't believe in the 
liberal values of free speech and free debate. I promise you, 
the death of the First Amendment will come when the culture no 
longer believes in it. But that happens and it becomes OK to 
jail or investigate citizens for speech, like has happened in 
Canada and throughout Europe. Their culture turned against free 
speech.
    You all sitting here today as witnesses are part of the 
culture. You can stand up for the spirit of open debate and 
free speech, or you can be the enemy of it. Your stance is 
important because it is clear that many want to weaponize your 
platforms to get you to do their bidding for them.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, do you think it is your place to be the 
judge of what is true when it comes to political opinions?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, no. I don't believe that we 
should be the arbiter of truth.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. And look. I promise you this: As 
long as you resist these increasing calls from politicians to 
do their political bidding for them, I will have your back. 
When you don't, you become an enemy of liberty and longstanding 
American tradition.
    You might all agree in principle with what I just said. Mr. 
Zuckerberg, you clearly do, and I appreciate it. I have a 
feeling the others would answer it as well, I just don't have 
time to ask everybody. But the fact remains that community 
standards on social media platforms are perceived to be applied 
unequally and with blatant bias.
    Mr. Dorsey, in just one example, I saw a video from Project 
Veritas that was taken down because they confronted a Facebook 
executive on his front lawn. But here is the thing: I can show 
you a video of CNN doing the exact same thing to an old woman 
who was a Trump supporter in her front yard. I have looked at 
both videos. It is an apples to apples comparison. CNN remains 
up, Project Veritas was taken down.
    I will give you a chance to respond to that. I have a 
feeling you are going to tell me you have to look into it.
    Mr. Dorsey. I don't have an understanding of the case, but 
I would imagine, if we were to take a video like that down, it 
would be due to a doxxing concern, private address.
    Mr. Crenshaw. The address was blurred out. Look, you don't 
have it and you don't have the case in front of you. I get 
that. The point is that there are countless examples like this. 
I just found that one today. But there are countless examples 
like this.
    So even if we agree in principle on everything I just went 
over, you guys have lost trust. And you have lost trust because 
this bias is seeping through. And we need more transparency. We 
need a better appeals process, more equitable application of 
your community guidelines, because we have to root out 
political bias in these platforms.
    I think--and I have talked with a lot of you offline or at 
least your staff, and I think there is some agreement there. 
And I haven't heard, in this hearing, anybody ask you what 
you're doing to achieve these goals. So I will allow you to do 
that now. Maybe, Mr. Zuckerberg, we will start with you.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Sorry. To achieve which goals?
    Mr. Dorsey. More transparency, more feeling that--better 
appeals process for content taken down, more equitable 
application of community guidelines.
    Mr. Zuckerberg. So for transparency, we issue quarterly 
community standards enforcement reports on what prevalence of 
harmful content of each category--from terrorism to incitement 
of violence to child exploitation, all the things that we have 
talked about--how much of it there is and how effective we are 
at finding that, and states around that.
    For appeals, the biggest thing that we have done is set up 
this independent oversight board, which is staffed with people 
who all have a strong commitment to free expression, for whom 
people in our community can ultimately appeal to them and that 
group will make a binding decision, including overturning 
several of the things that we have taken down and telling us 
that we have to put them back up, and then we respect that.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes----
    Mr. Crenshaw. I yield back seconds.
    Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Last but not least, my fellow 
Pennsylvanian, Mr. Joyce. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you for yielding. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman and the ranking members, for convening this hearing. I 
thank you all. It has been a long day.
    But this is an incredibly important day. We have heard 
consistently during this hearing about alarming accounts of 
content policing, censorship, and even permanent deplatforming 
of individuals. I have also been concerned about the lack of 
transparency and consistency in Facebook's application, of 
Facebook's own standards.
    As you mentioned, I am a representative from Pennsylvania, 
and in my district Facebook shut down the personal pages of 
Walt Tuchalski and Charlotte Shaffer as well as the Adams 
County Republican Committee Facebook page that they 
administered in historic Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. And this all 
occurred without warning.
    Since the pages were taken down in December, these 
Pennsylvanians haven't received an acceptable answer from 
Facebook about why they were banned, nor have they been given 
the opportunity to appeal this decision.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, could you please explain how something like 
this could happen?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I am not familiar with those 
specific details. But in general, I agree that building out a 
better appeals process and better and more transparent 
communication to people about why specific decisions were made 
is one of the most important things that we need to do next. 
And that is one of the big things on our roadmap for this year 
and next year, and I hope we can dramatically improve those 
experiences.
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Zuckerberg, may I get from you a commitment 
that a more concise and transparent appeals process will be 
developed?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, yes. We are working on more 
transparent communication to people and more of an appeals 
process as part of our product now, like I just said.
    Mr. Joyce. And will you commit to getting my constituents 
answers as to why they were banned?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I can certainly have my team 
follow up with them and make sure that we can do that.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you for that.
    I am also concerned by potential partisan bias in 
Facebook's enforcement of its content policies. Shutting down 
the Adams County Republican Committee Facebook page strikes me 
as an infringement on speech, and that is normally protected in 
the public domain.
    Mr. Zuckerberg, does Facebook maintain data on how many 
Democrat and Republican county committee pages that you have 
banned from your platform?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. No, Congressman, we don't. We don't 
generally keep any data on whether the people who use our 
platform are Democrats or Republicans. So it is hard for us----
    Mr. Joyce. Then let me--time is running short here, and it 
is a long day. But Mr. Zuckerberg, you say you have not 
maintained that data. Would you consider gathering such data to 
verify that there is no political bias in your enforcement 
algorithms?
    Mr. Zuckerberg. Congressman, I am not sure that that is a 
great idea. I don't know that most people would want us to 
collect data on whether they are a Democrat or a Republican and 
have that be a part of our overall system.
    Mr. Joyce. I think there is a huge disparity, as I 
represent Pennsylvania. And I think that that data would be 
appreciated if shared with us in a fair manner.
    My next question is to Mr. Dorsey. Does Twitter maintain 
data on the political affiliations of accounts that you block?
    Mr. Dorsey. No.
    Mr. Joyce. Have you determined that any political bias is 
necessary for your enforcement?
    Mr. Dorsey. I'm not sure what you mean, but no.
    Mr. Joyce. I think that these discussions today are so 
important. I think that you all recognize that the platforms 
that you represent have developed an incredible ability for 
Americans to connect and contact. But this free speech that we 
hold so dear to us must be maintained.
    Again, I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
bringing us together and allowing us to present what I feel are 
sincere concerns to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 
back.
    Everyone who wanted to ask a question has asked one. And I 
want to thank all of you for your patience today. I request 
unanimous consent to enter the following records, testimony, 
and other information into the record:
    A letter from Asian Americans Advancing Justice.
    A letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights.
    A letter from New America's Open Technology Institute.
    A letter from New York Small Farma, Limited.
    A statement from the Alphabet Workers Union.
    Letters from National Black Justice Coalition.
    A letter from Sikhs for Justice.
    A letter from State AGs.
    A letter from the Computer and Communications Industry 
Association.
    A letter from AVAAZ.
    Opening statement from Anna Eshoo.
    A blog from Neil Fried of DigitalFrontiers Advocacy.
    A letter from the music community.
    A letter from the Disinfo Defense League.
    A letter from Consumer Reports.
    A report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate called 
``The Disinformation Dozen.''
    A letter from the Coalition for a Secure and Transparent 
Internet.
    A letter from the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education 
Fund.
    A letter from gun violence survivors, Faces of Tech Harm 
Congress.
    Letter to YouTube from Rep. Eshoo.
    Letter to Facebook from Rep. Eshoo.
    Letter to Twitter from Rep. Eshoo.
    A longitudinal analysis of YouTube's promotion of 
conspiracy videos.
    A letter from the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies.
    A CCIA statement.
    A comment by Donovan, et al., from the Technology and 
Social Change team.
    A Wall Street Journal article titled ``Facebook Executives 
Shut Down Efforts to Make Site Less Divisive.''
    A Voice of America article titled ``FBI: Surge in Internet 
Crime Cost Americans $4.2 Billion.''
    A Global Research Project report.
    An opinion article titled ``Google Is Not Cracking down on 
the Most Dangerous Drug in America.''
    An MIT Technology Review article titled ``How Facebook Got 
Addicted to Spreading Misinformation.''
    An article from the Independent.
    An article from the New Yorker.
    A letter from the Coalition for a Safer Web.
    A New York Times article titled ``Tech Companies Detect a 
Surge in Online Videos of Child Sex Abuse.''
    An MIT Review article titled ``Thank You for Posting: 
Smokers Lessons for Regulating Smug Social Media.''
    An article from Imprimis.
    An article from The Atlantic.
    A New York Times article titled ``Square, Jack Dorsey's Pay 
Service, Is Withholding Money Merchants Say They Need.''
    A response letter from Twitter to Rep. Rodgers.
    A response letter from Google to Rep. Rodgers.
    A response letter from Facebook to Rep. Rodgers.
    An article from Engadget.
    A letter regarding Spanish language misinformation.
    Data from the Centers for Disease Control: ``The National 
Survey on Drug Use and Health.''
    And Mercado, Holland, Leemis, Stone, and Wang regarding 
teen mental health.
    A report from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Open Technology Institute, New York Small Farma, and AVAAZ 
letters with accompanying reports, the MIT Technology Review article, 
and the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Global Research Project, 
and House Committee on Veterans' Affairs reports are saved in committee 
files and are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Doyle. I want to thank our witnesses today for 
appearing. We appreciate it. We appreciate your patience while 
you answered these questions from all Members. I hope you can 
take away from this hearing how serious we are on both side of 
the aisle to see many of these issues that trouble Americans 
addressed. But thank you for being here today.
    I want to remind all Members that, pursuant to Committee 
Rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who 
have appeared. And I would ask each witness to respond promptly 
to any questions that you may receive.
    At this time, this hearing is adjourned.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes?
    Ms. Schakowsky. Jan Schakowsky here.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes. You are recognized.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. As chair of the Consumer 
Protection and Commerce Subcommittee, I just want to say that I 
was glad to be really a cochair of this. I think you did a 
great job, Mike, in making this happen. It is 5 and a half 
hours. I want to thank the witnesses for doing your best to 
answer the questions, or at least being willing to be here to 
hear all the questions. You can see there is a lot of concern.
    We want to work with you and we want to work with each 
other in order to move ahead. As I said at the very beginning, 
if you take one thing away from this hearing today, is that 
these democratically elected Members are ready to act, are 
ready to legislate, are ready to regulate in your arena. And we 
are hoping that we can work with you as well.
    So thank you, Mike, and I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Jan. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:33 p.m., the subcommittees were 
adjourned.]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo

    Chairs Doyle and Schakowsky, thank you for holding this 
critically important hearing.
    As I've said before, misinformation is killing Americans 
and damaging our democracy. Social media companies--Facebook, 
YouTube, and Twitter--are a major cause of misinformation 
proliferating across society.
    We'll hear a lot today about content moderation issues. I 
have no knowledge of what my colleagues will ask today, but 
we've all seen this movie before. I've asked, as have my 
Democratic colleagues, why companies won't remove posts and 
accounts that spread misinformation. My colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have asked the opposite question about why 
certain posts and accounts are being taken down. Though I 
haven't found evidence for any alleged anticonservative bias, I 
hear their point and doubt I or this hearing will change minds 
on this issue. These are indeed important questions and issues, 
but these issues are the symptoms. It's time we start 
addressing the disease.
    To truly address misinformation, we have to address root 
problems.
    First, we must use Section 230 strategically. I was a 
conferee for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which included 
the now famous Section 230. I have a reverence for the core 
idea of the statute--online user speech must be protected. 
However, we could not have conceived of the role internet 
platforms would play in amplifying, recommending, and sorting 
content using complex and opaque, AI-driven algorithms. Too 
often, platforms are the ones amplifying illegal or harmful 
speech, including speech that leads to offline violence.
    This is why Rep. Malinowski and I reintroduced our 
legislation, the Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms 
Act, which narrowly amends Section 230 to remove liability 
immunity for a platform if its algorithm is used to amplify or 
recommend content directly relevant to a case involving 
interference with civil rights (42 U.S.C. 1985); neglect to 
prevent interference with civil rights (42 U.S.C. 1986); and in 
cases involving acts of international terrorism (18 U.S.C. 
2333). 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 are Reconstruction-era statutes 
originally designed to reach Ku Klux Klan conspirators. Sadly, 
they are being invoked in lawsuits against insurrectionists and 
perpetrators of the January 6th attacks.
    This bill is not a panacea for all online harms--no bill 
is--and I believe it can pair well with some other narrow 
Section 230 reforms that are being suggested. We should use a 
scalpel, not a sledgehammer, in reforming this critically 
important law.
    Second, we must ban surveillance advertising. We've begun 
to work in silos where privacy is one problem, advertising is 
another, and misinformation is a third. I think this is the 
wrong way to see things. All of these problems, and others, are 
interconnected. We have to work on all of them and more.
    Surveillance advertising is the root of the tree where the 
poisonous fruit of misinformation thrives. It incents platforms 
to maximize engagement by collecting unseemly amounts of data 
to target ads and amplify content that induces anger, anxiety, 
and fear. It's why algorithmic amplification thrives unchecked.
    That's why, Rep. Schakowsky and I will introduce a bill in 
the coming weeks to ban surveillance advertising altogether. 
Misinformation is a deadly problem, and we must address it at 
its roots. When a business model is fundamentally harmful, it 
shouldn't continue.
    Finally, traditional content moderation must be improved. 
Platform companies have made important efforts to combat COVID-
19 misinformation but the outcomes show that more must be done. 
According to a Walgreens executive, about 60% of employees and 
20% of residents at long-term care facilities declined 
vaccines. National polls similarly show high levels of 
hesitancy, and social media is often cited as the cause of 
vaccine hesitancy.
    Some platforms have turned to removing COVID misinformation 
that can cause ``imminent harm'' and labeling the rest. 
Research shows that introducing additional information to 
someone that believes medical or science-related misinformation 
can backfire and cause them to further entrench in their 
preexisting views. The implication is clear: Labels just don't 
cut it. When it comes to COVID-19 misinformation, companies 
must rely on removals.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                 [all]