At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Senator John Curtis (R-UT) questioned representatives from Google, Meta, and several advocacy groups about the influence of algorithms on online content and the implications of Section 230 protections.
Senator Curtis focused on whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is being used as originally intended. He stated, “We all know that Section 230 was meant to protect platforms that acted in good faith,” adding, “But when an algorithm downranks speech or drives users towards extremism because it’s good for engagement, is that really good faith moderation? And should Section 230 immunity apply when you as a company or industry make decisions that magnify certain content and downgrade other content?”
During his questioning, Curtis compared the current debate over algorithms to past hearings with tobacco companies. Addressing Markham Erickson from Google, he asked about platform engagement: “I actually think this is going to be a lot like the tobacco hearings. You’re saying, years from now, when we look back in history, there’s going to be no study or internal conversations that says, ‘it’s good to have people stay on our platform longer?’” Erickson responded by saying, “Senator, we want people to stay on our platforms.”
Will Creeley from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression expressed concern about increased government regulation. In response, Curtis said: “The interference starts when [tech companies] apply an algorithm to content… the moment you make a decision to magnify [that content], do you not own that decision?”
Curtis concluded by calling for further discussion about why tech companies’ actions regarding algorithms should receive legal protection.
