US Senate Hearing Puts Social Media CEOs on the Stand
Daniel Wang • February 18, 2024
Social media platform CEOs, from left: Discord’s Jason Citron, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew, X’s Linda Yaccarino, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg during Senate Judiciary Committee’s “Big Tech” hearing on Capitol Hill, Washington D.C. on Wed. Jan. 31, 2024. – Susan Walsh/AP photo
Introduction
On Jan. 31, 2024, five of the world’s largest social media magnates were summoned to testify in an incredibly tense and heated U.S. Senate hearing. Members of Congress relentlessly bombarded chief executives of Meta, Snap, TikTok, X, and Discord for their seeming and utter lack of action to combat an ongoing issue of society: the online child sexual exploitation crisis.
Officially dubbed the “Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis,” the meeting sought to address the rampant circulation of child pornography and decline of teenage mental health, both occurring in correlation with social media. U.S. Senator Maj. Whip Dick Durbin facilitated interview-styled Q&As between Senators and the CEOs, a majority of whom were legally forced to testify.
Who were the witnesses?
Chief executives Mark Zuckerberg and Shou Zi Chew of Meta and TikTok respectively willingly testified under Congress, while Jason Discord, Linda Yaccarino, and Evan Spiegel of Discord, X, and Snap respectively were summoned “pursuant to subpoenas issued by the Committee.” For nearly four hours, they were grilled with waves of insinuating and accusatory questions.
Cotton’s connections to McCarthyism
Likely the most memorable interview was conducted by Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas. His vacuous questions toward TikTok CEO Chew diverted entirely from the focal point of child exploitation and trafficking; even worse, they were reminiscent of the work of McCarthyism from the 1950s, in which Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy launched a campaign of paranoia against alleged Communist affiliates and sympathizers.
“Do you agree with Joe Biden, is Xi Jinping a dictator?” Chew declined to answer, instead responding that, as a businessman, it would be “inappropriate for [him] to comment on world leaders.”
“Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?”
“Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?”
These were among some of the more controversial questions he asked. For every question that attempted to smear Chew’s name with Communist affiliations, Cotton’s own reputation ironically smeared itself in McCarthy’s legacy. The former was able to address all questions in a respectable, dignified manner, though he was visibly agitated by their repetitive and accusatory nature.
“We have a company that is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party, that is poisoning the minds of America’s children– in some cases driving them to suicide– and at best the Biden administration is taking a pass on, at worst may be in collaboration with,” was the Senator’s presumptuous closing statement.
The problem with the corporate liability shield
Other Senators followed a more restrained approach of interviews. Many raised concerns about social media companies’ liability shield and lobbying, both of which have protected them from hundreds of lawsuits. That immunity has been what several argued to be the root cause of the entire online conflict.
Senator John Kennedy, the topic’s main spearhead, also brought up an important point of opinionated algorithms: that social media has become a “killing field for the truth.” Indeed, his argument holds merit in that the feeds (quite literally called ‘For You Page’ on multiple platforms) provide content based on individuals’ preferences and enjoyment. Zuckerberg circumvented this address in his responses with incredibly vague counterpoints, as did the other CEOs with a majority of questions.
How were arguments posed throughout the hearing?
Another potent source of power U.S. Senators drew from was the appeal to emotion and ethics.
Georgia Democrat Senator Jon Ossoff demanded whether Meta’s CEO, and in fact all others as well, had a “fiduciary obligation” to induce higher levels of engagement between his users and platforms.
Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn accused Zuckerberg of perceiving his users not as priority but product. She additionally raised an incredibly controversial point sourced from Meta internal documents, in which Zuckerberg personally evaluated the individual worth of each teenager’s lifetime to be approximately $270. As it happened, outraged adolescents in the audience members were wearing corresponding t-shirts in protest, presenting the harrowing message: “I’m worth more than $270.”
Perhaps the most apparent appeal Senators utilized in the hearing was the appeal to parents. Over four different Senators relied on the frustrations and anguish of parents not only watching on national television, but those in the audience and on the Senate panel too.
Mark Zuckerberg speaking directly to parents at the Jan. 31 hearing. – Anna Moneymaker/Getty
Ultimately, the pressing issue of child behaviors and their exploitation online may not be fully resolved by today’s Senate hearing alone. There is only so much lawmakers can work with against massive corporations and liability shields. Furthermore, many today claim that it isn’t the responsibility of social media executives to protect children on an individual basis, but rather the parents’.
Their most viable argument is that it’s hardly ever the creator of a tool who is to blame for its misuse. As demonstrated by their responses that day, all five social media executives have implemented regulatory management and enforcement actions, parental controls, and security measures in efforts to protect younger demographics. Rather, as opponents claim, it is the duty of a parent to be actively engaged, responsible, and communicative with their children to ensure their safety and behavior online. Only in collaborative efforts as such can parents work to reduce the staggering likelihood of suicide rates, drug acquisition, and mental disorders correlated to (or perhaps consequent of) social media.
Both sides present valid perspectives on this case, however, and it is far from easy to discern a black-and-white distinction between who’s actually responsible. Senators indeed hold good intentions with this hearing; it is one of the few in which an issue has transcended bipartisan politics, in which both Republicans and Democrats unanimously believe it to be of dire importance. Parents hold good intentions too– as most naturally would with their children– and want the best for their children.
As a result, it is the reader’s responsibility in the end to properly assess the situation at hand and to evaluate the actions, whether purposeful, corporate, or negligent, of social media CEOs for themselves.