But industry observers warned of a bumpy road ahead, as partisan bickering may derail regulatory efforts. That could mean that even as lawmakers agree that something must be done nationally, it could be stymied as they disagree on the fundamental issues at hand and how to address them.
“I think if there is legislation, it's going to be very broad, in order to try to compromise and break this really large gap between the two parties,” said Ashley Johnson, a senior policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “And I think that the internet, if there is very broad legislation, will probably suffer as a result from that.”
Content moderation: Too much or too little?
Before regulations can advance in Congress, a major sticking point between the two parties on social media remains: how to approach content moderation.
For the most part, Democrats believe social media companies should do more to remove dangerous content, including misinformation and posts that promote violence and harassment. Through legislation, Democrats believe they can get social media platforms to clean up their content.
“A couple of years ago, the debate focused almost entirely on content moderation,” Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), who sponsored legislation to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that provides immunity to websites from liability for content posted by users, said in an interview. “‘Should content be taken down? Is that censorship? Where do you draw the line?’ And, of course, there are still people that are concerned about that, particularly on the Republican side. But as we look at regulation, there's greater and greater focus on the underlying design of the social networks, on how extremism and misinformation spreads.”
Republicans, meanwhile, allege that conservative voices and viewpoints are censored on social media. If Democrats do not come around to that view, they say, cooperation will not be possible.
“Republicans are fighting for free speech, while Democrats continue to push for more censorship and control,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in an email. “Bipartisanship will not be possible until Democrats agree that we need less censorship, not more. Our hope is Democrats choose to defend that foundational principle and abandon their censorship desires. Only then can we come together to hold Big Tech accountable."
Despite the apparent disagreement on the issues at stake, multiple lawmakers hailed the bipartisan desire to reach agreement on regulations, especially after two subcommittee hearings at the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One hearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology discussed removing social media companies’ shield from liability for content posted by users, while the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce discussed other reforms that it said would help build a “safer internet.”
“There’s some overlap; both parties want these platforms to take some responsibility for their own actions,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, said in an email.
And lawmakers agreed that the testimony of former Facebook Inc. employee Frances Haugen and the revelations in the Facebook Files and Facebook Papers makes it imperative to act.
“There was a reason that Ms. Haugen blew the whistle: our neighbors are at risk, and we can't wait to take meaningful action," Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said in an email.
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) added in an email that Haugen’s “revelations and testimony make clear we must act.” Both Castor and Eshoo have co-sponsored several pieces of legislation to further regulate social media.
Meta Platforms Inc. spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.
ncG1vNJzZmiooqR7rrvRp6Cnn5Oku7TBy61lnKedZK6zwMico56rX6i8pLXApWSmnZSerm6%2BxKCspZmknryvec%2Boo6VlYmV%2Fcw%3D%3D