There are accusations of censorship regarding the Big Tech hearing

Sensitivity of Social Media Companies to US Election Threats in 2024: A Hearing on the RT News Obscuring Twitter and Tenet Media

Top policy executives from Meta, Microsoft, and Google testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday about what they’re doing to protect US voters from foreign election threats in 2024. The pressure campaign social media companies faced from the right to have more hands-off approach when it comes to labeling or demoting misinformation was the elephant in the room.

The purpose of the hearing was to impress upon the companies that they need more extensive safeguards against foreign entities with an interest in influencing US politics.

Warner, a proponent of expanding cooperation between the government and Silicon Valley to root out campaigns by Russia, Iran, and China, among other legally designated rivals, described the recent efforts by Russia as both “effective and cheap.”

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control placed sanctions this month on 10 Russian citizens, several of them employees of the state-funded news outlet RT, formerly Russia Today. The US secretary of state accused the Russian outlet of being used by the intelligence services of the country to spread their propaganda around the world. And earlier this month, US authorities accused RT employees of bankrolling right-wing influencer network Tenet Media.

Doppelgangers: How the tech giants have taken to public criticism: Reply to Musk and Rubio on Meta, Sputnik, and Google

Warner noted—almost as an aside—that Elon Musk’s X had refused to send a representative to testify Wednesday. A spokesperson for Warner told WIRED that X’s former chief of global affairs, Nick Pickles, had previously agreed to appear before the committee; however, he resigned from the company roughly two weeks later. X wouldn’t give a replacement. Someone could not be reached for comment.

Warner received the companies that did appear amicably, praising the “positive role” they’ve played during the government’s recent actions: Meta’s recent decision, for example, to ban RT and its subsidiary Sputnik from its platforms. Warner spoke about recent decisions at Microsoft and Google to publicly reveal information about foreign election threats.

The operation, dubbed “Doppelganger,” allegedly relied on influencers and paid social media advertisements, as well as fake accounts that mimicked US citizens—in some cases with the help of artificial intelligence. In private documents obtained by the FBI, the operation’s principal director—a little-known Russian political strategist named Ilya Gambashidzer—is alleged to have stated plainly: “They are expecting fake news from us every day.”

Warner said he agreed with Rubio that Americans can say whatever they want “no matter how crazy.” He said that there was a difference between foreign intelligence service cherry-pick and amplify it.

In their responses to lawmakers, the tech executives were mindful of the political minefield they faced. Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, said that two important principles in election threats should be the preservation of free expression and the fight against deceptive tactics from foreign nations. Meta president of global affairs Nick Clegg told Rubio that when it came to their handling of covid content, “I think we learned our lesson” that when governments exert pressure, they need to act “independently.” Kent Walker told Cotton that the company kept the New York post story about Biden up after an independent investigation.

Platforms like Meta have historically tended to follow the lead of the scientific community and government in these sorts of cases. Now, some are making a show of pushing back. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently told House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) he regretted not being more “outspoken” about “government pressure” around covid content, though he acknowledged that taking down content is ultimately the company’s decision. Warner said the company failed to provide an adequate replacement after the one they offered left the company a couple of weeks before the hearing. Warner said TikTok had been a potential participant, but there had been concerns about timing, due to arguments in its case against the government.

A recent Supreme Court case dealt with the lines between unconstitutional government demand and permissible pressure. Republican attorneys general had accused the Biden administration of coercing tech platforms to remove or demote speech like covid-19 disinformation, leading to temporary restrictions on the White House’s communication with tech platforms.

The Supreme Court made a decision which cleared the way for the government to discuss misinformation with tech companies about elections, and the AGs did not have standing as it was decided they did not have standing. Warner told reporters after the hearing that communication between the government and tech companies is already “much better.” But he lamented during the hearing that “we are less safe today because many of those independent academic reviewers have been litigated, bullied or chased out of the marketplace,” referring to institutions like the Stanford Internet Observatory.