October 1, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 171 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S6023-S6024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ONLINE FREEDOM AND VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY ACT

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed testimony from Mr. 
Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Mr. Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, Inc., and Mr. 
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.
  I supported the issuance of these subpoenas, and I look forward to 
hearing testimony on the content moderation policies used by their 
respective platforms.
  Over the past few months, I have worked with many members of this 
body on a statutory fix to section 230 of the Communications Decency 
Act, specifically to the ingrained liability shield that platforms like 
Facebook use to defend their content moderation policies. Over the 
years, we have seen Big Tech's biggest players stretch this shield 
beyond all recognition, far beyond the limits Congress envisioned when 
they passed the original act in 1996.
  Now, content moderators wield their power with abandon, banning and 
deleting content they disagree with right alongside content of the most 
vile, universally repulsive nature. Last month,

[[Page S6024]]

in response to growing outcries over censorship, I introduced the 
Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act with Chairman Lindsey Graham 
and Chairman Roger Wicker to introduce accountability into our dealings 
with digital platforms and services.
  This bill is unique because it doesn't do specifically what so many 
here in Washington would like it to do: It doesn't delete section 230 
from the U.S. Code, nor does it put the power to decide what 
information should and should not be available online in Congress's or 
regulators' hands. All it does is remove ambiguities from the original 
statutory language to help companies and consumers better understand 
when that liability shield is and is not applicable.
  Still, as we move forward with legislation, it is important to 
remember that we are creating policy for the internet we have now and 
will have in the future and not the internet we had back in 1996, hence 
the reason for the subpoenas we are sending to those three Silicon 
Valley executives. They are the ones who created the internet we have 
today, and their justifications and perspectives regarding the future 
of content moderation could prove useful. Subpoenas do change the tone 
of the conversation, but we view this as a rare opportunity to glean 
both insight and accountability from the tech industry.

                          ____________________