Facebook Handling of Trump Divides Senate, Spurs GOP CDA S. 230 Review

Facebook’s handling of President Donald Trump’s recent post about looting (see 2006100027) is dividing the Senate along party lines, leading Republicans to examine amendments to Section 230, as expected (see 2005290058). Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said in interviews they are exploring proposals for altering the tech industry’s liability shield.

Democrats criticized Facebook’s inaction. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the platform is granting the president special speech privileges, placing him above other users. The company responded that it erred on the side of free speech, a comment echoed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

The company is aware of backlash from organizations like Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute, a spokesperson noted. Those nonprofits said last week they won’t accept funding from Facebook (see 2006100027). The company donated $300,000 to OTI in 2019 and $180,000 in 2018, according to the organization. OTI’s IRS Form 990 filing showed $24.9 million in net assets for 2018. OTI didn’t comment.

PK doesn’t publish exact donations but listed Facebook as a donor of more than $25,000 for 2018-19. Google, Amazon, AT&T and CTA are also on that donation list. About two-thirds of PK’s annual funding is from foundation support and the “balance from corporate and individual giving,” a spokesperson emailed. PK will be “accepting $0 from Facebook for 2020,” it said. PK’s Form 990 showed $4.2 million in net assets for 2018.

“We've heard from some organizations about their disagreement with a number of the content decisions we've made and we appreciate their feedback,” the Facebook spokesperson emailed. “We look forward to continuing to work with them on these important topics and others.”

The company cited Mark Zuckerberg’s recent justification, saying Facebook will continue to err on the side of free expression “even when it's speech we strongly and viscerally disagree with.” The CEO said it's “committed to making sure we also fight for voter engagement and racial justice too.”

“I think they should err on the side of non-censorship,” Wicker told us. “If it’s just incendiary or defamatory,” that’s one thing, he said. “I must say I have not studied the examples. I err on the side of not censoring.”

The policies are inconsistent, incoherent and accommodating to Trump, Schatz said: “They want to take his money. They are afraid of his" DOJ. He called the president’s executive order, written in response to Twitter’s censoring and labeling of his tweets, “more bullying, more working the refs.” The order might not have the force of law, but it could be more “insidious than that,” Schatz said. He claimed Facebook users are posting “literally the same verbiage the president used, and they get their account suspended.” It’s one thing to grant the president free speech, but it’s another to grant him speech privileges that others don’t enjoy, the lawmaker added: “If anything, there should be a heightened responsibility because of his unique power in society.” Schatz said he’s continuing to discuss a Section 230 proposal with Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D. (see 1912180052).

Cruz is considering a number of legislative angles. Section 230, antitrust law and consumer fraud cases are potential avenues, he said: If Big Tech isn’t willing to be neutral, “there’s no reason on earth why Big Tech should get a special immunity from liability that no one else does.” On Twitter’s handling of the Trump tweets, he said, “If you disagree with what somebody says, the right response is to disagree with them, make your case on the merits.” The platform didn’t comment Tuesday.

“I think Twitter at long last took some action, which is commendable,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told us. “The others failed to address that responsibility.”

Cruz said he met with top DOJ, FTC and White House officials, urging the administration to use all tools necessary to stop industry censorship.

Despite what people think about the merits of Trump’s order, it affects social media platform decisions because executives are constantly making cost-benefit analyses, said R Street Institute Resident Fellow-Technology and Innovation Jeffrey Westling. Facebook is cognizant that angering the president can lead to the threat of regulation, he said.

Hawley confirmed he’s pursuing a proposal on behavioral ad practices, which he said is a “huge source of” platform dominance. Blackburn told us she’s working on a legislative proposal: “Censorship is something we’re going to continue to work on, and we’re going to address. I’m working on some Section 230 reforms as I’ve been doing this for years. We’ll continue with it.”