Transcript: Senate Hearing on Jawboning with Meta and Google Execs

Senate Republicans convened their latest hearing on Wednesday renewing allegations that the Biden administration inappropriately coerced social media companies to censor content related to the coronavirus pandemic, claims the Supreme Court largely rejected last year.

The hearing was the latest in a series of sessions planned by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) and the first to feature testimony from executives at Meta and Google, who testified that while their companies did face pressure from senior Biden administration officials to remove content, they acted independently in deciding how to enforce their policies.

During the hearing, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed concern about the prospect of the federal officials coercing tech and media companies into removing material they disfavored, but views on when that exactly has occurred were not unexpectedly split along party lines.

The witnesses were Neil Potts, vice president of public policy at Meta; Markham Erickson, vice president of government affairs and public policy at Google; Will Creeley, legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; and Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge.

While Cruz and other Republicans focused on interactions between tech companies and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the last administration, Democrats again spoke out against Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s threats to strip broadcast licenses from major TV networks over their programming decisions.

Among the key exchanges:

• Both Meta’s Potts and Google’s Erickson proactively acknowledged facing pressure from Biden administration officials, but Potts — whose company has more aggressively courted Republicans on the issue since President Donald Trump took office — went a step further and denounced those actions. “To be clear, we believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we’d been more outspoken about it,” he said.
• Google’s Erickson said the company has stood firm against government pressure, including during the Biden administration. “We reach our own conclusions and take enforcement action with our own determination, and sometimes that means we tell the government no,” he said. But Google faced heat from Republicans for not speaking out more forcefully against the Biden administration’s actions.
• Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the committee’s ranking member, again called for the committee to turn its attention to Carr and the FCC. “We might have the right hearing, but I’m not sure we have the right witnesses. We might have the right questions, but I’m not sure we have the right administration we’re calling into question,” she said.
• Cruz again teased plans to introduce legislation aimed at curtailing government jawboning, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”
• Cruz legislative efforts around jawboning drew some unlikely praise, with Google’s Erickson saying the company supports “in principle” some of his recent recommendations on the issue, and Feld echoing the sentiment. “Congress can pass legislation to promote transparency and make it easier for those threatened to defend themselves in court,” Feld said. “Such legislation however must be carefully crafted to avoid interfering with the legitimate contacts between governments and companies or creating a disincentive to necessary oversight and enforcement.”

Below is a lightly edited transcript of the hearing, “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans.” Please refer to the official audio when quoting.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Good morning. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to order. In 1984, George Orwell chillingly explored how the control of speech is the control of the mind. In describing this world, Orwell powerfully demonstrated how an authoritarian government can suppress the ability of a person to speak, dissent, and think in order to control its people. Long before Orwell, our founding fathers recognized this threat as well. After witnessing a long train of abuses and usurpations by the British Crown, including the suppression of speech and thought. 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence, speaking out in defense of man's natural rights and beginning the formation of a new free nation built upon one's ability to speak and dissent against the government. The American founders knew all too well that being unable to speak out against government encroachment of your ensures the loss of those rights.

The right to speak out is the foundation of a free society. It gives everyone, whether a senator or a citizen, a contrarian or a comedian, the power to persuade and to hold government accountable. And that's why all of us need to defend and protect the most powerful weapon we have against the government's ability to censor its own citizens: the First Amendment. Censorship around the world is growing. Even allies like the United Kingdom are making arrests for so-called offensive speech, like criticism of open borders and peaceful prayer near abortion clinics. President Reagan was right when he declared that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Here in the United States, we must uphold free speech and zealously guard against censorship. Earlier this month I convened a hearing to examine how our own government, particularly the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, censored in secret, often through third parties. CISA and White House officials jawboned big tech into deleting tweets, downranking posts, and deplatforming conservatives under the guise of safety and national security.

We heard the stories of Alex Berenson and Shawn Davis who were personally targeted by the Biden administration apparatchiks for opinions and facts they shared on COVID and election fraud. They not only suffered significant financial loss, but more importantly they were silenced by their own government. Today, we pick off where the story left off, with witnesses from two big tech companies that were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people: Google and Meta. Today, these same companies claim to zealously advocate for free speech. While I welcome their newfound religious conversion, they owe apologies to Alex Berenson, to Shawn Davis, and to countless Americans they silenced at the Biden administration's behest. No major tech company, let alone the ones before us, publicly spoke out when this was happening. They were silenced. Despite armies of lobbyists and legal resources without limit, big tech was speechless when the Biden White House bullied them censoring regular citizens.

Neither big tech nor any of my Democrat colleagues spoke up. They seemed quite content to follow the example of the United Kingdom, criminalizing speech that some find offensive under the guise of "misinformation". But the fact is the government cannot or at least should not be the arbiter of truth. You don't get to decide free speech protections are available only to favored or popular speech. It's not up to bureaucrats and politicians to decide which speech is reasonable and which is hateful and then only accept that speech that they find to be socially acceptable and inoffensive. You don't get to cancel someone for using the wrong pronouns or challenging conventional wisdom on vaccines. Now, our commitment to free speech under the rule of law means protecting speech that some people find unreasonable, or offensive, or even hateful. So what does that mean in practice? Alex Berenson and Sean Davis can prove that the Biden administration was behind their online censorship, yes, but they still face significant legal obstacles in recouping their losses.

Their stories and countless others like them have revealed dangerous gaps in our legal protections for free speech. It cannot be that their First Amendment rights go unremedied merely because the violators are no longer in office or because Congress has withheld a damages remedy. This collusion between big government and big tech is a warning that we need stronger tools to guard our cherished freedoms. That's why I will soon introduce new legislation, the Jawbone Act, which will provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government. I'm hopeful that today's hearing will reflect bipartisan interest in protecting free speech and finding common ground on measures like this one. We cannot remain idle in the face of government agencies manipulating private companies into silencing their critics. We must act decisively to uphold the First Amendment, to protect open debate, and to defend every American's right to speak freely without fear of government reprisal. I'll now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing, for the witnesses being here, but my fundamental question is, still is, where is Brendan Carr? We might have the right hearing, but I'm not sure we have the right witnesses. We might have the right questions, but I'm not sure we have the right administration we're calling into question. I will take the opportunity to ask the witnesses about AI, about algorithms, about competition on platforms, but as we discuss censorship today, this hearing isn't serious if it ignores the ongoing corporate consolidation greenlighted by the Trump administration, which is only approving deals that come with a political pro quo. Mr. Feld, in your testimony you talk about "consolidation amplifies the ability to control content on an unprecedented scale". And I appreciate that you recognize the threat posed by corporate consolidation of free speech and independent journalism. In fact, you also say "a handful of opaque algorithms are controlling the majority of discussion online".

Just this year, FCC Chairman Carr approved Skydance's $8 billion acquisition of Paramount, but only after Paramount paid $16 million to settle with President Trump and install a first term Trump appointee as the ombudsman at CBS. And FTC Chairman Ferguson approved Omnicom's $13 billion acquisition of Interpublic, creating the world's largest media buying agency while ignoring the serious concerns about market consolidation. So rather than protecting consumers and competition, the FTC imposed conditions to favor certain kinds of content. The FTC later in complaints, as Mr. Feld is saying in his testimony, are really important to have somebody at the FTC that is making sure that we understand the consumer harm when you reduce competition when you basically are reducing investment. The consolidation of audiences and advertising dollars on just a few social media platforms pose real risk to democracy, to the sustainability of local, diverse, and trusted media sources. When a handful of companies control how information spreads, that makes it easier for any administration to abuse that power with political threats to chill speech.

But we've seen both Meta and Google recently reached a $25 million settlement with President Trump. Those settlements raise concerns about the kind of back channel arrangements that can distort information. The stakes are high now because as we look to turning to AI for the future, how will that tool be used? A July poll from the Associated Press show that 60% of Americans use AI to find information. While AI is a tremendous power for good, this trend raises concerns over the concentration and monopolization of that information. The amount of control in the hands of just a select few could erode the foundation of free speech. The First Amendment isn't just a line in the Bill of Rights. It is about an operating system for our democracy that protects everybody, comedians, protesters, the free press, and obviously people we disagree with. That is why this committee should focus on ensuring competition, diverse and truly independent media systems, and all supportive of both transparency expressed in this panel's testimony today and in the previous panel's testimony. Transparency in process can be a very good antiseptic.

The proposed TikTok deal is a perfect example of danger when those principles break down. It places yet another major media platform under control, already Paramount, CBS, Skydance, and reportedly those seeking to buy Warner Brothers Discovery. What are the details of how we are going to rid the Chinese influence of these algorithms and their misuse of algorithms? I am still waiting for that explanation. So we've seen how consolidation erodes both competition and we only have a handful of companies owning outlets that Americans rely on for news, entertainment, and those companies become easier to intimidate. So I ask again, where is Chairman Carr? These are important issues. I hope they will appear before this committee at some point in time because we need to understand the direction that we are going in our country to protect free speech. And that is why the work of this committee should be, as you said, Mr. Chairman, to defend the First Amendment and have a free diverse media landscape. It is more urgent than ever. Thank you.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you very much. And I would note the Ranking Member asked where Brendan Carr is, as she knows this committee has already announced we will be having oversight hearings and Brendan Carr will be testifying before this committee. And indeed in the preceding two years when the Democrats had the majority on this committee, we had precisely zero oversight hearings of the FCC. We had zero oversight hearings of the FTC. And I haven't announced it, but we will be having oversight hearings of the FTC as well because this committee has a responsibility to engage in oversight. So Mr. Carr will be here and each member of this committee on both sides of the aisle will be able to question him on any policies or questions they like.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

I look forward to that date.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

I now want to introduce our witnesses for today. Our first witness is Markham Erickson, the vice President of Governmental Affairs and Public Policy at Google. Mr. Erickson leads Google's Government Affairs and Public Policy Centers of Excellence, a global team focused on applying law to technology and the internet. Our second witness is Neil Potts, the vice President of Public Policy at Meta. Mr. Potts has worked for Facebook, or Meta, since 2016 and I look forward to hearing his testimony about Meta's experience with jawboning. Our third witness is Will Creeley, legal director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. His experience advocating for free expression spans five presidential administrations and his writings have been featured in prominent newspapers and Supreme court briefs. Our final witness is Harold Feld, Senior Vice President of Public Knowledge. Mr. Feld has practiced law for more than 20 years at the intersection of technology, broadband and media policy. Mr. Erickson, you're recognized for five minutes.

Markham Erickson:

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Markham Erickson and I serve as Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Google. Google's mission from its inception to today has been to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Founded in America, we proudly advance this mission around the globe. And while our platform's continue to experience tremendous success worldwide, it's hard to imagine that our story could have begun anywhere else but here in America, where the commitment to freedom of expression is so profound. And yet even in America and certainly in many other countries around the world, we often find this commitment challenged by others. We hear from government agencies, legislators, NGOs, academics and individual users who inform us of content that they believe we should remove or, on the other hand, content that we have removed that they believe should remain available.

This happens across the political spectrum and around the world and it has for years. It is not new to us. With respect to the governments in countries where we operate, we have a responsibility to engage on this issue, just as I'm doing here today. While we are our company dedicated to the goal of making the world's information universally accessible, that doesn't mean that we don't have certain rules. Terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content have no place on our platforms. To be crystal clear, we develop and enforce our policies independently. That's a right we enjoy in this country as a matter of law and one we maintain with purpose and determination. We recognize our responsibility and we have policies against content that we conclude is illegal, offensive, or dangerous. We independently and voluntarily evaluate whether content violates our terms of services and policies, reach our own conclusions, and take enforcement action in accordance with our own determinations.

And sometimes that means we tell the government no. During the pandemic, officials in the Biden administration pressed Google to remove certain COVID-19 content on YouTube. Despite this outreach, we continue to develop and enforce our policies independently, rejecting suggestions that did not align with those policies. And today, we exercise this same independence over our policies and products under the current administration and with governments around the world. Outside of the United States, we have fought that fight at breathtaking cost. Multiple governments have shut down access to our services when we would not remove content that complied with our policies. As one example, when Russian authorities ordered YouTube to remove political videos critical of the regime, we refused. The government threatened our employees with jail and fined us. Today, those fines exceed more than the world's GDP, yet we continue to resist. We also recognize that transparency regarding government actions, interactions with companies is essential to foster public trust and uphold the principles of freedom of expression.

Google publishes data in our biannual transparency report on government content removal requests. We welcome the committee's consideration of legislation that would create more transparency in how the US government engages with industry. And Chairman Cruz, we support and principle some of the legislative recommendations from your staff in your report. As we make our independent choices about how we moderate content, we recognize that speech is more important than ever. We have to get this right. Think of the sheer scale. Google responds to billions of search queries every day and over 500 hours of content are uploaded on YouTube every single minute. Reflecting the vast proliferation of viewpoints and a range of perspectives, this scale translates to thriving economic growth in the United States. As website publishers and YouTube creators find success, they build businesses, hire employees, and contribute to their communities while creating content for billions of people around the world. The opportunity to help drive a thriving digital ecosystem is only just beginning.

The scientific innovations made possible by artificial intelligence are creating a generational technology shift. Google's AI advances in predicting protein structures, for example, have saved at least 400 million years of research and are helping three million scientists in 190 countries make progress in addressing things like cancer and malaria. Google uses AI to forecast floods, detect wildfires, and provide tools to improve farm efficiency and boost crop yields. These discoveries, this scientific progress is made possible by America's tradition of protecting the free and robust expression of ideas. We remain committed to doing our part to keep the digital ecosystem safe, reliable, and open to free expression. We rely on the trust of our users and we intend to keep on earning it. I look forward to your questions.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you. Mr. Potts, you're recognized.

Neil Potts:

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Neil Potts and I'm a Vice President for Public Policy at Meta. I've been with the company from nearly 10 years and in my current role I'm responsible for oversight of the development and implementation of our community standards, which provide the rules for what we allow and do not allow on the platform. I'm a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and the University of Virginia School of Law. Prior to joining Meta, I worked as a lawyer in private practice and served as a ground intelligence officer for the United States Marine Corps, where I was deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

At Meta, our mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Key to this work is our foundational commitment to free expression. Every day millions of Americans use our services to stay in touch with friends and family, generate creative content, and learn about what's going on in the world. We want to give them a voice and make sure they can engage with their communities in a safe way. The diversity of viewpoints, expression, and experience on our platforms highlights much of what is good about Meta, but it also presents challenges when deciding what content should and should not be allowed. These are complex issues. To create a place that is safe for a variety of people, we have to make hard decisions about what should be permitted. Some people think we take down too much content, others think we take down too little content. And while we know everyone will not agree with every decision we make, we remain committed to providing transparency about our content moderation and our enforcement policies.

And we have worked hard to prioritize speech. Our goal is always to get it right, but we recognize that we are not perfect when there are concerns about how we approach enforcement, we appreciate hearing from people, including you here in Congress, about how we can improve. In that spirit, I appreciate the opportunity to share Meta's perspective on communications with government officials. We regularly hear from governments around the world and others with various concerns around public discourse and public safety. In our job, no matter where content reports may come from, is to ensure that we make independent decisions based on our policies. As our CEO has previously acknowledged, in 2021 senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire. And they expressed a lot of frustration and our teams did not agree. Ultimately, it was our decision to take down content and we own those decisions, including COVID-19 related changes we made to enforce in wake of that pressure.

To be clear, we believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more outspoken about it. We should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction and we're ready to push back if something like this happens again. We also worked to promote free expression. And to that end, we recently implemented a series of significant changes designed to help bring us back to our roots and allow for more speech. Among other things, we ended our third-party fact-checking program and moved to a community notes model. We gotten rid of a number of restrictions on topics that are subject of frequent political discourse and debate. We changed how we enforce our policies to reduce mistakes and we adopted a more personalized approach to political content. These changes which are described in my written testimony are an attempt to return to our ideals about free expression. That means being vigilant about impact our policies and systems have on people's ability to make their voice heard and having the humility to change our approach when we know we're doing something wrong.

We believe these changes are having a positive impact and look forward to continuing to give people voice across our platforms. Senator, Ranking Member, thank you again and I welcome your questions.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you. Mr. Creeley, you're recognized.

Will Creeley:

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Will Creeley and I'm the Legal Director of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, the essential qualities of liberty. I've spent nearly 20 years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: if it's protected, we'll defend it. Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward. The government punishes the speaker for saying things the government doesn't like. That's a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn't the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech. Far too often government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in jawboning.

That is they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression. This isn't new law. The First Amendment's prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades to the Supreme Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books versus Sullivan. In that case, the court confronted a Rhode Island State Commission that sent threatening letters "phrased virtually as orders" to booksellers, distributing objectionable titles with follow-up visits from police to ensure the message had been received. The court held the commission's operation was "in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra legal sanctions". They acted as an agency not to advise, but to suppress. And in this decade since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books' call to "look through forms to the substance of censorship and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech".

But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association versus Vullo last year, the Supreme Court emphatically and unanimously reaffirmed it. In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York's backdoor censorship was successful and likely unlawful. This regulatory carrot and stick approach was designed to chill speech and the court reiterated that "a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly." A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf. To be sure, the government may speak for itself and the public has an interest in hearing from it, but it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it, the government is "entitled to what it wants to say, but only within limits".

Under no circumstances may our public servants "employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens." So the law is clear. Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening, "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way," as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics. Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can't sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And it's a practical matter informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced. That's particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri. Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to COVID-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects resulting in the suppression of speech, the administration opposed, but the court held the plaintiffs lack standing to sue because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration's pressure wasn't sufficiently clear. Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity. Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if the government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither wants to share it. That's why I fire authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform with limited exceptions. Transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning and held accountable when they do. Jawboning betrays are national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it. Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you. Mr. Feld, you're recognized.

Harold Feld:

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. At the heart of this hearing lies one of the most important questions for democracy. When does the normal functioning of a federal agency cross the line into impermissible coercion? When does the bully pulpit become jawboning? This clearly depends on context. It would be a shame if something happened to your business. Sounds very different coming from an insurance broker than from a mobster.

The Supreme Court has provided us with some guidance. For government interaction to be considered an impermissible coercive act rather than a permissible act of persuasion, several conditions must exist. First, it must be a government contact, not interaction between private citizens or advocacy groups. Research by academics, calls by advocates to boycott companies or products can never, under the First Amendment, qualify as jawboning. To the contrary, such activities or political speech, the First Amendment protects from government retaliation. Second, the government agency or official must have actual power to punish or reward the speaker. Finally, there must be sufficient evidence that the government agency or official has genuine intent to use that power. It is the uncertainty around the last two criteria that often make it difficult to tell when permissible persuasion and use of the bully pulpit cross the line.

Unfortunately, whatever one thinks happened in the past, we live in a present that leaves no doubt that jawboning is occurring regularly and, whatever one's political party, members of Congress must join together to protect the fundamental freedom of speech to which our democracy depends.

To illustrate my point, I want to contrast the first Trump administration with today. President Trump is a master of the bully pulpit. During his first administration, he would complain about what he felt was one-sided news coverage or unfair mockery. He called for NBC to lose its license, but then FCC Chair Ajit Pai took no action on these threats. When asked, Pai would point to John F. Kennedy calling his FCC chair, Newt Minow, to demand similar punishment of his critics. Without saying so directly, Pai made it clear that presidents have the bully pulpit, but agency heads must stay independent and follow the law.

As we have seen, however, the current FCC chair, Brendan Carr, feels differently. Rather than act as a firewall between the president and the use of government coercion, Carr has sacrificed the independence of the agency and repeatedly used the very real power of the FCC over licensees to meddle in content decisions that past FCC chairs of both parties have considered off limits. Most recently, he famously told Disney and its affiliates that they should remove Jimmy Kimmel, whom the president had repeatedly said through his social media account should be fired, the easy way or the hard way. Nor is this the only example where traditionally independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, have acted to punish those critical of the president or his policies. Indeed, it is not simply the acts of these agency heads, but the combination of multiple actions across multiple agencies that make the threat of government retaliation very real.

Fortunately, Chairman Cruz has shown us what needs to be done to stop jawboning. Congress must act as individuals and collectively without regard to party or partisanship to draw clear lines in the sand. The first step is a willingness to call out such behavior. Chairman Cruz's rebuke of Chairman Carr for using language right out of Goodfellas is a model of standing for principle when called for. Additionally, members must work to restore the independence of agencies and to set clear limits on the power of agencies to meddle in matters protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears poised to eliminate the power of Congress to protect agency independence by preventing the president from firing commission members, but Congress can pass legislation to promote transparency and make it easier for those threatened to defend themselves in court. Such legislation, however, must be carefully crafted to avoid interfering with the legitimate contacts between government and companies or creating a disincentive to necessary oversight and enforcement.

Finally, Congress must address the concentration of ownership in both legacy media and digital platforms. The active effort by the Trump administration to put Warner Bros, owner of CNN, in the hands of proven friends while threatening to use the regulatory power of the United States to block bidders at dislikes illustrates the importance of diversified ownership to the marketplace of ideas. The last few months have shown the importance of ownership limits on legacy media, limits chairman Carr has indicated he intends to relax or eliminate. Additionally, Congress should consider legislation to introduce competition to the digital platform phase. Congress should consider cross-ownership limits that would prevent things like the acquisition of TikTok, one of the most important and influential digital platforms, by the largest owners of legacy media. This concentration makes it easy for this administration or any future administration to monopolize the marketplace of ideas to the detriment of us all.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you Mr. Feld and thank you to each of the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start with Mr. Potts and Mr. Erickson. Do you agree that the Biden administration pressured or threatened your companies to censor lawful content that the administration opposed, and were these actions to pressure you to censor content inappropriate and wrong? Mr. Potts.

Neil Potts:

Senator, as our CEO has said, we did feel pressure from the Biden administration to censor content related to COVID-19, and we do agree that pressure from any administration would be wrong.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you.

Mr. Erickson.

Markham Erickson:

Mr. Chairman, the Biden administration did press us to take action with regard to certain COVID-19 information that they thought should be taken down. But as Chairman Jordan's report indicates, we made our decisions independently and would often say no when we were oppressed by the administration.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Mr. Potts, does Meta regret its actions and for not speaking out at the time against the Biden administration?

Neil Potts:

Senator, we do regret our actions for not speaking out more forcefully against the Biden administration. We made independent choices, but we did feel pressure during those discussions.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Mr. Erickson, same question.

Markham Erickson:

Mr. Chairman, we get outreach from a lot of actors, governments around the world, administrations, member of Congress, NGOs. We feel a responsibility to consider when content is flagged, but also a responsibility to evaluate that content by our trust and safety teams independently relative to our policies, which are publicly available and on the internet, and make a decision about whether they are violative regardless of the actor, the political affiliation who's flagging the content for us.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Well, Mr. Erickson, let's take one example here. This is a post, a video showing election fraud claims made by both Democrats and Republicans, so showing Hillary Clinton making claims of election fraud, showing Donald Trump making claims of election fraud. YouTube deleted it, blocked it, gave the creator a strike, a step towards deleting his entire channel. Why would you remove a journalistic record of the claims of election frauds from both Democrats and Republicans?

Markham Erickson:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. We have election policies, and we've had election policies for a long time, to ensure that the most important thing that citizens can do, which is to vote, they can find relevant and useful information on our platforms, where to vote, for example, what time the-

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Yeah, but that was none of this. They're not saying vote on Wednesday at the supermarket. This is videos of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump making claims of election fraud. Now, would you agree that it is frigging news when one of the two parties, major presidential candidates, makes a claim of election fraud? Would you agree that that's news?

Markham Erickson:

Yes, that is news.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Okay. You two blocked it and said, "Nope, you, the citizens, we're not going to allow you to see it." By the way, then, YouTube reversed that decision and unblocked it, and you can it see on the right. Instead you decided not to block it, but simply to demonetize it. It is Google's testimony that you regret nothing. Is that right?

Markham Erickson:

Mr. Chairman, during the 2020 election, after the states had certified the election, we did adopt a policy on YouTube that took down content that claimed there was widespread fraud or errors or glitches into the election because the election, at that point, had been certified. What our trust and safety teams do is-

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Hold on a second. You're taking the position, if anyone argues there's fraud, if anyone lays out claims, if anyone lays out evidence, the omnipotent Google in the sky will say, "No, you stupid citizens, you don't get to hear this." Is that your position?

Markham Erickson:

Respectfully, no, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Feld pointed out, in the context of the 2020 election after the states had certified the election, we took the posture, our trust and safety teams, that claims of widespread fraud, there should be action taken against those. But when the chance of real-world harm had dissipated, we removed that policy to allow our atmosphere to open.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Mr. Erickson, do you know what company's employees were the single largest donors to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign?

Markham Erickson:

No, Senator.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

That would be Alphabet, the parent company of your company, and yet you are taking down evidence of even what Hillary Clinton, the candidate that your employees gave money to than any company in America... How does that make any sense?

Markham Erickson:

Mr. Chairman, we have policies in place to ensure that no one can manipulate-

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

So why did YouTube reverse its policies and put up a bunch of accounts you've taken down?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, after the opportunity for real-world harm had dissipated, our trust and safety teams believed it was appropriate, at that point, to open the aperture and allow for a more robust discussion about potential fraud in election.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Mr. Erickson, you're sitting next to the representative from Meta. If Facebook can say they regret giving in to the Biden administration's pressure, why is that so difficult for Google to say?

Markham Erickson:

Well, Senator, we're very proud that we made our decisions independently and free from political affiliation.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

No mistakes whatsoever, Google never apologizes, no regrets. You have the power, and to hell with anyone that views it differently?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, no, I'm not saying that.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

But you're not going to apologize or express regret for anything?

Markham Erickson:

We make mistakes.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Name one.

Markham Erickson:

We make those mistakes, Senator.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Name one. You're saying, was this a mistake? Yes or no?

Markham Erickson:

At the time, Senator, our trust integrity teams, when looking at content on YouTube that claimed there was widespread fraud, after the states had certified the validity of the election, we believed it was appropriate to take action against that content, so news-

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Is it Google's position that once an election is certified, that there can never have been fraud in that election?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, again, those decisions are made in-

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

That's a question. You just said once the election is certified, no one can say anything about fraud. Is that your position?

Markham Erickson:

No, Senator.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

There's a whole body of election fraud litigation. Candidates in both parties challenge elections all the time, raise claims of fraud, they're litigated often after an election is certified.

Markham Erickson:

Senator, at that time, after the election had been certified, in context, we felt it was appropriate to take down allegations of widespread fraud because of potential real-world harm at that moment. When that time had dissipated, we did believe it was appropriate to deprecate that policy and allow for that discussion to happen.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Well, let me say I don't think it is real-world harm to respect free speech and to allow the American people to hear what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are saying. It goes without saying I disagree with an awful lot of what Hillary Clinton is saying, but I don't think a tech monopoly should be deciding what the American citizens get to hear and what they don't get to hear, particularly given your heavy ideological bias. I got to say I'm astonished that you sit here unwilling to express regret for anything at all. That is a level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well, and it may be why Google abandoned its old motto of don't be evil, because you're certainly not living up to that old model.

Senator Cantwell.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Feld, thank you for that distinction between the bully pulpit versus coercion. I think I even saw Mr. Creeley nodding his head in agreement. I think we have two organizations who are characterizing the challenge in front of us. Mr. Feld, you were more specific about when you really do have the power, like the FCC chairman does, and you do abuse that power, then that really is the coercion that we have to worry about. I am concerned about where we are today in the state of media and diversity of voices. It does make me concerned that we have more competition, not less competition. That is one of the reasons why I want to see Mr. Carr in this hearing room because we have a big challenge facing us, and the consolidation issues our challenging enough without using coercion in the middle of them.

But back to this larger question, and something I'd asked my panelists too, what can we do in the tide of AI where AI is now making this even more opaque, how information is being gathered and used? What can we do in the era of AI to make sure that we are instilling more competition, growing more diverse media sources, and certainly protecting... I would think that the platforms that we're here today would understand that their seed corn is people who actually produce information. How can you continue to have information if you don't have information publishing sources.

Mr. Feld, what do we need to do to preserve that model?

Harold Feld:

Thank you, Senator. We agree that competition in AI is a critically important question, particularly given that the natural network effects and the access to information that giant companies have as compared to startups in this situation create an environment in which natural monopolies or natural oligopolies would emerge. In this situation, it is important we believe, one, for the government to support open source, which allows for innovation by multiple parties and combines the abilities of many. We believe that there may be necessary interventions, such as providing access to information that is used to train these models. If it develops that one monopoly in, say, search or on social media, it's feeding and growing another monopoly in AI, this is something that the government needs to keep a very careful eye on. We are particularly concerned with Judge Mehta's decision that the emergence of AI relieves the need to care about concentration and monopoly power in the search market. We think it is just the opposite, that the emergence of AI which feeds on that information means that we must be extremely rigorous in our antitrust remedies with regard to these adjacent monopolies.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

Well, I think in Senator Blackburn and I's provenance model, you would know where the content was created and you could follow that and demand compensation. In a search AI world, it becomes more opaque as to what information was gathered, so it becomes even more important I think for us to get this right.

Mr. Potts, Mr. Erickson, we've had, since 2005, 127 newspapers close last year alone, but one-third of newspapers. Don't you think that this is eating the seed corn here, that how can you have a perfect stack of information if you're going to have less information?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, happy to take that question first. Google is committed to a thriving news ecosystem. For 25 years, users come to our site and we send them to publishers all over the world, free of charge, and those publishers are able to grow their user base to have advertising, to monetize those interactions, or to have subscriptions.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

I'm asking you if you think it's time to do more, Mr. Potts. I know Meta actually does do... Well, it took some resources. I find it interesting. There are very few journalists that cover... When I first got to The Hill, there were probably five people from the State of Washington that covered what we did on The Hill. Now, literally, there's one person and basically from Spokane, Washington, who's funded by a Facebook grant that was compensation to the journalism community, and he does a great job covering me, covering Senator Risch, Crapo, Senator Murray, but that's it. All that information that you would get, if you had people covering from Seattle and Vancouver, Washington, Bellingham is lost. So at what point do you guys care about the fact that the stack of information needs to be supported, if you want to have a perfect stack and have competition? If we want the US stack to be the best stack in the world, then you have to have true competition of voices, as we have pointed out from the two witnesses on the end.

Neil Potts:

Senator, this is, I am sure, a very important topic. Unfortunately, it's not one that I work on directly, especially around competition, so I don't have an informed opinion, but we're committed to having a platform for everyone to share their voice.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

Okay. Well, I think they should send somebody here who can answer this question, but we'll take it for a direct question to your leadership and get an answer. This question of AI is here, and we have a couple of choices. We've put privacy legislation on the table that also would basically... I think in Meta's whistleblower case, that was before our committee before, Meta was publishing hate information against the Rohingya population by the government. Even though many, many people tried to get that information erased because it was directly saying to harm a population, your previous model didn't correct for that. Your newest model probably would better address that. But the point is we need to have a system that is responsive to the fact that we need information.

I see my time has expired, but I would hope that both of you will get a formalized answer on what in the era of AI do we need to do to make sure that journalism survives, so that your information that you feel is so precious actually gets created. Because without local journalism, it's not going to get created.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you. Senator Fischer.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At our first hearing in this series, we heard from conservative users who were deplatformed by social media companies. One of the witness specifically mentioned that, at the time in 2020, Twitter was pressured by the Biden administration to de-platform his account. Much of this seemed related to policy threats about Section 230 reform. I'd like to explore the nature of these types of conversations.

Mr. Potts, would you please describe specific examples of pressures that your company experienced from the executive branch, specifically about content moderation?

Neil Potts:

Yes, Senator, and thank you for the question. As I mentioned before, our platforms are for everyone. We want to ensure that we have a diversity of viewpoints. We regularly hear from governments around the world about where we draw our policy lines and how we enforce our policies, and we definitely heard from the Biden administration on those issues. The pressure that we were really focused on in some of our recent discussions was the pressure that we received around COVID-19 and changes to our policies therein. We received a lot of pressure from the Biden administration about humor, satire, certain claims around COVID-19. To be fair, we made our own decisions. We made our own decisions, and ultimately those were our choices, but the pressure did exist.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

Besides COVID-19, give me examples of other pressures that you felt.

Neil Potts:

Senator, I don't have specific pressures. We do engage with governments and agencies-

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

What issues were specifically brought to your attention?

Neil Potts:

The issues that I focused on primarily were in my engagement with the Biden administration around COVID-19. We did hear-

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

How often did they occur?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I was not the only individual that had those conversations. I was a party to a few of those conversations, but we had many as a company.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

You've been with the company 10 years, you said?

Neil Potts:

That's correct, Senator. I've been there 10 years.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

Are there examples from other administrations trying to influence your content?

Neil Potts:

Senator, we often hear from government and government agencies about content that does violate our standards or places that we agree. So that may be something like terrorism, the illegal sale of illicit drugs like fentanyl, or potential multi-victim violence, think of school shootings. Those are places that we'd like to partner and work with, but we also hear a pressure of where content doesn't violate our policies. It's incumbent upon us to make our own choices, as I described to Senator Cruz, and then push back more forcefully, which we did not do in 2020.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

Mr. Erickson, could you tell me about Google's experience with this?

Markham Erickson:

Yes, Senator. Thank you for the question. It is true that during that period of time, during COVID-19... Well, if I could take you back to that moment in time-

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

Not in too much detail, the Chairman will gavel me out.

Markham Erickson:

Certainly. It was an intense moment and unique in our nation's history. It was very chaotic, and we did feel a responsibility to meet with scientific and health experts in the government beginning in President Trump's administration that continued in President Biden's administration.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

So are you telling me that most of it dealt with COVID-19 content? What besides that, other issues, have you felt any kind of pressure over from Google?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, I want to be clear, no matter how the information comes to us, we feel a responsibility and are proud of the way we handle those communications to make independent decisions. We have trust and safety teams that are shielded from political pressure that make decisions based on our terms of service and our guidelines, which are transparent and publicly available.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

Thank you. Do you have an independent audit or review process in place to evaluate whether moderation disproportionately affects users based on their political beliefs?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, there is no place for someone in our company with a political agenda to influence our content moderation policies. If we were aware of that or made aware of that, we would certainly take disciplinary action. We have studies which I can make available to you that-

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

That would be great. Could you make those internal fairness public or at least invite a third party to be able to scrutinize some of that to hopefully settle some of the concerns?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, there have been third-party reports and studies of the content on our platforms and happy to provide those to you.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

That would be great. I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. Creeley, the user base of Meta and Google spans the globe with billions of users. Their control of overvaluing and devaluing speech is critical to examine. Given their ability to amplify that content, what internal mechanisms do you think should be in place at these companies so that they can guard against speech that harms of jawboning, de-platforming, and what do you think we, here in Congress, need to do?

Will Creeley:

Well, I appreciate the question, Senator. I'm just a humble First Amendment attorney. I wouldn't purport to-

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

Oh, come on, give me an answer.

Will Creeley:

I will suggest that more transparency is generally useful. Our model legislation would have, the onus being on the government, reports of all context from government officials to private social media platforms, which have their own First Amendment right, about the moderation policies they enact and how they fulfill those policies. Given the global scope, I know that my colleagues at the table likely feel a great deal of responsibility, I think you've heard that, but my worry as the First Amendment attorney is with the government. That's the onus. The answer in Bantam Books was not to regulate the booksellers, but to tell the government that it crossed the First Amendment line by bullying a private entity. Those are the rights I'm seeking to protect.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

I would agree with you on that. I worry about any regulations that, to any government, puts onto free speech. Thank you, sir.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

Well, thank you very much, Senator Cruz. Thank you to the witnesses. Senator Cruz and I have worked together on a number of internet-related issues and platform-related issues, including our successful passage of the Take It Down Act. We do have disagreements about some of the decisions that I think the company's rightfully made about false information about the election when President Trump's former own attorney general, Bill Barr, said that these arguments that there were widespread fraud and the like were not true. I don't want to relitigate that right now, but what I want to get at is the need to do something about the cesspool that our kids are being exposed to and the need, while we value these platforms, we all use them, to have some rules in place, especially when it comes to AI.

I've just been shocked that we are all sitting by like observers for those of us who think AI has great, great potential to cure diseases and the like and that our Congress is just sitting there and not doing anything about these videos that are going out there, Senator Cruz and I focused on the non-consensual porn, whether it's AI-created or actual, but when it comes to these fake political videos, the fact that we're not even passing something that says digitally altered for the ones that, constitutionally, would be protected if they're parody and the like, that's a bill Senator Murkowski and I have, the fact that we won't pass Senator Hawley and my bill that would do something about the stuff that is basically deceptively using people's images, and the fact that we are sitting by while people's images, whether they're famous or not, are being used...

I do appreciate Google and YouTube support for the NO FAKES Act that Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons and Senator Tillis and I have. I think it's very important legislation right now. We're not leading the Congress right now, but, man, I would be getting these bills through because I think there's some widespread support, not just about the election, but about everything that's going on, having had an own deep fake video made of me from a hearing Marsha and I did, making claims that I would never make, but it looked so real that many people believed that I was somehow part of the Sydney Sweeney ad campaign.

With that, I guess I would turn to you, Mr. Potts, and ask why Meta doesn't support this deepFakes bill.

Neil Potts:

Senator, thank you for the question, and it's a very important topic. To be clear, we do support labeling, and we want people to know when posts that they are seeing have been made with AI. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the legislation. I think, directionally, there are more transparency around AI-generated content. It's something we want. Doing that in a smart way, of course, is something that also makes sense. I know, alongside my colleague here from Google, we support the C2PA, which is the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authority. That does include markers for AI-generated content, and that'll allow companies to label that in a more clear and faster and direct way.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

Researchers raised concerns that the teen account safeguards you rolled out last year haven't protected teens. Nearly 60% of teens ages 13 to 15 reported encountering unsafe content, unwanted messages on Instagram in the last six months. What have you done differently to ensure that meta AI teen safeguards actually work? Last month, Senator Blackburn, who I see is here, and I, as I noted, held this hearing, we heard from two whistleblowers who told us that Meta repeatedly suppressed and altered VR youth safety research. Will you commit to sharing with me additional information on what research was conducted pre-launch to ensure that the new parental controls are effective?

Neil Potts:

Senator, thank you. Thank you for the question. You referenced a study that I'm not familiar with, I'd be curious of the methodology there, but I will say that we are committed to building safe and responsible tools, AI tools, as well as safe and responsible experiences for teens. We want age-appropriate experiences across the board. I think your follow-up question was would we commit to sharing research. I know that my teams have been in contact with you working... in discussion, and we're happy to continue this conversation.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

Okay, last... The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Meta plans to use people's conversations with Meta AI chatbots to personalize ads served to them. I find this concerning. How will meta protect people's privacy while selling information about their private conversations to advertisers?

Neil Potts:

Senator, we will remain committed to investing heavily in safety, heavily in privacy, making good policy, and having the necessary safeguards. I'm not familiar with the Wall Street Journal article that you're referencing, but I'm happy to have the team follow up.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

Okay. I also wanted to reiterate Senator Cantwell's line of questioning about the need to have a free press. Free press is about no censorship. I'm looking forward to Chairman Carr's arrival at our committee here. Free press is also about having free press exist. Right now, I think everyone knows here that Senator Kennedy and I, for a long time, have led this bill on trying to find some way out of this, which has been exacerbated by AI so that journalists get paid for their content. There's lawsuits going on. I know all of this, but we're not really going to have a free press if the economics are such that their content can be taken and then no one is able to report on anything and we don't have local news. I hope you're all thinking about that as we hopefully go forward with actual AI legislation, privacy legislation. We're going to have to do something to account for that. We are clearly, before this next election, going to have to do something about marking these, not just ads, but videos as digitally altered. I will note, in my case, Meta did mark it as digitally altered, and that TikTok actually took it down. I don't know what YouTube did, and that X actually did nothing.

And so that, to me, just shows how we need some rules in place.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you. Senator Blackburn.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

Thank you. I will note that Google lost a lawsuit yesterday dealing with the press, so we noted that.

Mr. Potts, I want to come to you since my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, was talking about kids and safety online.

Neil Potts:

Yes, ma'am.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

You all have spent $20,000,000 lobbying against what we've tried to do to make the virtual space safe for kids. 20,000,000 bucks in the first nine months of this year. You have 87 lobbyists fighting against any regulation because kids are the product for you all.

87 lobbyists, one for every six members of Congress. I hope you're getting your money's worth because you are killing kids, and we know it, and we know what you are doing. I am so sick of what you all are doing. You should be ashamed of how you are putting kids at risk, and you should be coming to the table to work with us because we're trying to protect people in the virtual space.

There are rules in the physical space, but not in the virtual space, but money hungry. That is what you all are. Your valuation is built on eyeballs, and you come in here and want to soft talk this? It is infuriating. It is absolutely infuriating.

Mr. Erickson, I want to come to you, please, sir. I appreciate what you had to say about AI resources and about being proud. Mr. Erickson, I'm talking with you, sir, and wanting to be a trustworthy company, but let's talk about Gemma, and I want to bring up the issue of Robbie Starbuck who lives near me in Tennessee. He's a conservative leader. I don't know if you're familiar with Mr. Starbuck.

Markham Erickson:

I'm familiar with who he is, yes, Senator.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

Okay, thank you, because I'm going to put some things up that Gemma did. Gemma and the way you're training these LLM models is not something you should be proud of, and it doesn't embody trust because Gemma created an entire falsehood around Mr. Starbuck, saying he had been accused of child rape. Totally false. Totally false.

So then we asked Gemma if Senator Blackburn had publicly defended Robbie Starbuck, and it goes on to say that I publicly and actively defended Robbie Starbuck. Now, here are the prompts that are there, and here's the response. It made up articles, and I'll be able to hand you this poster so you can see this in detail, but this is insulting that you are so biased against conservatives that you would create this entire, this entire story around Robbie Starbuck, with links to stories, and this entire story around me. Totally false. All of it is false.

So why don't you tell me how you are scraping data and training these LLMs that they would come up with not a one degree but a two degree complete falsehood?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, thank you for letting me clarify. The way we train our LLMs is to train on publicly available information-

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

It's not publicly available, sir, because it is fake news. Gemma made it up. So what are you feeding in on the training that would allow such a... This is just wild. It's fiction.

Markham Erickson:

So Senator, it's well known that LLMs will hallucinate. It's a known issue.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

Well, then you need to shut it down.

Markham Erickson:

And we do work-.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

It's on a bad drug and the bad drug is your input.

Markham Erickson:

Senator, we do work at Google very hard to mitigate those hallucinations.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

Obviously not hard enough. So how are you going to clean this up?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, again, we are working to mitigate those kinds of hallucinations on LLMs. Gemma is our open-source AI model. I'm not familiar with the examples. I'll take your word for it. Thank you for providing those. We'll follow up with you.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

Well, yeah, you're going to be able to take the word for it because we're going to deliver these examples to you. Mr. Potts, I want to come back to you.

Neil Potts:

Yes, Senator.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

Listening to your testimony, I find it so curious that when your mistakes... You say mistakes happen, but your mistakes always happen against conservatives. So what's the rationale for that?

Neil Potts:

Senator, thank you for that question. If I may just go back-

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

You don't need to thank me for the question. Just give me the answer.

Neil Potts:

Understood. If I may go back, I just wanted to respectfully disagree with your thought that we are intending to hurt children or hurt kids, as you put it, for-

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

You made a playground for pedophiles.

Neil Potts:

Senator, we work tirelessly with-

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

For groomers. For predators.

Neil Potts:

... with law enforcement to remove that type of content from a platform.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

85% of the kids that meet a drug dealer meet them online, Mr. Potts.

Neil Potts:

Senator-

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

You all need to take this seriously and you're not because you're money hungry. I yield back my time.

Neil Potts:

Senator, I respectfully disagree. We do work hard on these issues.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Senator Lujan.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Erickson, simply yes or no, did YouTube pay $24.5 million to settle President Trump's lawsuit against the company, the majority of which goes toward Trump's ballroom?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, I believe you're referring to the lawsuit that we recently settled. The settlement terms were that we would provide, I believe that's the right number, it's close.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Let me ask it again. Yes or no? Yes or no? Did you two pay $24.5 million to settle President Trump's lawsuit against the company, the majority of which goes toward President Trump's ballroom?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, we settled our lawsuit with President Trump, yes.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Mr. Potts, yes, or no? Did Meta pay $25,000,000 to settle President Trump's lawsuit against the company, the majority of which goes towards President Trump's ballroom?

Neil Potts:

Senator Lujan-

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Library. Sorry, library.

Neil Potts:

Sorry, Senator Lujan, I'm only familiar with what is available in news reporting.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Yes or no? Did Meta pay President Trump 25,000,000 bucks to settle a-

Neil Potts:

Senator, I was not connected to any of those decisions-

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

What's your title? Aren't you an executive at Meta?

Neil Potts:

Senator, that is correct. I focus on our internal rules for what we allow and do not allow-

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Mr. Potts, I'm sorry Mr. Kaplan didn't have the courage to be here. I understand he got invited, but he's not here. Sorry you're getting the questions.

Everybody in this room knows, everyone watching knows, that you all paid 25,000,000 bucks, man. That's yes. Just yes. But if you don't want to answer that, let me move on.

Now, did President Trump say that Mr. Zuckerberg might need to spend his life in prison in his book that was released in 2024? Do you know the answer to that, or I need to get you a copy of the book?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I'm aware of that statement, yes, before the 2024 election.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

So both of these lawsuits were originally brought in 2021, sat in courts for four years before they were settled, and President Trump's lawyers knew they didn't have a case and that your companies would settle due to the potential for regulatory retaliation.

This has been written about a lot. In fact, President Trump's attorneys stated, "If he had not been reelected, we would've been in court for 1,000 years. It was his reelection that made the difference."

So these payments, or settlements, or whatever, these feel like shakedowns to me, and I certainly hope that regardless of who the president is, whatever's going on here, once we get past this in a few years, that we can all have a conversation. Just say, "Hey, this isn't okay."

So the question that I have, Mr. Potts, that I thought I was going to get to ask Mr. Kaplan, you may remember you and I met in April to discuss Meta's new content moderation. Mr. Kaplan was in that room as well, correct?

Neil Potts:

Yes, sir.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Now, let's talk about the lead-up to some of these changes. First, President Trump threatened Meta CEO Zuckerberg with life in prison. We just shared that with the book.

Mark Zuckerberg openly admitted that some of those threats, the changes that ultimately Meta led to, would be "a harmful content to appear on the platform."

So Mr. Potts, yes or no? Is it Meta's policy to leave up anti-Semitic content?

Neil Potts:

Senator, no. We have strong policies that remove content when someone is targeted based off of their religion, their ethnicity, their nationality.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Since the changes were announced, there have been nearly five-fold increase in anti-Semitic behavior on your platforms. Are you aware of that?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I'm not familiar with that study or the methodology behind the study.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Mr. Potts, why does Meta leave up a statement that says, "Go back to your gas chamber," when it relates to anti-Semitism?

Neil Potts:

Senator, that content should be removed.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

I have another one. Surprise, surprise. "I hope someone videos when the ovens go back on." Should that one be taken down?

Neil Potts:

Senator, if I may, that content should be taken down. Often-

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Okay, let me ask you another one. "Bring back the Austrian painter." Should that one be taken down?

Neil Potts:

Senator, often content in the context is hard to identify.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Mr. Potts, I got one more.

Neil Potts:

That content should be taken down, yes, Senator.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Thank you. "Y'all deserve all the terrorism." Should that be taken down?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I don't know the context.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Okay, well, I appreciate your response on the other ones that it should be taken down. My question is this. Can you explain to me why they were not found to be non-violative after they were reported twice already to the company?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I know we have engaged with your office on some of these issues and we have removed content when it has come to our attention. We do make mistakes. I've been fairly clear that we are not perfect in our execution, but we do have strong policies-

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

Well, now you know. And now everyone at the company that's watching this knows, because to my colleagues, I asked Mr. Kaplan this question when we were in my office, and we're told, "No, no, no, we take stuff down or we don't."

So I just hope that as we lean in, and if it's private conversations that everyone has, take this shit down. Plain and simple. Let's be on the up and up here.

Look, the last thing I want to say here is I want to commend Senator Moreno. I want to commend Senator Cruz. I want to commend Senator Cornyn, because Google, you all decided to put Spanish-language media, Univision and Telemundo, behind a paywall. I don't know if you realize that. This is a bipartisan issue that we're raising here.

Does Google plan to change this?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, thank you for the question. It is not true that we put Univision behind a paywall. Univision is available for free on YouTube. They are a creator partner of ours. They have millions of viewers.

We also make the Univision app available in our Play Store to download for free. I believe the issue you're talking about is with YouTube TV, which is our virtual MVPD. It's a virtual cable company. And when those carriage negotiations are up for renewal, like every cable company and network, there is an arm's-length discussion and negotiation over the terms for carriage.

We were not able to reach mutually acceptable terms-

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

All right, Mr. Erickson, you got a bipartisan crew of folks over here standing together on this issue. I certainly hope that as all the smarter lawyers and all the people that are arm's-length that are listening to this right now get a chance to fix this, they fix this. We all want this done. Please make sure you do that because I have constituents that can't get information that are your subscribers, because they believe in you. They decided to cut the cord and find another way to get information. But if there's an emergency, man, we have a problem.

So I certainly hope that we can work together and find a resolution of this. I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Recognized. Senator Schmitt.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The stop topic obviously is important to me is the guy who filed Missouri versus Biden. I'm sure you're all aware of that and your witness prep, and also who got the first antitrust win against Google for their monopoly on search. I have a few questions.

I want to start with you, Mr. Erickson. Let's talk about search. During the 2024 election, while Google search was an illegal monopoly, according to the court, it was repeatedly biased against President Trump. If you searched, "Where can I vote for Donald Trump?" Google showed nothing. Is that correct? You're aware of this, right?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, I'm not aware of that.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Okay. Well, if you search for Donald Trump, you couldn't find it. Meanwhile, if you searched, "Where can I vote for Kamala Harris?" a precise polling place showed up. That's interesting, isn't it? If those facts are true, would that indicate some political bias?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, I can assure you there is no political manipulation of our search results.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Interesting. Okay. So after President Trump was shot, or attempted to be assassinated at Butler, if you typed a search for "President Trump and assassination," nothing came up. How is that possible?

Markham Erickson:

So Senator, let me give you some context here.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Very quickly, because I have a bunch of questions.

Markham Erickson:

Yes, Senator. So when people are entering a search query into Google search box, we will often give them... We fill that out based on the machine learning of our platform that has seen similar type of requests to make it fast.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

So the question is, so no one typed "President Trump assassination Butler"?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, the reason that that didn't appear for a short period of time was it would've been irresponsible for us to before that event occurred-

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

I thought you might say that. That is not true for other assassination attempts, including Charlie Kirk. So I also want to ask you, when you type in "President Donald," Google would prompt you to President Donald Duck or President Donald Reagan, not President Trump in the lead up to the 2024 election. Is that just a coincidence?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, we are very proud that Google search is the most trusted platform for information.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Well, you have a monopoly. That's why. It's not because of what you're doing because there's political bias. Let's talk about that for a second. Was George Washington Black?

Markham Erickson:

No, Senator.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Okay. Why did, on your AI, why did it pop up on Gemini, why did the image of the Black George Washington pop up?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, that was an early version of Gemini. When that happened, that was a mistake. We took down the product, we put teams in place to fix that mistake and we set up internal processes to ensure that it wouldn't happen again and did not release that product until we were satisfied.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Okay. Well, according to a Hoover Institute study, you haven't fixed the underlying issue of the woke AI. You haven't. You may have fixed the fact that obviously George Washington wasn't Black, but you still have a woke backbone to Gemini and the great black box out there, and I've been through the litigation with you guys, the great black box is your search. And I'm telling you it's politically biased, and until you reconcile this, you're going to continue to have an erosion of trust and hopefully more lawsuits, because people do go on Google and they search, but what they find is a politically biased...

You could go to the members of this committee and search in what's on page one news articles. I don't have time to do that, but it's astounding. It is astounding. And the difference between R'S and D's is real.

Mr. Erickson, I want to ask you, was your testimony... Actually, I want to... Let's stay with you. So Google recently sent a letter to Congressman Jordan explained that the Biden administration tried to coerce Google, but you found it unacceptable, and you didn't.

So when Rob Flaherty, the deputy comms director for the White House, who's infamous for saying, "Are you guys effing serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today," not to you guys, but during the height of the insanity, you guys didn't succumb to any of that pressure from the White House to censor speech?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, when we get communications from the Biden administration or the Trump administration or any government entity around the world, our trust and safety teams apply our terms of service and guidelines independently-

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Okay, so it was your decision to ban Dan Bongino on YouTube? And it was your decision to ban RFK Jr. on YouTube? That was your decision alone, correct? Yes or no, please.

Markham Erickson:

Senator, I'm not familiar with those specific-

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

You can't have it both ways. You can't have it both… Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who's now the NIH director, you banned content from him because he said masks were ineffective for kids. You were banning the hell out of conservatives left and right in that time period. So that's on you, I guess. You didn't succumb to the pressure, but Facebook did. Facebook did.

And a Facebook employee, and Mr. Potts, I want to ask you, in July of 2021, in addition to Mark Zuckerberg admitting it, your testimony's interesting because your testimony today was that, "These were our decisions. No pressure." That's not what your CEO said. And maybe that's a litigation strategy because that case is still ongoing. I don't know.

But you have emails from employees saying, "Because we were under pressure from the administration and others to do more, I was part of the more package. We removed four claims that multiple fact-checkers labeled as false. Even though we didn't have a harm assessment, we shouldn't have done that." You could go through emails that were uncovered in discovery. You could go through the letter from Mark Zuckerberg. You clearly were coerced by the Biden administration, but your testimony today is that's actually not true now, that these were all done in your own volition. Is that accurate? Which one is it?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I can't... I'm sorry, my eyesight isn't strong enough to make out that note. And I hate to speculate, potentially my colleague meant, however-

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Well, Mark Zuckerberg's letter to Jim Jordan said, "We were repeatedly pressured to censor certain COVID-19 content. The government pressure was wrong and I regret we didn't do more and we were not more outspoken."

Neil Potts:

That is correct. That is-

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

So your testimony is that you were coerced by the Biden administration. Is that accurate?

Neil Potts:

Senator, if I can add a bit of nuance here. We felt pressure from the Biden administration. We ultimately made those decisions of our own volition. We have our policies, we made those decisions. In hindsight, would we have made different choices with all the information we have today? I am sure we would make different choices.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO):

Well, in closing, forgive me if the fact that the Biden administration wasn't threatening Section 230 protections. They were threatening those protections to go away. They were threatening investigations.

So the idea that you guys didn't succumb to pressure from the White House to censor exclusively conservatives and COVID-19 content is laughable. Thank you. I'm out of time.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Senator Rosen.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate this hearing today. And while I fundamentally agree that this committee must examine the state of free speech in the US, today's hearing once again misses the mark. This is now the second hearing to focus on accusations from years ago, rather than the near constant attacks the Trump administration is leveled against free speech rights today. Today. Right here, right now, today.

We still have not had Brendan Carr come to testify after his threats to revoke broadcast licenses in response to jokes made by a comedian, Jimmy Kimmel, on his show. The chairman has failed to invite any witnesses that speak to the threats that we face today. Not in the past, but today. No one from the now-defunct Pentagon Press Corps, who were told their choices were to publish only government-approved information or lose their credentials. Where's the oversight there? No one from universities losing routine grant funding because they won't adopt the administration's preferred speech policies. Where's the First Amendment there?

Democracies cannot exist without people having the right to oppose their government actions and speak their mind. And that is what we need this committee to focus on, the point that free speech is the fundamental bedrock of our democracy, whether we agree with it or not. And that's the hearing I wish we were having today. But since it isn't, I will turn to my questions and start with the Pentagon Press Corps.

Because earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued new rules for the Pentagon Press Corps, requiring them to seek approval from the department itself before publishing any news. The public doesn't have a right to know what's happening in our defense department because reporting on the Pentagon is essential, especially given this administration's repeated failure to seek constitutionally required approval from Congress on matters of war. It's constitutionally required approval from Congress.

I commend the outlets that rejected the loyalty pledge and were therefore denied credentials. We've seen agencies across the Trump administration try to force private organizations, educational institutions, journalists and others to sign loyalty pledges, essentially agreeing to silence themselves in order to gain access to basic government services, to federal funding, or the ability to report from the actions of our government. So this is a clear threat to the First Amendment.

So Mr. Creeley, are actions by the government to force journalists to only publish pre-approved information a violation of the First Amendment? And at a minimum, do you think actions like this just jeopardize the freedom of the press at large?

Will Creeley:

Senator, absolutely. My organization has been consistent in expressing concern about government efforts to require independent journalists to tow a party line before gaining access to information. That's foundational.

This goes back to before the founding, to John Peter Zenger, the publisher in Colonial New York who was jailed for making fun of the then-colonial Governor William Cosby. This is something that would horrify the founders.

I think that our right to a free and independent press, including most importantly one that will criticize the government, is a bedrock of American democracy. So it's extremely concerning.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

Thank you. Mr. Feld, I'm going to ask you why you think an independent media and the protection of the First Amendment is essential to democracy, as opposed to just being forced to print propaganda?

Harold Feld:

There is a reason why the press is listed separately in the First Amendment and not just a matter generally under freedom of speech. It is because the ability to have news from the local level up to the national, international level, the ability to have different perspectives on that news before the electorate, is a core to an informed democracy.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

Thank you. I'm going to move on and talk a little bit about Brendan Carr. I'll move back to you, Mr. Creeley, because this hearing aims to push the narrative that the prior administration tried to "shut down the speech of Americans with whom it disagreed."

But there are clear instances of this happening today under this administration. And as we've noted, FCC Chairman Carr threatened ABC affiliate broadcast licenses over remarks Jimmy Kimmel made on the air, threatened to revoke their license because they didn't like the speech of a comedian.

So yes or no? Is Chairman Carr trying to "shut down the speech of Americans with whom he disagrees?"

Will Creeley:

Yes, and my organization has been very critical of that. We've called that for what it is, which is jawboning.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

And for purposes of the First Amendment, is there any legal distinction whether or not Jimmy Kimmel or other comedian speeches are offensive or hateful?

Will Creeley:

No, the First Amendment does not have an exception for offensive or hateful speech.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

And does it matter for purposes of the First Amendment that Jimmy Kimmel's show is not pure news, but also has a comedy component?

Will Creeley:

No, Senator.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

And in your view, has Chairman Carr engaged in jawboning as much or even more directly than the prior administration?

Will Creeley:

Senator, I think jawboning is bad in all its instances and all its forms from whatever government official, but absolutely, this is jawboning and we have called it as such.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

And I will take the answers for this off the record, but I'm going to state the question and we'll be reporting on it.

But to Mr. Feld and Mr. Creeley, we are going to ask you what retaliatory action the Trump administration has taken or threatened to take to companies and people it deems critical of the President and supporters.

I've run out of time, and so we'll take your questions for the record, and we will be publicizing those when we get them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses. I hope you're having fun.

The question I have for you, I'm going to read you a quote just the four of you think if this makes sense to you.

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of the right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press as one of the bulwarks of liberty shall be inviolable."

Do you guys agree with that? We'll start with you, Mr. Feld.

Harold Feld:

Absolutely.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

You get bonus points if you knew who said that.

Harold Feld:

I'm sorry, but I lose the bonus.

Will Creeley:

Absolutely. I'm going to venture Madison?

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

Yes, James Madison said that. And that was what he actually wanted the first amendment to say, that he wanted it to be more specific. Mr. Potts, you agree with that?

Neil Potts:

Senator, in my personal capacity and Meta, we agree with the First Amendment.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

But the company's position would agree with that, right?

Neil Potts:

Yes.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

How about you, Mr. Erickson?

Markham Erickson:

Yes, Senator.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

So isn't really the answer to all this more speech is always better, Mr. Creeley? If we have more dialogue, more ideas in the public square, isn't that really the best antidote to all of this?

Will Creeley:

Absolutely, Senator. That's right.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

And to Mr. Potts and Mr. Erickson, you guys are technology companies. You're successful American technology companies. Doesn't it seem like you're on the road to hell right now?

Meaning, you have immunity as a publisher, different than publishers, sorry. But you're acting a lot like publishers. Shouldn't your point of view be that we modify Section 230 and just take the part out that says "unless constitutionally protected" and just allow people to have dissenting points of view on your platforms? Why get into the business of censoring? Because it's never going to work out well for you.

You have obviously what happened over the previous administration during COVID-19. You mentioned, Mr. Erickson, that it was a tough time. Yeah, it was. And Mr. Potts, you guys would delete people from your platform who said that it is better to get the virus than the vaccine. That's an opinion. But it's okay to have that opinion, isn't it? Isn't that free speech? Isn't that my immutable right as an American citizen to have an opinion, even if I'm wrong?

And it strikes me as you don't need all this. Why not just completely get out of the censorship business unless it's to clear things that Senator Blackburn talked about? Human trafficking, child trafficking, incitement. Why not get out of the censorship industrial world and just say, "We're just going to be a platform to allow free expression." Wouldn't that make sense, Mr. Erickson?

Markham Erickson:

So Senator, free expression in the First Amendment are core to Google and its mission.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

But not really, because you've given examples, and I'm not trying to beat up on you, but you've given examples where you've weighed in. You both made your comments to me kind of honestly. I don't know if you intentionally did it or didn't do it.

You said, "Hey, we want to delete content that's offensive." That's not the First Amendment. I am allowed to be offensive. I'm usually the recipient of the other side of that. And that's okay. People can say whatever they want about me. If somebody says something really mean about me, I don't want people at Facebook or Google deleting that content. They have the absolute right to criticize me.

Now, if they say, "Hey, Bernie's at this address and let's go shoot him," maybe that's different. Make sure you change the address. But the point being, you can't say you're committed to free expression at the same time say you're going to moderate content for something that's offensive. Offensive is a very subjective word. Right?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, we want robust political speech, other speech on our platforms. There is more speech available on Google and YouTube than on any platform in history. And we've pushed back against attempts for us to take down content that's merely offensive. There was a time-

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

But why not get out of that completely? Just say, "You're not the speech police." And offensive content is so subjective that you opened, like I said earlier, the road to hell. Mr. Creeley, would you agree? If you were giving them free legal advice, this is great, by the way, you have a lawyer, you could ask him free questions, what would you say? Is that not better?

Will Creeley:

My response, Senator, would be that it's best when different sites are allowed to enforce their own terms of content moderation specifically to their interests. If I wanted to have a site that only allowed commentary about my favorite football team, the Buffalo Bills, that would be constitutionally protected.

Likewise, I think more speech is exemplified by the response to the President forming his own social media platform. I think that that exemplifies the diversity of content that I think the First Amendment is designed to protect. My concern is more with government efforts top-down to dictate moderation choices to platforms.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH):

Yeah, these are bad behaviors that we're learning from China, and you guys do business all over the world, obviously. These are really bad behaviors. The First Amendment doesn't exist in China for a reason, and I just want to make sure that we're looking at all these things, that we understand what I said at the beginning, that the inner antidote to all this is more speech, more freedom, more liberty.

And also, I think both of you and both of your companies should understand how bad it went for you over the last four years, especially during COVID. I think, Mr. Potts, you said that, but you were in the room and you also admitted that to your people that the censorship isn't neutral, that it definitely has a political bias to it. And that's a problem.

And I would just encourage you, as a business person myself, is this... like I said, are you having fun? Is this what you want to keep doing? You don't need, for example, one single member of this legislature to tell you to put symbols on videos that are generated by AI. You don't need a law for that. You could do that today. You could literally text your tech team right now and say, "Hey, if you think a video is created by AI, flag it and say, 'Created by AI.'" Why do you need Washington to tell you how to run your business? I would just leave you those thoughts, and you'll get more from my chairman here.

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to thank the ranking member for this hearing today. It is so important that we recognize what platforms can do and what they have done. I've got a series of questions for Mr. Erickson and Mr. Potts. I'm trying to save time, so I only want to know if you disagree with me.

So let me just start right in. Algorithms that recommend content are essential to the business model of social media companies today. When creating your algorithms, keeping users engaged is one of the main goals. As a result, business-

Markham Erickson:

Senator, if I may.

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT):

Sure. Quickly, please.

Markham Erickson:

So our platforms are... There's a distinction between our platforms and social media platforms. So on YouTube, we are a platform so that users that are seeking content will get the content that they were looking for, whether that's a how-to video or-

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT):

There's nothing in your business model that wants people to stay with you longer?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, we want people to stay on our platforms because they're finding relevant information.

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT):

So you're telling me years from now when we look back in history, I actually think this is going to be a lot like the tobacco hearings, years from now, when we look back in history, there's going to be no study, there's going to be no internal conversations that says, "It's good to have people stay on our platform longer"?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, we want people to stay on our platform-

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT):

Good. Okay, let me keep moving. Let me keep moving. In an effort to keep users engaged, these algorithms can create environments that are dominated by specific types of content. Okay? This can be good when that content is innocent, but sometimes that algorithm can create a toxic environment based on what it determines best to engage with users. All right. Now my real question. Research, and observation studies suggest that algorithms often tilt toward more extreme, or emotionally-charged content because that drives engagement. To both of you, doesn't that mean that platforms explicitly narrow the range of what people see elevating fringe voices, and suppressing everyday voices?

Neil Potts:

Senator, thank you for the question. I can obviously just speak for Meta on this, and it's an important topic. In certain areas where we see the potential for people to engage with one type of content over, and over again, we've recently rolled out different ways to what we call affectionately nudges, to nudge people to take a break from being on the platform, or to take a break from that specific type of content. We also have, if I may, we also have recommendation policies that if I take a step back, we have community standards that will dictate what we allow, and do not allow on the platform, and the things that are violating of those policies, we should just remove.

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT):

Let me add some nuance to this because I'm really going a different direction than I think my colleagues have gone today. So, in essence, a lot of the conversation today has been should you, or should you not allow something on? My question is more what happens when you decide to magnify a voice, or suppress a voice based on algorithms. And we all know that Section 230 was meant to protect platforms that acted in good faith. But my question is, when an algorithm downranks moderate speech, or drives users towards extremism, because it's good for engagement, is that really good faith moderation? And should section 230 immunity apply when you as a, let me just say not you specifically, but you as a company, or really as an industry, make decisions that magnify certain content, and downgrade other content?

So, in essence now if you go back to the community bulletin board, and you say, I'm going to post up this up here, and I'm going to post this up here, and you guys are really just a place where people can go, and see those postings, but the moment you all say, "I'm not only going to allow this post it up here, I'm going to take it, and duplicate it, and I'm going to duplicate it, and duplicate it, and duplicate it, and duplicate it, or I'm going to take it, and put somebody else's on top of it." Is that really what Section 230 was for? And before I run out of time, I'm going to ask our lawyer here, we didn't see this coming in my expectation because we wanted a platform where I could go, and connect with my high school friend.

So, when this first started, I could go on Facebook, and connect with my high school friend, and see what they had said. All of a sudden I logged on, and I was seeing something else. I was seeing what they wanted me to see. And I believe based on my questions today, that's because there was an intent to keep me there longer. So, should that give them protection from 230, or do we have some questions here about that protection?

Will Creeley:

Senator, I appreciate the question. I think setting aside the 230 question just for a moment to talk about how much a user interacts, I would caution against government regulation, or interference here because I'm wary of introducing new rules for new content. We've heard those kinds of concerns about the alleged addictiveness of new modes of expression all the way back to the introduction of novels in Victorian England. So, this is an old concern, and one that I take seriously. I've got an eight-year-old, and eleven-year-old at home. We talk about media literacy, we talk about screen time all the time, but I'm wary of interfering with the system that allows for the robust marketplace of ideas that we currently enjoy.

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT):

Sadly, I mean, I would love us all to spend an hour on this in thoughtful conversation. Really what I'm arguing is not that. What I'm saying is the interference starts when somebody applies an algorithm to it. And I'm sorry we don't have time for you to respond. I'm just saying I want everybody to think about this for a minute. Just putting that up there, I get it. There's no liability. And I tend to be a little bit more with Senator Marino who says, "Don't take responsibility for what you put up, and put down because you will never figure that out." And I think that was his point. But the moment you make a decision to magnify that, do you not own that decision? Right. So, I'm going to have to leave it there, and hopefully we can have more hearings on this Mr. Chairman, but I would like to have a more thoughtful discussion about the responsibility of magnifying, and demagnifying content, and why that deserves protection from the loss. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you. Senator Markey.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this hearing. Very important. We've spent a lot of time talking about the Biden Administration actions, but far too little talking about Donald Trump's repeated, and far more serious threats to the First Amendment. Let's talk about a few of those threats. In August of 2024, Donald Trump made the following threat against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Quote, "We are watching him closely, and if he does anything illegal this time, he will spend the rest of his life in prison." A month later, he accused Google of showing only, quote, "Bad stories about him", and urged the Department of Justice to quote, "Criminally prosecute Google at" quote, "maximum levels." That's scary stuff in our country. That's authoritarianism. So, I'd like to get a few things out, and on the record. Mr. Potts, to your knowledge, did President Biden, or any other Biden Administration official ever threaten to prosecute Mr. Zuckerberg? Yes, or no?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I'm not aware.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

You are not aware of it?

Neil Potts:

I'm not aware.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Potts, to your knowledge, did President Biden, or any other Biden Administration official ever threaten that Mr. Zuckerberg would, quote, "Spend the rest of his life in prison?" Yes, or no?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I'm not aware.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Okay. So, I appreciate that answer. Mr. Erickson, to your knowledge, did President Biden, or any other Biden Administration official ever threaten to prosecute Sundar Pichai, or force him to spread the rest of his life in prison?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, not to my knowledge

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Mr. Erickson. Did President Biden, or any other administration official ever threaten to criminally prosecute Google over its search results?

Markham Erickson:

Again, senator, not to my knowledge.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

My Republican colleagues have spent endless time, and resources concocting elaborate conspiracies about online censorship of conservatives, yet they have ignored the real threat to free speech staring them in the face, President Trump's explicit threats to prosecute Mark Zuckerberg, and Google creating a chilling effect, not only on those companies but on everyone else who is less powerful than those companies, which is everyone else in America. These threats have an impact. A few months later, Meta made Trump-friendly changes to its content moderation policies. Even Donald Trump said his threat to Zuckerberg, quote, "Probably caused Meta to make those policy changes." Did my Republican colleague say a word about those threats? No, not at all. Mr. Feld, do you agree that Trump's threat to Zuckerberg is far more dangerous than any communications from Biden administration officials with tech platforms?

Harold Feld:

Normally I would say that's just bully pulpit, but the problem is we have seen he means it, and he'll use the Justice Department to prosecute those with whom he does not like.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Yep. Thank you. Mr. Feld. So, I just want to turn to a related issue about the tech platforms, and Donald Trump. In December of 2024, Meta, and Google each donated a million dollars to President Trump's inauguration. In January, 2025, many of those big tech CEOs, including Mark Zuckerberg, Mr. Pichai, sat directly behind the president at his inauguration seats that are usually reserved for family, or past presidents. In separate settlements, Meta agreed to pay 25 million, and Google agreed to pay 24.5 million to Trump for suspending his accounts on their respective platforms after the January 6th insurrection, even though Trump's lawsuits were frivolous. And just a few days ago, Meta, and Google each made significant donation to President Trump's $300 million vanity project to build a new ballroom at the White House. So, Mr. Potts, what is Meta getting out of these payments?

Neil Potts:

Senator, respectfully, I was made aware of those donations in the news. It's not something that I focus on.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

So, I'm just simply asking what would Meta expect to receive if they made such significant contributions to Trump?

Neil Potts:

Again, senator, I think this was just a donation. I am not familiar with the process behind it.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Okay, well, thank you. So, I don't have much time left, so if you can't answer that question, or won't. Let me see if Mr. Erickson can. So, what do you think Mr. Erickson that Google is getting out of those payments?

Markham Erickson:

Thank you, senator. We did give to senator, President Trump's inaugural committee. We've given to the inaugural committees of the last several elections for the President of the United States. And with regard to the settlement that you referenced, we did settle a lawsuit that President Trump, and other plaintiffs had brought. In that settlement, President Trump's attorney had asked for money to go to a nonprofit of his choosing. That's where the money was directed. But importantly, we did not admit any wrongdoing in that lawsuit, nor did we change any of our products, or policies.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Well, I would just say obviously the difference between the Trump Administration, and any previous administration is that at the inauguration, the wealthiest corporate CEOs in America sat directly behind the president, and in front of the cabinet with better seats than the Supreme Court. So, obviously this is a different time, it is different era, and I think the American public has a right to question these tech companies, and asking what are they getting out of these generous donations that they're making to Trump, because obviously the seating at the inaugural has triggered, in my opinion, questions of constitutionality, and questions of whether, or not the billionaire corporations are getting more out of this government than the poorest amongst us. And we're seeing that now play out in policy after policy, including this battle that we're having over healthcare, and SNAP benefits for the poorest in our society. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Thank you, Senator Markey. And I would note that the recipients of SNAP benefits would get their SNAP benefits if the Democrats would vote to fund the government. And yet 13 times the Democrats have voted party line to keep the government shut down. 13 times Republicans have voted to open the government, we're going to vote again to open the government. And at some point, Chuck Schumer, and the Democrats are going to stop holding the American people hostage. Now, Mr-

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

They're going to continue to fight until Trump provides health care for ...

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Okay, so Senator Markey is telling everyone who gets food stamps the Democrats are going to continue to vote against your getting food stamps, and it is reckless, and irresponsible. And if you don't believe me, you can watch the videos of just about every single Democrat senator who has gone on TV over, and over, and over again saying it is reckless, and irresponsible to vote against a clean CR. And now they're all, I guess hypocrisy is the tribute that vice gives to virtue. They're all doing that because they want to appease their radical base.

Now, Mr. Potts, Mr. Erickson….

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

The president has five billion dollars, how do they care … all those?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

I recognize that Senator Markey has a partisan objective that he wants to hold the entire government hostage. By the way, the American Federation of Government employees is called on the Democrats to end the Schumer shutdown. The National Air Traffic Controller Union has called on the Democrats to end the Schumer shutdown. But these Democrats don't actually work for their constituents. People getting food stamps, they don't care because they're willing to say no food stamps go out on November 1st because the only people they care about are the angry people with torches, and pitchforks at the No Kings Rally, because this is a party that is captured by its radical left, and there are a whole lot of Americans who are hurting.

Let's just take within this committee's jurisdiction, air travel where there are right now 50,000 TSA agents going into work, and they're not getting a paycheck. There are 14,000 air traffic controllers going into work, and they're not getting a paycheck. And we are seeing flight delays, we are seeing ground stops. And one Democrat senior aide told Politico that the Schumer shutdown will continue, quote, "Until planes start falling from the air." That is the very definition of reckless, and dangerous.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

Well, I would add to this conversation, if you want the beginning on November 1st, 20 million Americans are going to get the notices that they're either losing their healthcare insurance, or it's going to dramatically skyrocket. And that is a discussion that it's hard to have Republicans since the house has not been in session for six weeks. They're in a political …

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

You are absolutely right-

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

...witness protection program.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

You are absolutely right that Obamacare, Obamacare is a train wreck, and it has caused health insurance premiums to skyrocket. And Senator Markey will recall, I stood on the Senate floor for 21 hours saying that is exactly what would happen, that premiums would skyrocket. And if you don't believe me, you can look to the Washington Post hardly a right-wing periodical which said Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act is not remotely affordable, and it's caused premiums to skyrocket. And ironically, what our Democrat colleagues are fighting for is premium payments that are direct corporate welfare to health insurance companies because Obamacare has more than doubled the profits of the giant health insurance companies, and working families in Texas, and Massachusetts. Their premiums have skyrocketed, and it's unaffordable. And the Democrats' solution is not to give more competition, not to give more choice, not to lower premiums. It's instead engaged in more corporate welfare, and write bigger, and bigger checks to giant multi-billion dollar corporations.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

The House Republicans are in a political witness protection program, they're not in Washington. How can we negotiate?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

No, they've actually done their job. They voted to fund the government.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

And?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

They've done their job.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

And there was designed neglect on the part of the Republicans to withdraw the premium tracks credit for those 20 million Americans. And they're going to see their policy skyrocket over the next couple of months, and it's avoidable. It is not a catastrophe that has to be in existence, but unless the Republicans come to the table, we can't solve that problem, because those rates are going to skyrocket.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

42 million Americans who received food stamps are not going to get them on Saturday, November 1st. And the reason is Senator Markey, and just about every other Democrat is going to vote against those food stamps because he's got a partisan agenda. And feeding your kids is not part of his partisan agenda.

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

President Trump has five billion dollars he could deploy right now to those staff recipients, and take that worry away from them. But he's not going to do it. He's going to do it for any favored program.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

So, then Senator Markey…

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA):

...the government, but not for those that he calls Democrat programs like feeding the poor, or giving healthcare to those most in need.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Senator Markey could provide the funding for those food stamps any day he wanted to. And to be clear, I voted over, and over, and over again to fund those food stamps while your party keeps voting no, no, no, no. At some point the political stunt will end. Now, returning to the topic of the hearing. Mr. Potts, Mr. Erickson, you represent two of the most powerful companies in the world. Even without a lawful baseness, could the Biden Administration have used its considerable powers to significantly harm your companies if you refuse to censor? Mr. Potts?

Neil Potts:

Senator, may you repeat the question?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Even without a lawful basis, could the Biden Administration have used its power to harm your company if you refused the censorship it was asking you to engage in?

Neil Potts:

Senator, I don't want to speculate too much. I know that the Biden Administration did pressure us, especially related to COVID-19 information. And when we disagreed with them, they became more frustrated then upping the pressure. I don't want to speculate on what-

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

But my question is straightforward. Could the president hurt your company if he so desired?

Neil Potts:

I think any administration in any president with the positional authority could hurt our company.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Mr. Erickson? Same question.

Markham Erickson:

Senator, with respect to the hypothetical, I can't speak to the hypothetical. I can tell you that whatever the administration is, we have a demonstrated track record of pushing back against-

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

So, try answering the question. Could the Biden Administration have hurt your company?

Markham Erickson:

Senator, yes.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Okay. Mr. Creeley, some may argue that the Biden Administration was engaging in mere persuasion, or exerting pressure that doesn't rise to the level of coercion in violation of the First Amendment. In your legal judgment, are thinly veiled threats prohibited under First Amendment precedent? And based on what we know about the covert action by the Biden Administration, did the administration's actions towards our tech witnesses constitute coercion that undermines the First Amendment?

Will Creeley:

Mr. Chairman, in our opinion, it did indeed. We argued as much in an amicus brief that we filed with the Supreme Court, and I think Justice Sotomayor writing for unanimous court in National Rifle Association, V. Vullo elaborated on the distinction between persuasion, and coercion. Very well. If you mind I'll just read it.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Sure.

Will Creeley:

A government official can share her views freely, and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the hopes of persuading others to follow her lead. In doing so, she can rely on the merits, and force of her ideas, the strength of her convictions, and her ability to inspire others. What she cannot do however, is use the power of the state to punish, or suppress disfavored expression. And I think the extensive entanglement, the bullying, the pressure tactics, the tone, the authority, the invocation of legal sanctions, and revisiting regulatory authority, all of which taken together cross the line.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

The first amendment's the greatest protector of free speech in history. Even so, we have had evidence presented that there are legal challenges to stop the government from jawboning. Even when you can demonstrate that the government censored you, your options in court may be limited. In your judgment, what challenges, or gaps in the law do Americans face in vindicating their first amendment rights in the courtroom? And what can Congress do to help solve it?

Will Creeley:

Well, there are two problems, Mr. Chairman. First of all, quite often when folks are silenced, there's difficulty establishing causality. They may not know that their post has been deleted, or demoted as a result of federal pressure. So, that's the first problem. Too often, this is very difficult for the end user. The affected targeted silenced American to understand. The second problem is there's no meaningful deterrent. Right now, if you are silenced by a federal official, you don't have the ability to go to court, and seek monetary damages. You need an express statutory grant to give courts the authority to put money on the line. And I think that would change behavior. So, transparency, and deterrence.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Well, I very much agree with you. As you know, I'm in the process of drafting legislation, the jawboning legislation designed to do exactly that, designed to provide transparency for when the federal government is urging tech platforms, and other companies to censor, and to provide for a cause of action to sue the government if, and when somebody is censored. Obviously the devil is in the details, but described at that level of generality because we are drafting statutory language right now to do so. I want to ask each of the witnesses, if you would be supportive of that approach with the caveat that everyone wants to see statutory language before having a final opinion. But Mr. Erickson, we'll start with you.

Markham Erickson:

Senator, yes.

Neil Potts:

Senator, with your caveat, yes.

Harold Feld:

Absolutely. We would support it, and would look forward to working with you on it.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

Well that is fantastic news, and it's good to get agreement across the spectrum, and so I appreciate each of the witnesses being here. Thank you for your testimony. And all right, I got to look to see how long we're keeping the record open. How long are we keeping the record open? Senators will have until the close of business on November 5th to submit questions for the record, and the witnesses will have until the close of business on November 19th to respond to those questions. That concludes today's hearing. The committee stands adjourned.