The Need for Revised Congressional Oversight of Big Tech

For Congress to successfully legislate effective regulations concerning major technology firms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, a fundamental shift in its approach to engagement is required.

Current congressional hearings are largely unproductive, representing a considerable expenditure of time with minimal demonstrable impact.

There is a widespread acknowledgment that the existing format fails to achieve meaningful results.

Essential Improvements for Future Hearings

To genuinely hold Big Tech accountable, subsequent hearings must incorporate, at a minimum, the following three key elements.

• Focused Questioning: Instead of broad inquiries, lawmakers should concentrate on specific instances of alleged wrongdoing or policy failures.
• Technical Expertise: Congressional staff need to be equipped with a deeper understanding of the technologies and business models employed by these companies.
• Pre-Hearing Document Review: Relevant internal documents should be thoroughly examined prior to the hearings to facilitate more informed and targeted questioning.

A more strategic and informed approach is crucial for effective oversight.

Simply put, the current system isn't working and requires substantial modification to achieve its intended purpose.

Effective regulation hinges on a more rigorous and technically proficient engagement with these powerful corporations.

Reforming the Congressional Hearing Format

The current structure of House hearings – allowing five minutes of sequential questioning by a large number of representatives – is demonstrably ineffective, particularly when conducted remotely via platforms like Zoom or Bluejeans.

Frequently, representatives utilize a significant portion of their allotted time delivering essentially introductory remarks. These statements often reiterate points already made and can devolve into self-serving pronouncements.

This limited timeframe subsequently compels representatives to pose questions demanding simple “yes” or “no” responses, even when addressing intricate and multifaceted subjects. However, CEOs consistently circumvent these constraints.

Despite a long-standing pattern of lengthy replies, lawmakers continue to express frustration when CEOs fail to provide the requested binary answers, even when such responses would necessitate oversimplification or potential legal repercussions.

For example, a question such as, “Should the law permit your company to determine truth, as currently enabled by Section 230?” cannot realistically be answered with a simple affirmation or denial. It presents a dilemma akin to the classic rhetorical question about ceasing to mistreat an animal.

During the hearing, Mark Zuckerberg displayed a consistently displeased expression, appearing more as the subject of scrutiny than the instigator. Sundar Pichai often seemed disengaged, either missing questions or offering predictable generalities. Jack Dorsey, visibly uninterested, engaged in tweeting throughout the proceedings and responded with minimal articulation.

While this spectacle is frustrating for viewers, it is likely even more so for those participating. Recognizing the futility of meaningful exchange within these brief questioning periods, the primary objective of the CEOs becomes simply to exhaust the allotted time – a task they accomplish with ease.

They often appear to barely listen, confident in their ability to deflect with phrases like “these are nuanced issues… we take this very seriously, Congresswo—” before being interrupted. Offering to “follow up” or citing a lack of “exact details” are further strategies for avoiding substantive commitment.

To facilitate more productive dialogue, the hearing format requires revision. This should include extending individual questioning time to at least eight or ten minutes and establishing guidelines for responses. A rule guaranteeing an initial ten seconds but limiting replies to thirty seconds could be beneficial.

Given the challenges of crosstalk in virtual hearings, allowing a less-than-ideal answer to persist for twenty seconds may be preferable to spending twenty-five seconds objecting to it.

Optimizing Participation

Limiting the number of participants could also prove advantageous. Committee leaders could allocate time to a smaller group of representatives who possess more than merely standard expressions of indignation. Implementing this change would likely necessitate navigating complex rules and procedures.

However, the involvement of many current participants appears largely unproductive. Maintaining fairness and bipartisanship, the parties should either exclude unproductive members or accept responsibility for their contributions.

Enforcing Accountability

Furthermore, genuine consequences or legally binding commitments are essential. Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) referenced an independent audit promised by Jack Dorsey – publicly, to Congress – in 2018. This audit never materialized, with Dorsey claiming a shift in priorities.

This demonstrates that promises made to Congress are not necessarily requirements, nor are they subject to legal enforcement. If inquiries are merely requests for favors, the value of asking them diminishes significantly. Lawmakers must possess the authority to enforce their demands, or they should moderate their level of inquiry.

Maintaining a Focused Objective

When procedural rules are altered, the hearing's purpose must also be adjusted accordingly. Granting lawmakers additional time to deliver prepared statements often results in those statements expanding to consume the allotted duration, much like the behavior observed in goldfish.

Effective hearings, those that demonstrably influence outcomes, typically feature participants equipped with supporting evidence and well-reasoned arguments. Kamala Harris, leveraging her experience as a prosecutor, exemplified this approach during a 2018 session with Mark Zuckerberg, creating a challenging environment for him.

Representatives Pramila Jayapal and David Cicilline similarly pressed Jeff Bezos, compelling him to address incriminating testimony and provide substantive responses, suggesting either a lack of awareness or an attempt at concealment.

However, relying on legislators to be well-informed, honest, or genuinely concerned about these matters is often unrealistic. Frequently, their inquiries appear hastily prepared, assembled with minimal prior research.

Some lines of questioning, such as persistent references to the previously addressed NY Post/Hunter Biden story, are demonstrably outdated, indicating a deliberate diversion from the core issues. Allowing such irrelevant tangents wastes valuable time.

While subpoena power presents challenges – the potential for legal battles – its underutilization raises questions about Congress’s commitment to effective legislation. What value do they contribute if they avoid utilizing available tools?

Hearings lacking a clear impetus, such as a triggering event, ongoing investigation, or the release of new documents, often devolve into opportunities for representatives to generate media sound bites and project an image of concern to their voters. The current proceedings serve as a prime illustration of this dynamic.

Focus on Operational Leaders, Not Just CEOs

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg listens during a joint hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill April 10, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Individuals like Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey possess significant intelligence and are exceptionally well-versed in their respective fields. However, their dual roles as both public representatives and key decision-makers create a situation where their statements are invariably pre-approved and meticulously vetted. They also have the capacity to claim a lack of recollection or defer to colleagues who are not present.

Attempting to elicit meaningful information from these individuals proves unproductive. Instead, the focus should shift to other personnel. This particular hearing centered on the issue of disinformation. Within these companies, numerous individuals are responsible for daily decisions and direct oversight of projects related to this very topic.

These are the individuals who should be answering questions from Congress.

While it's plausible, though unlikely, that Zuckerberg might state he “doesn’t recall” discussions regarding the concealment of user data misuse, securing such a response is a limited achievement. A more effective approach would be to question the person directly accountable for that responsibility, someone unable to rely on feigned ignorance.

Vice Presidents and department heads would undoubtedly receive media training and prepared statements as well. Nevertheless, this is preferable to questioning the CEOs. These leaders are adept at handling scrutiny and have faced similar situations previously. Their primary concern is minimizing the impact of these hearings and avoiding negative press coverage.

Each time these hearings occur, a sense of missed potential prevails. Lawmakers are presented with a direct opportunity to engage with influential figures in the technology sector. Yet, a significant portion of the time is often spent revisiting established concerns, introducing questionable data, or simply asserting authority over individuals like Mark Zuckerberg. While this impulse is understandable, legislators must prioritize national interests.

Although some representatives raised valid points during today’s session, the format hindered the extraction of substantial answers. The absence of a unified agenda or supporting documentation left them without compelling evidence. The questioned individuals appeared disengaged and had no incentive to offer responses beyond their prepared opening remarks.

If future hearings – whether concerning this industry or others – fail to adopt a different approach, it should come as no surprise if they, like this one, produce only empty rhetoric.

Here's a breakdown of key issues:

• Accountability: Direct questioning of those responsible for specific decisions.
• Preparation: A cohesive agenda and supporting documentation are essential.
• Focus: Prioritizing substantive answers over political posturing.

Effective oversight requires a shift in strategy.