Les réseaux sociaux mis sur le banc des accusés par le Sénat américain

L’actu

Le PDG de Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, plante verte et costume bleu marine ; celui de Google, Sundar Pichai, plante verte et costume anthracite ; et celui de Twitter, Jack Dorsey, costume noir et barbe fleurie. C’est un casting de premier plan qui s’est réuni, mercredi 28 octobre en visioconférence devant la commission spéciale du Sénat des Etats-Unis. Durant quatre heures, ils devaient débattre de possibles réformes de la section 230 : un important texte de la loi américaine qui encadre la responsabilité légale, et le cadre dans lequel opèrent les réseaux sociaux dans le pays (en l’occurrence : Facebook, Twitter et YouTube). Lire l’article du Monde

Le focus

What a depressing spectacle. On Wednesday the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on online speech, questioning the CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google. Twitter’s Jack Dorsey was the focus, two weeks after his company launched a crackdown against independent journalists to protect Joe Biden from public scrutiny. Twitter blocked all links to a New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and the Post’s account remains locked to this day. Lire l’article du Wall Street Journal

Le décryptage

A US Senate hearing to reform an Internet law and hold tech companies accountable for how they moderate content quickly turned into a political scuffle as lawmakers not only went after the companies but also attacked each other. Republican lawmakers used most of their time during the hearing to accuse the companies of selective censorship against conservatives. Democrats primarily focused on insufficient action against misinformation that interferes with the election. Lire l’article de ChannelNews Asia

Le parti-pris

Well, we had another hearing with the platform CEOs. The dream with this sort of thing is that Congress shows up with a full command of the issues, and asks the CEOs good-faith questions about matters of policy and law. And then I’d come along at the end of the day to walk you through the more provocative questions and productive answers, and gesture at what likely policy outcomes we could expect from this exercise in representative democracy. But « Does Section 230’s Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior? » , a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, was not that kind of exercise. The word « sham” » got kicked around a lot, especially by the participants. « Stunt » , too. Some of the Democrats declined to ask any questions at all. Lire l’article de The Verge

Le point de vue

In 1994, Congress dragged the CEOs of the nation’s largest tobacco companies to Capitol Hill, where they testified — under oath — that cigarettes are not addictive, contrary to evidence otherwise. It was a watershed moment for the tobacco industry and marked the beginning of the end of Big Tobacco’s dominance in America. For many, the testimony of Big Tech CEOs may evoke a similar feeling. Lire l’article de CNN