Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Wednesday December 06, @05:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the thorny-questions dept.

The bloom is off the rose:

It was about an hour and a half into a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee when Sen. Dianne Feinstein laid into Facebook, Google and Twitter.

"I don't think you get it," she began. "You bear this responsibility. You've created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones to do something about it. Or we will."

The tech giants were being grilled by Congress over Russian trolls abusing their services to meddle in last year's US election, and the California Democratic lawmaker had had it.

It was just one of very public tongue-lashings the Silicon Valley companies received over the course of three marathon congressional panels last month, held over a two-day span. The hearings were anticlimactic, in part because the three companies only sent their general counsels instead of their famous CEOs -- a point several lawmakers bemoaned during the public questioning.

Is it Google, Twitter, and Facebook who don't get it, or Senators like Dianne Feinstein who don't get it?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 06, @11:12PM (6 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday December 06, @11:12PM (#606467) Journal

    FB knew or should have know an illegal act is occurring and report it

    The law is illegal. There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that makes exceptions for foreign nationals. The statue simply states "no law". If you want to make exceptions you have to amend the constitution, and that procedure is explicitly spelled out also.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 07, @01:10AM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @01:10AM (#606505) Journal
    Agree. This current witch hunt is exactly why the First Amendment was created. No good will come of this hearing. Any attempt to fix this will result in social media companies policing their forums in ways that allow for suppression of legitimate speech.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 07, @01:11AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @01:11AM (#606506) Journal
      And by "legitimate", I mean speech of the sort which purportedly is not subject to laws about foreign nationals and governments.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:23AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:23AM (#606763)

    The law is illegal.

    The voting voters' representatives passed the law, so it must be okay. The voting voter have all the power and can change the law any time they want to, but they haven't, so they must want the law in place!