Stories on social networks take on a life of their own

Political correctness is not for liberals only.

That immortal truth returned to center stage when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testified before the Senate Commerce Committee.

The conflict between the world views of Big

Tech and Congress was well-illustrated by a vigorous exchange between Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Twitter’s Dorsey, whose social media platform has in many ways defined the presidency of Donald Trump.

“Is Twitter a publisher?” asked Cruz.

“No, we are not,” said Dorsey. “We distribute information.”

“So, what is a publisher?” Cruz pressed on.

“An entity that is publishing under editorial guidelines and decision.”

In other words, those who see Twitter as a provider of editorial content to consumers may see it as a publisher. But to Twitter, social networks merely provide a platform through which content creators can reach their audiences.

That conflict lies at the heart of both parties’ interest in last week’s hearings: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted in 1996 when search engines and social networks were very young.

As Cruz pointed out, that act defines an information content provider as any person or entity that is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other interactive computer service.”

In writing the law, Congress wisely decided to intrude as little as possible on the new blooming world of internet communication and commerce and revisit the issue later. So far, Section 230 has granted more immunity protection to social media companies than to any other medium.

That’s an excellent reason for the Big Tech giants to show up when they’re summoned to Capitol Hill. That’s OK. Companies with so much impact need to be held accountable.

But unfortunately in this hearing, as in earlier ones, the galaxy of serious questions being raised in society about the tech industries’ vast power and influence kept getting elbowed aside by allegations of liberal bias and censorship of conservative views.

Four years ago, it was Democrats who came in to Big Tech hearings fired up by Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails and intrusions by Russian trolls of her election campaign. This time Republicans were triggered by Facebook and Twitter interfering with tweets that spread the New York Post’s questionable Hunter Biden scoop in October.

Cruz and other conservatives were furious that the story about a cache of documents allegedly found on a laptop belonging to candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter was not picked up by mainstream media outside of Fox News and other conservative outlets.

But journalistically, the story raised more questions than it answered with its speculations about a possible contact between foreign influences and Joe Biden himself. The story was so questionable, the rival New York Times reported, that the article’s writers asked to have their names removed from the byline.

But in today’s world of dueling political realities, helped along by new media and “alternative facts,” stories take on a life of their own in alternative communities.

But the issues of fact-checking, balance and clearing out conspiracy theories ultimately have to rest with the consumer.

Government oversight is still important, but for news consumers, “Buyer beware” is still the most valuable motto to remember.