Experience that we know today. Whether looking up restaurant reviews on yelp, catching up on s l on youtuber checking on a friend or loved one on social media. These are experiences that we come to know and rely on. And the plot form that we go to to do these things have been enabled the User Generated Content as well as the ability of these companies to moderate that content in creek communities. Section 230 of the Communications Decency act has enabled that ecosystem to does all. By giving Online Companies the ability to moderate content without equating them to the publisher or speaker of the content, we have enabled the creation of Massive Online Community of millions and billions of people that come together and interact. Today, this committee will be examining that world that section 230 has enabled, the good and the bad. I would like to think the witnesses for appearing before us today. Each of you represent important perspectives related to the content moderation in the online ecosystem. Many of you bring up complex concerns in your testimony. I agree this is a complex issue. I know that some of you have argued that congress should amend 232 address things such as online criminal activity in this information and hate speech and i agree these are serious issues. Too many other communities in my hometown of pittsburgh has seen what unchecked hate can lead to. Almost a year ago our community suffered as a nations history. The shooter did so after posting an antisemitic remark for finally posting that he was going in. A similar attack occurred in new zealand and the gunman streamed his despicable acts on social media sites. While some of these sites moved for the spread of the content many did not move fast enough. The algorithms meant the sports highlights and celebrity to go viral and helped him pull fight and in hi heinous act. In 2016 we sell similar issues when foreign adversaries use the power of these platforms against us for the information in the division and distrust in our leaders and institutions. Clearly, we all need to do better. Which i strongly encourage the witnesses before us that represent these Online Platforms and other major platforms to stop it. The other witnesses on the panel bring up serious concern with the kind of content available on your platforms and the impact that content is having on society. As they point out, some of those impacts are very disturbing. That being said, section 230 does not protect the largest platforms or the immersed rent websites. It enables common sections on individual blogs and people to leave honest and open reviews and free and open discussions about controversial topics. The kind of ecosystem that has been enabled by more open online discussions has enriched our lives and our democracy. The ability of individuals to have voices heard particularly marginalized communities and not the understated. The ability of people to post content that speaks truth to power has created Political Movement in this country and others that have changed the world we live in. We all need to recognize the incredible power this technology has for good. As well as the risks that we face when its misuse. I want to thank you again for being here and i look forward for our discussion. I would like to yield the balance of my time to my good friend. Thank you, mr. Chairman i wanted think the witnesses for being here today. In april 2018 Mark Zuckerberg came before congress and said it was my mistake and im sorry. And the influence of 2016 president ial election. Fastforward 555 days, i fear mr. Zuckerberg may have not learned from his mistakes. Recent developments confirm we have all feared, facebook will continue to allow lies once again making the online ecosystem Fertile Ground for election interference in 2020. The decision to remove lately falls and should not be a difficult one choice between hate speech, online bullies in effect driven debate should be easy. If facebook does not want to play the truth and political speech then they should get out of the game. I hope this hearing produces a robust discussion because we need it now or than ever. Mr. Chairman i yield back. Thank you latina recognizes the Ranking Member for the subcommittee for five minutes for his Opening Statement. Thank you mr. Chairman for todays hearing and thank you tour witnesses to appearing before us. Welcome todays hearing on content moderation and review of section 230 of the decency act. This hearing is a continuation of a serious discussion that we began last session on how congress should examine the law and ensure accountability and transparency for the hundreds of men in american using the internet today. We will also witnesses for a balanced group of stakeholders for section 230. They range from large to Small Companies as well as academics. Let me be clear a good lead to a slippery slope is a death by a thousand cuts that some would argue would end up in the internet industry if it was not appealed. Before we discuss whether or not congress should make modifications to the law we should understand how we got to this point in his support to look at 230 and when it was written. At the time the decency portion of telecom act of 1986 included other prohibitions on objectionable or the content of the internet. Provisions that were written to target obscene content were obstructed by the Supreme Court it was intended the Interactive Computer Services to proactively take down offensive content. To help control of the portals of our computer so it comes in and what our children see. It is unfortunate that such broad interpretation of section 230 with the broad liability platforms having to demonstrate that they are doing, Everything Possible instead of encouraging use numerous platforms have hidden behind the shield and used tools to avoid litigation without having to take responsibility. Not only our Good Samaritan are being selective in taking down harmful or illegal activities but section 230 has interpreted so broadly the head samaritans can skate by without accountability. That is not to say all platforms were afforded by congress, many do agree they can do many great things many is a bigger platforms for billions and not to the account annually. Often times these are the exception, not the rule. Today will dig deeper to learn how platforms aside to remove content whether its with the tools provided by section 230 or your own self constructed terms of service. Under either authority we should encourage forstmann to continue. Mr. Chairman i thank you for holding this important hearing so we can have an open discussion on intent of 230 and if we should reevaluate the law. We must ensure the platforms are hold reasonably accountable for activity on the platform without drastically affecting the innovative start. With that i yield back the baltimore time. The gentleman yields back. This is a joint hearing between her committee and the committee on Consumer Protection and congress i would like to recognize the chair of the committee for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman and good morning and all the panels for being here. The internet certainly has improved our lives in many, many ways in enabled americans to more actively participate in society, education and commerce. Section 230 of the Communications Decency act has been at the heart of the United States internet policy for over 20 years. Many say this law allows speech to force allowing the internet to grow into what it is today. In the early days of the internet it was intended to encourage Online Platforms to moderate User Generated Content to remove offensive, dangerous or illegal content. The internet has come a long ways since the law was first enacted. The amount and sophistication of User Postings has increased exponentially. Importantly, the number of americans who report experiencing extremism and extreme Online Harassment which include Sexual Harassment, stalking, bullying and threats of violence have one up over the last two years, 37 of users say they experienced that this year. Likewise extremist extremism, hate speech, election interference and other problematic content is plural freighting. The spread of such content is problematic that is for sure. And actually it causes real harm. That multibillion Dollar Companies like facebook, google and twitter cant or wont fix. If this were not enough, cause for concern, more forprofit businesses are attempting to use section 230 as a liability shield and actively they have nothing to do with thirdparty or content moderation policy. In recent Washington Post article executives seem to open the door to claiming lost immunity from labor, criminal in local profit liability based on section 230. This would represent a major unraveling of 200 years of social contract, Community Governance and congressional intent. Although also an issue as the federal trade Commission Section five authority on unfair or deceptive practices, the ftc versus section five cases, website generated content but the terms of Service Violations for thirdparty content may also be precluded by the 230 immunity. I wanted to talk about injecting 230 into trade agreements. It seems that we have already seen that in the japan trade agreement and there is a real issue to include that now in mexico, canada u. S. Trade agreement. There is no place for that. I think that the laws and the other countries do not really accommodate what the United States has done about 230. The other thing we are having a discussion, an important conversation about 230. In the midst of the conversation because of all the new developments, i think it is just inappropriate right now are this moment to insert this Liability Protection into trade agreements and as a member of the working group that is helping to negotiate the agreement, i am pushing hard to make sure that it just is not there. I dont think we need to have any adjustment to 230, issue just not be in trade agreements. So all of the issues that we are talking about today indicate that there may be a larger problem at 230 no longer is achieving the goal of encouraging platforms to protect their users and today, i hope that we can discuss holistic solutions, not talking about eliminating 230 by having a new look at that in the light of the many changes that we are seeing into the world right now. We want to i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and how it can be made even better. I yield back. The china recognizes the Ranking Member of the committee ms. Roger. Good morning. Welcome to todays joint hearing on online content management, as republican leader on the consumer subcommittee by priority to protect consumers while preserving the ability for Small Businesses and startups to intervene. In that spirit we are discussing Online Platforms in section 230 of the communication decency act. In the early days of the internet, two companies were sued for content, posted on the website by users. One company sought to moderate content on the platform and the other did not. In deciding these cases the court found the company that did not make any content decisions was immune from liability. But the company that moderated content was not. It was after these decisions that congress created section 230. Section 230 is intended to protect Interactive Computer Services from being sued over what users post while allowing them to moderate content that may be harmful illicit or illegal. This Liability Protection plated critical and Important Role in how we regulate the internet. To allow Small Businesses and integrators to thrive online without the fear of regrowth loss are looking to make a quick buck. Section 230 is also largely misunderstood. Congress never intended to provide immunity only to websites who are neutral. Congress never wanted platforms to simply be neutral conduits but in fact wanted platforms to moderate content. The Liability Protection extended to allow platforms to make good faith efforts to moderate material that is obscene, loose, excessively violent or harassing. There is supposed to be a balance to section 230. Small Internet Companies enjoy a safe harbor to innovate and force online while also Incentivizing Companies to keep the internet clear of offensive and violent content by empowering these platforms to act and clean up their own site. The internet revie revolutionize freedom of speech by providing a platform for every american to have their voice heard and to access an infinite amount of information at their fingertips. Medium and other online blogs provided a platform for anyone to write. Wikipedia provides free indepth information on almost any topic you can imagine through mostly user generated and moderated content. Companies that started in dorm rooms and garages are now global powerhouses. We take great pride in being the Global Leader in tech and innovation. But while some of our Biggest Companies have grown, have they mature . Today is often difficult to go online without seeing harmful, disgusting or illegal content. To be clear i fully support free speech which society benefits from open dialogue and Free Expression online. I know there has been calls for Big Government to mandate or dictate free speech or ensure fairness online and is coming from both sides of the aisle. I share similar concerns that others have expressed and are driving some of the policy proposals, i do not believe these are consistent with the First Amendment. Republicans successfully fought to repeal the fcc fairness doctrine for broadcast regulation during the 1980s. I strongly caution against advocating for similar doctrine online. It should not be the fcc, ftc or any Government Agency job to moderate freespeech online. It instead we should continue to provide oversight of big tech in their use of section 230 and encourage structure of content. This is very. How do we ensure they are responsibly earning their Liability Protection. We Want Companies to benefit not only from the shield but also use the sword congress afforded them to rid their sites of harmful content. I understand its a delicate issue and certainly we renew them. I want to be very clear im not forgetting section 230, its for consumers and entities in the internet echo system. Misguided and hasty attempts to amend or repeal section 230 for biased or other reasons could have unintended consequences were free speech and ability for Small Businesses to provide new and innovative services. At the same time it is clear we reached a point where its income it upon us as policymakers have a serious and thoughtful discussion about achieving the balance on section 230. I thank you for the time and i yield back. The chair recognizes chairman of the committee for five minutes for his Opening Statement. Thank you chairman. The intermittent is one of the single greatest Human Innovations that expresses community and Economic Opportunity with trains of dollars of exchanged online every year. One of the principal laws that pave the way for the internet to flourish is section 230 of the communication decency act which is part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We enacted the section to give platforms the ability to moderate their sites and protect consumers without excessive risk of litigation and to be clear section 230 has been an incredible success. In the 20 years since section 230 was law the internet is more complex and sophisticated the 1986 the Global Internet reached 36 million users, less than 1 of the world population. Only one in four americans reported going online every day. Compare that to now when all of us are online almost every hour that we are not sleeping in earlier this year the internet passed 4. 39 billion users worldwide. Here in the u. S. Theres about 230 million smart phones that provide americans access to Online Platforms. The internet is a central part of our economic fabric in a way that we cannot have dreamed up when we passed the Telecommunications Act. With that complexity and growth we have seen the darker side of the internet growth. Online radicalization has spread leading to Mass Shootings in the schools, churches and movie theaters, International Terrorists are using the internet to groom recruits. Platforms have been used for the illegal sale of drugs including those that spark the Opioid Epidemic. Foreign governments and fraudsters to polluted