Ted Cruz Staged a Hearing on Tech Bias. Senate Democrats Weren’t Having It.

Lawmakers ignore and laugh at their Republican colleagues’ unsupported claims of conservative repression.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) shows false information about Sandy Hook on Google. She was the only Democrat present for most of a hearing on alleged conservative bias in tech. Stefani Reynolds/CNP via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This week, Senate Democrats signaled they might be sick of dealing with claims from their Republican counterparts that Silicon Valley tech companies are biased against conservatives.

On Wednesday, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) complained about purported bias to representatives from Twitter and Facebook during a hearing he chaired, almost every Democratic seat to his left remained empty for the entirety of the three and a half hour meeting.

The only Democrats making appearances were the subcommittee’s ranking member, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who showed up late and used much of his time to speak with one witness, Robbie Parker, whose six-year-old daughter was killed in the 2012 shooting at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary, on harassment he’s faced on tech platforms spurred by right-wingers like Infowars founder Alex Jones, who had claimed that the shooting was a hoax.

Cruz’s hearing, hosted by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, is the latest example of GOP lawmakers pushing allegations of technology companies’ supposed anti-conservative bias. Republicans have hawked this claim in Congress for the past several years, culminating in a series of hearings on the topic over the past twelve months, which have aired flimsy anecdotes that don’t necessarily evince a pattern of bias.

While Democrats have rejected the idea that tech platforms are being biased against conservatives, and fought Republican members on it in previous hearings, the absences at Wednesday’s event suggested that at least some of them might be trying a different approach that combines ignoring and mocking such charges. Prior to the hearing, when asked for his thoughts about it by the Washington Post, subcommittee member Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) only chuckled and told the paper, “just note that I laughed.”

Previous hearings conducted by Republican lawmakers have pointed to unclear examples of bias purportedly effecting sites like Gateway Pundit, a right-wing outlet that has pushed conspiracies and misinformation, and Trump-supporting YouTube personalities Diamond and Silk, who claim that their content has been censored.

The examples of bias Republicans presented in Wednesday’s hearing were anecdotes about isolated incidences of content moderation, that while real, are no more substantive than corresponding instances of accounts on the left being censored or restricted.

Lawmakers pointed to a case in which a 2017 campaign video from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was briefly stripped of the ability to be spread as a paid advertisement on Twitter, as it contained content regarding abortion that the company initially deemed “inflammatory.” Twitter never deleted the video and eventually reinstated its status as a paid ad. Republicans also pointed to a recent case in which Twitter accidentally deleted the account for the anti-abortion rights movie “Unplanned” because it was linked to another account that violated its terms of service. Twitter ultimately reactivated the account.

While there’s no denying both those events happened, Twitter has also come under fire for similarly temporarily disabling left-leaning accounts, including one used by a Southern Poverty Law Center staffer after he reported on a hate crime. Facebook mistakenly censored a racial justice activist and other activists who have documented the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

Such incidents lend themselves to cherry-picked narratives that are unlikely to be backed up by metrics or data. Republicans didn’t present any data or research suggesting anti-conservative bias in Wednesday’s hearing. Some experts think there is no such data to present.

What data that does exist on platform bias suggests left-leaning internet users may have more to worry about. Reports from social media analysis firm Newswhip show that over the last two months conservative sites have held three of the top five spots on the list of Facebook’s most shared publishers. Fox News held the number one spot both months and has often been the top publisher on Facebook or close to it at other points. This week Media Matters published new data showing that right and left wing Facebook pages get similar engagement, deflating claims of anti-conservative bias on the platform.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate