Congress and Big Tech: Addressing Emotions and Misinformation

Graphic by Arola Oluwehinmi

PART I: OVERVIEW

Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) “finsta” flub during the September Congressional hearing of Facebook took the social media world by storm. The senator called for Antigone Davis, Facebook’s Global Director of Safety, to put an end to finstas because of the supposed threat these smaller, more private accounts represented to teens. Gen Z ridiculed Blumenthal for his misinformed question, and rightfully so, because finstas are not a special product that Facebook offers; they are normal Instagram accounts known for letting teens escape the unrealistic standards and public scrutiny to which their main accounts are often subject. This embarrassing moment was not a one-off event; many senators, especially those who are older, have demonstrated an inability to grasp the nuance and details of the operations and strategies of Big Tech companies. Aside from simply raising concerns surrounding Congress’s ability to comprehend developing technologies, such instances represent the existence of several potential threats to the American public. Misguided regulation of technology, faltering trust of the government by younger generations, and risks to important liberties such as privacy rights could very well result from a misinformed Congress. 

PART II: HISOTRY OF THE OTA AND STAA

Misinformation about tech was not always a problem for Congress—the defunding of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, 1972-1995) is often blamed as the reason for the disconnect between Congress and Big Tech. The OTA was generally praised for its thorough, well-informed research, and it struck a balance between topical expertise and accessibility to non-experts. The OTA played a crucial behind-the-scenes policymaking role and crunched the numbers to evaluate the impacts of a range of proposed policies. Its successes include revising flawed casualty estimates for a proposed intercontinental ballistic missile strategy, challenging the accuracy of polygraph tests (which led to the banning of their use by private employers), and saving $60 billion from being spent on a cost-ineffective synthetic fuels project. OTA funding was slashed during Republican Newt Gingrich’s term as Speaker of the House. Part of a broader push to reduce the size of the government, the decision was also a manifestation of Republican discontent with the fact that OTA reports sometimes went against their interests. The OTA report that particularly frustrated certain Republicans was a criticism of the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars program,” a questionable missile defense system proposed by the Reagan administration. Bipartisan support for the OTA was there, but it was not enough to avoid the will of Gingrich and his camp. 

Over the course of the 2000s and 2010s, resources were poured into creating a suitable alternative to the OTA within the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In 2019, these efforts culminated in the establishment of the Science Technology Assessment and Analytics Team (STAA). Technology assessments, technical assistance to Members of Congress and staff, federal S&T oversight, and engineering sciences best practices are among the key services the STAA provides. Such responsibilities are consistent with the work formerly performed by the OTA. The STAA has had numerous successes in its short existence, but the GAO’s bureaucratic system is often cited as limiting the STAA’s ability to provide quality analysis because rigid practices and norms can hinder experimental autonomy. Thankfully, the GAO recognizes the importance of the STAA. In its FY22 Budget Request, the GAO emphasized the importance of Science and Technology (S&T) issues and made a legitimate request for increased STAA funding. Given the years of government work dedicated to replacing the OTA with a team internal to the GAO and expected increases in STAA funding, it is now impractical to bring back the OTA. The OTA’s position outside of the GAO will always be an advantage that the STAA cannot possess, but with the GAO’s increasing cooperation, the STAA can become just as effective.  

PART III: CURRENT STAA CHALLENGES

The STAA has hosted several symposiums to better inform Members of Congress on various S&T topics, but as evidenced by slip-ups, these have not been sufficient to prepare Congress for particular Big Tech hearings. The symposiums did provide Members with important foundational knowledge on broad topics like COVID-19, 5G technology, and the innovation economy, but there are significant factors that made them insufficient to prepare Congress for hearings. First, the symposiums that the STAA refers to in its FY22 Budget Request were only for the House of Representatives. This is deeply problematic because the Senate is the body responsible for many Big Tech hearings. Second, the symposiums took place during New Member Orientation of the 117th Congress, and the report contains no reference to follow-up symposiums to refresh Member’s knowledge. Third, the symposiums were not focused on pertinent social media technologies that Congress finds itself evaluating time and again. 

Finally, the STAA needs to narrow its focus and prioritize training the most relevant members of Congress to deal with Big Tech. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is most relevant when wrangling with Big Tech. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security, chaired by Senator Blumenthal, is particularly concerned with social media issues involving companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Additionally, within the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights and Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law play a key role in developing legislation for Big Tech. These are the particular committees that need to be primed for hearings, and on multiple fronts, the symposiums failed them. STAA resources need to be allocated more effectively, especially as funding comes in. However, a bigger STAA budget and better symposiums are not enough to fix the relationship between Congress and Big Tech. 

PART IV: EMOTIONS

An additional issue lies on the level of individual congresspersons, whose hypocrisy, emotion, and personal-interest permeate hearings that are meant to be guided by information and objective facts. Members of Congress use social media platforms to strengthen their base and exploit algorithms to spread their political views. They and their campaigns post on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to leverage attacks against political opponents and comment on hot topics in the news. The ways in which congresspersons employ social media for personal gain inform how they treat Big Tech companies during hearings. During an October 2020 Senate Commerce Committee hearing of companies including Twitter, Facebook, and Google, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) lambasted Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, for blocking the New York Post from tweeting after they allegedly violated the company’s hacked materials policy. Dorsey himself agreed the policy in question was flawed and improperly applied, and, within 24 hours of the Post’s tweet, it was altered. He apologized for the policy’s enforcement, insisting the New York Post could reactivate their account and even repost the article if they simply deleted the original post. Even after Dorsey’s clarification of how the Post could access their account, Senator Cruz refused to accept that this was a possibility, attempting to assert a different version of the facts that would justify his aggression. Cruz took advantage of the soft-spoken Dorsey to further his view that Twitter is an evil, repressive corporation intent on silencing right-wing opinions. To many viewers, Cruz’s line of questioning came across as a slam-dunk, although it was simply driven by emotion and partisan interests. 

Emotion reigns supreme on both sides of the aisle. Its presence in crafting tech policy does not always arise from deliberate disinformation like in the case of Senator Cruz; emotion can also be deployed unintentionally. Looking back at Senator Blumenthal’s questioning of Antigone Davis, one can observe personal beliefs, in addition to misinformation, clearly tainting the validity of Blumenthal’s attacks on finstas. Blumenthal began his questioning by acknowledging how his personal experience as a parent has informed his perspectives on the vulnerability of teens to negative external pressures. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence at his disposal to indicate this same fact, Blumenthal deferred to anecdotal evidence to set the stage for his question. Finstas, as Antigone Davis pointed out, are not dangerous products offered by Facebook that take advantage of teens. If anything, finstas encourage privacy and safe spaces for teens by only interacting with a smaller, closer group of friends. Despite these facts, Blumenthal suggests a world in which all Instagram accounts are easily discoverable to the public and social media is stripped of privacy. It is unlikely that this was his intention. If Blumenthal had supported his view with accurate and relevant facts, his argument could have been substantiated and he could have avoided tremendous embarrassment. In a respectable move, Blumenthal acknowledged his mistake and apparent disconnect with younger generations on Twitter. Members of Congress themselves recognize that they need to be more educated on new technologies. 

PART V: MOVING FORWARD

It is time for congresspersons to acknowledge their own faults and complicity in perpetuating misinformation and disinformation about Big Tech. Congresspersons like Senator Cruz need to hold themselves to a higher standard and do what is in their power to limit disinformation, and all congresspersons need to rely more on the facts at their disposal, rather than emotion, when questioning Big Tech companies. Not all congresspersons can be blamed for how they treat Big Tech. Some, including those on crucial committees, are genuinely uneducated on important technological topics, which is why the STAA needs to step up to the plate. STAA symposiums are a step in the right direction, but what Congress needs is targeted workshops for the committees most involved in Big Tech regulation. These workshops should occur frequently and cover the most pressing topics to be addressed during hearings. They should be offered to the relevant committees in both the House and Senate. If hearings can become spaces of respectful, genuine pursuit of the truth, informed by thorough, unbiased analysis, Congress will construct better tech policy and earn the respect of the general public.