Unpacking the Twitter Hearing

Oversight on government engagement with tech companies is fair, abusing witnesses in the process is not.

This is my first newsletter for paid subscribers! Thank you so much to everyone who has already subscribed. I appreciate it. Some folks have reached out about enterprise solutions to buy multiple team subscriptions. If you are interested in this, fill out this form, and we’ll chat.

Also, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. Free subscribers can read parts of these exclusive posts so you can get a flavor of what I’m offering.

Unpacking the Twitter Hearing

I just finished watching the Twitter hearing. I couldn’t catch it all live due to some meetings, so I listened throughout the day. 

My first impression: That was hard to watch. 

I think there are some very valid questions Republicans have about the role of the government in engaging with tech platforms. They have valid questions about how these companies make decisions on content. But there is no excuse for how some members treated the witnesses - especially Yoel Roth. I was glad to see the Democrats bring up witness intimidation and stand up to how they were being treated.

These are complicated topics where reasonable people can disagree. We should be exploring those disagreements in these hearings. Oversight is good. We need more transparency into how these decisions are made. But who will want to do these tough jobs if they face abuse like they have and did today?

I’m worried about the precedent this is setting going forward. Junior staffers whose job it is/was to engage with the government are likely freaking out that their names will be made public with any disclosures. Former employees who might have been inclined to help Congress are likely second-guessing that. Current employees making content decisions might be paralyzed on making a call for fear of how it might be politicized down the line.

If I had a magic wand and became the Oversight Committee chair, here’s what I’d focus on going forward: