Washington, March 19 US lawmakers across party lines voiced growing alarm over the sweeping influence of social media platforms, warning that their impact on children, public discourse, and the flow of information has outpaced existing laws.
At a Senate hearing marking 30 years of Section 230 on Wednesday (local time), senators repeatedly pointed to what they described as a digital ecosystem that is no longer functioning in the public interest.
“All of us here agree that the digital public sphere is not working for Americans or for our democracy,” Nadine Farid Johnson, policy director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told lawmakers, setting the tone for a hearing that focused heavily on the societal costs of platform power.
The most emotional testimony centred on children. Matthew Bergman, a lawyer representing families, described what he called the “carnage” caused by social media design choices. He said platforms use “deliberate design decisions… to target kids to enhance their profits over the safety of kids.”
Lawmakers echoed those concerns, citing cases where minors were exposed to harmful content, including material promoting self-harm and exploitation.
“These cases have nothing to do with protecting speech,” Bergman said. “They’re about the deliberate design decisions of companies to prioritise profits over the lives and safety of their children.”
Several senators argued that addictive product features -- including algorithmic targeting, infinite scroll, and push notifications -- are engineered to maximise engagement, particularly among young users.
At the same time, lawmakers warned that misinformation and polarisation have reshaped political discourse in the United States.
Senator Ted Cruz accused technology platforms of acting as arbiters of speech, saying they “simply make the view they disagree with disappear and they silence you.” He also alleged that government pressure on platforms had further distorted online debate.
Others cautioned that the problem cuts across political lines. Senator Brian Schatz acknowledged that both parties have engaged in what witnesses described as “jawboning” -- informal pressure on platforms to moderate content.
Witnesses warned that such dynamics risk undermining trust in both institutions and digital platforms.
Daphne Keller said the concentration of communication power in a handful of companies makes speech vulnerable to pressure. “All of our speech is very dependent on these big private companies right now,” she said, describing the current moment as one of “unprecedented vulnerability.”
Yet efforts to curb misinformation raise constitutional challenges. Keller stressed that much harmful or offensive content remains protected speech, limiting the government’s ability to mandate its removal.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor