In a move that comes outside the box, Rep. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, recommended that Congress consider investing in a government agency for regulating social media companies. On March 25, the House Energy and Commerce Committee hosted a hearing on social media, extremism, and misinformation. The hearing featured Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, and Google’s Sundar Pichai as key witnesses.
After 2 1/2 hours, Welch offered his recommendation.
Welch suggested that Congress form a new government agency that would provide oversight for social media companies. Welch described the theoretical agency as an entity “that has rule-making and enforcement authority to be an ongoing representation of the public to address these emerging issues [of privacy, content standards, and misinformation].” The agency would resemble the Federal Trade Commission and employ technology experts for the regulators’ benefit.
When asked whether they would support such an agency, all three Big Tech CEOs expressed some interest. Zuckerberg said he believes that such an agency would help manage the “complex trade-offs” required to balance the need for privacy, competition, safety, and free expression. Dorsey said he was open to the suggestion but would not say more until practical details were provided. Pichai deferred to Congress but was willing to agree that expertise was needed.
In a follow-up letter sent to his colleagues, Welch stated, “Social media companies are constantly innovating and changing, and Congress can’t keep up, but a dedicated government entity that can adapt and monitor quickly and effectively can.”
Welch’s observations resonate historically with Congress’s handling of technology issues. Congress has traditionally struggled with keeping tech-savvy staffers employed on Capitol Hill. This lack of experts often leads to poorly written technology policy across party lines. Congress had attempted to fix this through the Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA was founded in 1972 as a resource for technology and science-related research. The agency published more than 750 studies on an assortment of topics, including nuclear power, climate change, and general issues of military power. The OTA was eventually shut down in 1994 when former Rep. Newt Gingrich and the incoming Republican appointees declared it “duplicative, wasteful, and biased against their party.”
Congress had made attempts to create agencies similar to the OTA in the past. Former Rep. Rush Holt filed several attempts to reform the OTA, often with bipartisan support. Sens. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, and John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, proposed a similar bill in 2019 that called for the FTC to be more active in overseeing social media companies.
“It strikes me as an unqualified good to have more technology advisers supporting our legislative and regulatory processes,” said Chris Riley, a senior fellow of internet governance at the R Street Institute. “Growth in government is rarely an unequivocal good, to the extent that we want to see growth in government as a whole. But right now, we want to see the state grow in technological competence so that we can study the very complex issues with more expertise.”
Riley does note that there is an essential distinction between the OTA and Welch’s proposed agency. The first agency would focus on research and analysis, while the second would have more interest in regulating technology.
Unfortunately, getting such a bill passed in Congress today is unthinkable.
“Right now, members of Congress cannot agree on why or how to regulate social media,” said Shoshana Weissmann, senior manager of digital media at the R Street Institute. “Some complain about conservative censorship, liberal censorship, terrorism, addiction (poorly defined), a desire for less moderation, and a desire for more moderation.”
Riley believes that very few legislators have a complete vision for how the government should regulate technology companies. Submitting bills about controversial topics such as updating Section 230 is relatively easy. Making laws that keep the entire scope of the internet in view is another matter altogether.
