[altgoogler]

Disclaimer: am googler, my opinions are my own. I have no non-public knowledge on this topic.

It's not clear to me what the House committee is asking for. From what I read in their letters it's basically, "We think you have more than you've given us, so give it to us".

That's not how this works. If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted. If you don't get what you think you want, call people in to testify.

Here's the actual Committee release [1]. Two quotes from the Alphabet letter:

"For example, Alphabet has not produced any documents that fully explain non-public moderation discussions and policies" "Additionally, Alphabet has not produced documents relating to YouTube’s policy decisions"

But, IIRC, YouTube (and Twitter) were pretty publicly vocal and specific about their policies for months preceding Jan 6th. I just don't see what warrants this round of grandstanding.

[1] https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-comm...

[hammock]

>It's not clear to me what the House committee is asking for.

They are asking for TV time

[_fat_santa]

Yep. Have a regular committee hearing, you get a few outlets to report on it. Haul in the CEO's of these companies to testify and you've got a news media event for days.

I'm sure there is some actual substance to these hearings and there most likely is info that they want to learn. But at this point I will say the whole thing around Jan 6 is 10% substance and 90% media theater.

[choward]

> If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted.

Did you see what happened when they asked specific and targeted questions to the FBI?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQRetozhSY

If the FBI won't even answer basic questions why should companies have to give have random arbitrary data that probably won't help with the investigation? This January 6th committee is a complete joke and nothing but theater.

[creaghpatr]

The press release is the endgame here.

[lapsedacademic]

> If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted

On one hand, a congressional subpoena for "non-public moderation discussions and policies" is broad. On the other hand, there is certainly some version of that request that is within reasonable scope for a subpoena. In the hypothetical world where passing legislation in the US were still possible and Congress was capable of regulating Big Tech (e.g. changing Section 230 or so on), this is exactly the sort of thing a Congressional Subpoena would make sense for, since there would be a germane policy making interest in obtaining this information.

> I just don't see what warrants this round of grandstanding.

The paradox of Big Tech: everyone hates Big Tech because they think their political adversaries control Big Tech.

The Left views Big Tech as monopolies controlled by techno-libertarian ultra-billionaires. The Right views Big Tech as Democrat companies controlled by radical leftist censors.

(As an aside: in a sense, both views have a kernel of truth. Big Tech employees skew left, especially on social issues, although not nearly as homogeneously as the right seems to think and individual FAANG employees have far less power than people seem to imagine. On the other hand, the leadership of these companies are definitely not natural allies of progressives, but are also not -- AFAICT -- nearly as villainous as the left seems to think.)

But the real thing that both have in common is conspiratorial brain candy with Big Tech as the modern stand-in for Illuminati or whatever.

[MiroF]

Big tech, like high finance, is a Democrat aligned industry. Big Oil is a Republican aligned industry.

Leftists are anti-corporate power in the public sphere.

None of this is paradoxical.

[Mountain_Skies]

Apparently most self-identified leftists in the US didn't get the memo because they haven't been anti-corporate since corporations rainbowed themselves after Occupy Wall Street ended. The 1999 WTO protests in Seattle could never happen today but a celebration of the WTO and global corporate power certainly could. That's simply what the left in the US has become: another wholly owned subsidiary of Corporation Inc.

[MiroF]

You are imputing a lot of views onto "leftists" that I do not think are accurate. I am unsure how rainbow flags have any relevance to this discussion.

So called "pinkwashing" is well known among leftist circles so to suggest that entire political spectrum has been hoodwinked by American corporations seems wrong?

The real answer is just that the Left isn't particularly powerful in the US, even during the WTO protests.

[deburo]

>Left isn't particularly powerful in the US

There's always the mistake of assuming the person means the US Left as opposed to another country's Left movement, but the Left as understood within the US is quite powerful. It seems really as if both movements divide the country in two.

[choward]

> The paradox of Big Tech: everyone hates Big Tech because they think their political adversaries control Big Tech.

> The Left views Big Tech as monopolies controlled by techno-libertarian ultra-billionaires. The Right views Big Tech as Democrat companies controlled by radical leftist censors.

I guess it's only a paradox if you are partisan and think there are only two types of people. I don't consider myself left or right and big tech is definitely an adversary to me and my beliefs.

[lapsedacademic]

The observation isn't that opposition to big tech is always irrational or partisan.

The observation is that Big Tech plays the role of Powerful Boogeyman for both the left and the right in polarizing narrative construction.

Ofc non-partisans can also dislike big tech, and partisans can dislike big tech for rational reasons. Neither of those is inconsistent with the above observation.

[b112]

The very language states they are looking for non-public moderation policies, so by very definition, your stated vocality does not apply.

There is no way the full scope, procedures, code, algos, and more are public for all moderation methods and channels.

I suspect people are hoping trade secret law will protect, but I think the House wants to see regardless!

To be frank, no matter what side of the political spectrum, we're in very, very deep trouble here.

Our very democracies are at risk, and the manipulation by media, and enemies of our democracies will only get worse and worse.

Hell, even manipulation by members of our democracies, from special interest groups, political parties, to even just nutbars, what we've seen so far, has shown us that people will buy into anything, if it's all they hear.

Our civilization, our world, will live or die by how we all get a handle on misinformation.

And while I embrace democracy, and capitalism, I couldn't care one bit of the required fix tanks Google, Facebook, Twitter and more.

Quite literally, everything is at stake here.

[kerneloftruth]

I think they're also sending a message: Censor more! (because the mid-terms are coming).