advertising that is not hyper targeted at individuals based on tracking which is the model that facebook and google have put forward and it's very hard for any public service to compete against facebook and google when that's the model that they don't have the tracking and surveillance networks that google has. so going back to advertising and estate context, incentivize instead of entity so if you're reading an article about golf you can see a golf, and about a golf bag but you're not seeing an ad for a golf bag because you were spied on on your golf trip. that's the idea so as ultimately where i think we need to go . >> brent skorup. >> as you mention this antitrust reform and especially intent has become a source for democrats and i become a priority for republicans as well. i think it's revealing about the motivation for a lot of this. i think a lot of the attention on tech from democrats and republicans is just because of the growing power of social media companies in the media landscape and this is always of interest, has been of interest to politicians for decades and i think that's where a

has put forward, and it is very hard for any news publisher to compete against facebook and google because they do not have the wide tracking and surveillance networks that facebook and google have. going back to advertising that is based on context instead of identity. if you are reading an article about golf, you can see an ad for a golf bag, but you are not seeing an ad because you are spied on on your golf trip. that is the idea. that's ultimately where i think we need to go. >> as you mentioned, this antitrust reform has become a priority for democrats. i would add it has become a priority for democrats as well. that quote is revealing about the motivation for a lot of this. a lot of the hesitation from democrats and republicans is because of the growing power of social media, and this has been of interest to politicians for decades. that's where a lot of the motivation comes from. congress cannot regulate social media companies because of the first amendment so they are getting regulation because of antitrust. a republican in the house was at sitak and said conservatives are

to ashley's point news media complying sources of information than it that is monetized by facebook and google is one example of how there is a need for a new definition. >> host: but there is quite an outcry in australia when facebook started limiting media? >> yes, it was for consumers who use the internet every day from apps that normally were not as a popular shot across the chart because people weren't downloading facebook and then facebook and the australia legislators did come to an agreement but it was complicated and we will see this play out in the uk as well and here in the u.s. >> host: emily birnbaum, we are also seeing hearings on whether or not social media companies should be able to restrict who is on their platforms, specifically there is conservative sites that are being looked at by the democratic congress for restriction. where are we on that? >> yeah, there was or there has been a lot of talk in hearings about the issue of misinformation online and sort of what lawmakers can do about, you know, the spread of disinformation and it's on all these platforms and a lot of the

but now we have a situation where facebook, google, all of them provide things for free. we don't pay anything to access facebook or google but what they do is they take information we provide and then use that to sell advertising. so now people like -- supposedly hired by the white house to oversee the antitrust issues, this is a professor and an author has written extensively on the tech industry, they have call for new ways of looking at monopoly power. how does it affect competitors? how does it affect supplies? so news media supplying social information that then is monetized by facebook and google is one example of how there's a need for new definition. >> host: but there's quite an outcry down in australia wasn't there when facebook started limiting media? >> guest: yeah. it was confusing for consumers, people who use the internet every day apps that normally were not as popular shot to the top of the apps chart because of facebook and facebook and the australian legislator did come to an agreement but it was complicated. we are going to see this play out in the uk

companies like google and facebook have decimated small and medium market news sources in 2010, googlepublicly disclosed how much of the ad revenue they shared with publishers. at the time, publishers were earning almost 70% of the revenue fromf8phÑhrmxzñrcontent are the ads you see on a publisher's website. in 2020 the association of national advertisers estimated that publishers are only taking home,aé■!u between 30% and 40% ad revenue. that is a huge decrease and we have seen the adverse effects of that change. since 2004 the united states lost approximately 2,100 newspapers which accounts for a quarter of the nation's total. in 2004, there were almost 9,000 newspapers and by the end of 2019, that number dropped to 6,700. more than 200 of the nation's 3,143 counties and parrishes no longer have a local paper and the newsrooms that are closing are in small, rural communities. similarly local radio and tv stations are also disappearing at an alarming rate. study after study shows that americans are more trusting of local news outlets and local reporters and with good reason. there is

google and facebook have taken divergent approaches to the new law that reflect the differences in what the 2 platforms do google which is far more dependent on news content than facebook is started negotiating quickly reaching agreements with several major us trail in conflicts among them 7 west media and 9 entertain they will both get tens of millions of dollars a year for the journalism the total used to get for free google also made a deal with murdoch's news corp but those figures have not been made public. news is far less integris to facebook's business model so it just pulled all news content from its platform in australia and then waited for the morrison government to soften its position facebook played hardball knowing it had most of the cards and millions of australian users on its side of the bargain. and easily extremely heavy hands so lots of things that went nice content were actually stripped from the platform countless businesses community organizations even public health services had the content taken down which is immensely dangerous in a country that is about to roll

facebook, google, and twitter and the hot seat at a house hearing on misinformation. we will speak with one congresswoman, who asked very pointed questions. plus, bitcoin slips, a harsh blow to the biggest funded tracking the currency. the $29.4 billion fund dropped double percentage points this week. shares of one tv maker falling after the company goes of it. we will speak to the ceo about his vision for a connected home in a post-adamic world. first, stocks climbing. progress in vaccine distribution. president biden giving his first white house press conference since becoming president of the united states, and setting out new goals for vaccines. pres. biden: by my 100 the day in office, we will have administered 200 million shots, two hundred million shots in 100 days. emily: there was a response to that goal. i want to billing in two people. >> you said stocks were in the green. that's how we ended, except for tech, the pain isolated to the tech space. semiconductors in the green. big tech ended lower, underperforming. look at the boards and how it compares year

the heads of facebook google and twitter are testifying before the u.s. congress today in a virtual hearing executives are facing questions on the role that the tech giants play in the spread of misinformation and extremist ideologies well the hearing could lead to legal reforms to make the companies more accountable for the content and if they host more people or the ok let's get you more data we use the public fully ilyas cit is on the story public tell us at the hearings are underway. you're absolutely right lola and as expected the question of whether these current laws should be changed are central to these hearings and whether at facebook google and twitter and other tech companies should be held more accountable or responsible for the spreading of misinformation on their platforms which then can have that real world consequences like those that we saw back in there in january with the storming of the capitol building in washington d.c. there's also been there's also a focus on algorithms and whether there amplifying misinformation on the spread of

what the uk wants to do and make sure is that those big tech firms, facebook, google, amazon and the fair share of tax. it is not just the _ pay their fair share of tax. it is notjust the uk. _ pay their fair share of tax. it is notjust the uk. many - is notjust the uk. many countries around the world are looking at how they can tax these multinational companies because we leave these companies are making their revenue within the borders of their country is the.— their country is the. how do ou their country is the. how do you think — their country is the. how do you think this _ their country is the. how do you think this will _ their country is the. how do you think this will play - their country is the. how do you think this will play out? j you think this will play out? if the us lacks these tariffs on all these goods, where will the compromise be? the compromise _ the compromise be? the compromise is _ the compromise be? the compromise is the - the compromise be? tue: compromise is the need the compromise be? tte: compromise is the need for global digital services tax and the uk

we're hearing from the ceos of facebook, google. here's a clip from earlier today. >> i would like the introduce our witnesses from today's hearing and thank them all for appearing today. today. first, we have mark zuckerberg, chief executive officer of facebook, and sundar pichai of google, and jack dorsey of twitter. mr. zuckerberg, we will start with you. you are recognized for five minutes. >> ranking members and members of the committee, i am glad this committee is looking at all the ways that misinformation and disinformation show up in our country's discharge. there are important challenges for society and we need to decide how to handle speech that is legal but harmful and who should be responsible for what people say. misinformation was not a new problem. it was 200 years ago that a congressman said a lie would travel from maine to georgia, and truth was still getting on its boots. the internet gives everybody the power to communicate and that certainly presents unique challenges. people often say things that aren't verifiab

still to come twitter facebook and google face pressure from the u.s. will make us to take responsibility for what's published on the platforms. it. seems wrong. to shape our. engagement. trail. find themselves worlds apart. for common ground. the program. 6 years since the coalition airstrikes popped war on the world's most disastrous humanitarian crisis. has this report. one of the most surreal experiences i've ever had in it was owed was when we flew to yemen's capital sanaa as we were latin ding we were greeted looking out the window with rules and rules kilometers of destroyed and croft passenger jets locker room a bleed to rated where they stood by the saudi led coalition not a sight you wouldn't see when you were coming into lad and that was in the early days of the war before the death toll spiraled into the hundreds of thousands. like cool war as the war in yemen has complicated the gist of it is off to the arab spring told build a dictator who had ruled for 3 decades his replacement was his vice president who happened to be very pro saudi peop

i think companies like facebook, google, they have the resources to provide the oversight on these algorithms. we just need to provide the incentives or disincentives for them to do that. peter: you are watching "the communicators" on c-span. representative jerry mcnerney of california is our best. cat's our guest reporter from the washington post. cat: you have mentioned the word "responsibility" several times in this conversation. tech companies do not have to take response ability for harmful content on their platforms. you think it is time to reform or repeal section 230? rep. mcnerney: section 230 has provided a tremendous amount of innovation, and it has made a lot of commerce possible. it has been a great tool. we have seen this as being abused by large entities, so we need to look at ways that will disincentive the use of 230 to shield them from liability of bad behavior. does that mean appealing it? i don't think so, but it means taking a close look at it -- can we use legal avenues or financial avenues? can we use antitrust? how can we move forward on this. it is not necessarily a g

bads of facebook twitter i'm google who faced a 5 hour grilling from u.s. lawmakers for the sowing political discord and failing to tackle of misinformation it was the 1st such airing under the biden up in a straight. if your platform bears some responsibility for disseminating disinter mation yes or no do you bear some responsibility for what happened congressman our responsibility is to make sure that we built effective systems tend. not to answer the question today our laws give these companies and their leaders a blank check to do nothing rather than limit the spread of this information facebook google and twitter have created a business models that exploit the human brain preference instead we woke up tomorrow and decided to ask the government to tell us what content to take down or leave up we may end up with a service that can be used to question the government it facebook we do a lot to fight misinformation or remove content that could lead to imminent real world harm you have the meets but time after time you are picking engagement and profit over

i think companies like facebook, google, they have the resources to provide the oversight on these algorithms. we just need to provide the incentives or disincentives if you want to call it for them to do that. >> host: you are watching "the communicators" on c-span. representative jerry mcnerney, democrat of california is our guest. is a a member of the energy ad commerce committee. cat zakrzewski is our guest reporter from the "washington post." >> congressman, you mentioned the word responsibility several times in the conversation, and whom we talk about the lot as the conversation is to section 230 which basically means for these tech companies don't have to take legal responsibility for the type of harmful content other platforms. based on what you were saying do you think it's time to reform or repeal section 230? >> guest: thank you, cat. section 230 has provided a a tremendous amount of innovation and the internet and it's made a lot of commerce possible. so it's been a great tool. but we see it as being abused by some of these large entities, and so we need to look at ways that will

tech in general, do we need more regulation, are there any breakups in order, whether it is google, amazon facebooke and google? nikesh: to your firstborn, as long as there is competition in the market i don't think being , big is bad. as long as people are not being held captive to certain types of technology. i don't think that is bad. you have global companies around the world remotely, effectively in 100 plus countries. you're going to get many more trillion dollar companies. i don't think tech is bad per se. i think certain parts of that business where if they have a stronghold on a certain market, that should be looked at and the regulation has never been great for anyone. some degree of self-regulation perhaps? some degree of scrutiny to make sure everyone is getting a fair playing field but i don't expect , large-scale breakups or regulation across big tech. emily: ed has been listening, he calculated that the palo alto shares are up almost 800% over the last decade. i want to talk about the cyber landscape. we are unwinding the biggest hack in world history. the solarwinds hack. are we rea

think it is important to look at how these algorithms are run and i think the companies like facebook, google, they have the resources to provide the oversight on that algorithm and we just need to provide the incentives or disincentives, if you call it for them to do that. >> guest: you are watching the communicators on a c-span. representative mcnerney, democrat of california is our guest and is a member of the energy and commerce committee and cat is our guest reporter from "the washington post". >> congers man, you mentioned the word responsibility several times in his conversation and when we talk about that a lot of the time the conversation moves to section 230 which basically means that these tech companies don't have to take legal response billy for this type of harmful content on their platforms. based on what you are seen do you think it is time to reform or repeal section 230? >> guest: thank you, cat. section 230 has provided tremendous amount of innovation in the internet and is made a lot of commerce possible so it's been a great tool but we see this as being abused by some of

. >> plus facebook, google and twitter take questions. lawmakers pressed them to take responsibility for their role. we'll show you how marc zuckerberg and jack dorsey responded. it's okay that you don't want to be first: you aren't. second covid vaccine. it's okay to have questions: everyone deserves answers. i'm wary that there isn't enough information. it's okay to be excited, or worried, or both. it's alright for it to take whatever it takes for you to be ready. hi mom, ready for your shot? yes, i've been waiting for this day. we just got what? vaccinated. we just got vaccinated! let's get you there. let's get to immunity. >>> right now at 6: 30, a sign that you'll look into a vaccine. >> it's a great thing to know that, you know, we'll be safe. >> tonight, the reason county health officials say you'll have to temper that optimism with patience. >> plus when you cross the street, you stay in the crosswalk, right? otherwise, you break the law. the reason that law could be changing. >> sinists say it's the new normal. tonight we're look

s of facebook google and twitter will be answering questions in particular about that insurrection in the united states back in january and essentially and how they could have helped in preventing the spread of that misinformation with regards to the organizing of that and also to last year's election and the question as well that's going to be asked is whether that the laws that all at the moment govern these platforms in the u.s. should be changed and should tech companies be held more responsible for the spreading of that misinformation particularly on their platforms now what we can expect is that the c.e.o.'s of facebook twitter and google and there's a level of acceptance will say that change is going to take place but there is disagreement about how they should move forward this whole issue is because of a bipartisan desire in the u.s. to change the laws regarding the governing of a tech companies and it also is going to have a focus on one law in particular which is section $230.00 of the communications decency act that shields tech companies from liability which regards to in

we've never applied antidiscrimination rules to google, facebook and amazon. cky mentioned the monopolistic conduct of google with its ad business. were you see that running a foul of the sherman antitrust facts? i think there's certainly a case in texas based in large part on the monopolization of advertising. we now have people who are acting on this belief. but in terms of -- medical receipt really we see a duopoly, a capture of control over advertising, google and facebook online advertising. depends whose numbers you are using, 60, 70, 80% of online advertising, to corporations that's monopoly problem by any standard. expect mr. slover i want to come to you facebook, should they should be required through government action to compensate reporters and journalists for the news reporting that they work very hard to produce? and what other ways can the ftc and the state ag fund to raid while brain and facebook predict current lawsuits, how do those lawsuits signal to mark zuckerberg that his days of moving fast and breaking things are coming to an end. sue vex

cheryl: taking a look at facebook, google and twitter, kind of a mixed bag. down 1.25%. with us now, the host of "kudlow," larry kudlow. so, you know, do you think it's time that section 230 gets reformed? larry: yes. cheryl: okay. larry: yes, yes. period, full stop, yes. the stuff i just heard, i didn't -- we were watching biden's press conference today, and that's going to be the theme of our show, so i didn't have time to focus on these testimonies. but, look, if they're going to act as editors and publishers, which is actually what he's saying. he's just trying to make a better mousetrap to be an editor and publisher regarding content. then they have to lose if not all of section 230, the liability shield, you know, it has to be dramatically downsized so they would be liable. and basically as a free speech person, you know, i'm tired of them using a bunch of excuses. almost all of the penalties from the these guys fall on conservatives. and it's enough already. and congress should act on it. cheryl: well, i mean, they either banned or limited access to yo

by private companies and we have to understand, as dagan said, there is no public option to facebook or google or amazon. they control, they are the conduits. six years ago we were debating government surveillance in the age of the snowden story and somebody said something unbelievably wrong, could have been me, i don't remember. but that person said if you're not doing anything wrong, why should you be worried about surveillance? and that is now the defense of cancel culture. it you shouldn't worry about being canceled if you're not doing anything offensive. but the problem is, who is deciding what is offensive and what needs to be canceled? the people deeming the standards for offense often lack the experience or wisdom of an adult who has led a real life. a lot of this is coming from young people who just got out of college you don't even understand what the person meant by it, don't understand free speech. it's up to the adults in the room, the people who have been on this planet a long time to tell you, you know what, offensive things will exist and some of this stuff might hurt your feel

of facebook, google and facebook. >> today's hearing is being held

google and -- google is a trillion dollar entrerprise trading at record highs. facebook is points away from a record high. the tech book is specific. >> i get it. it's not at the top. >> i said we're not talking about the faangs early on i said we're not talking about those stocks we're talking about the other high growth stocks, the ones that a lot of people bought during the pandemic whether i know -- people want to generalize and say it's all retail the new retail cohort and the robinhood traders, they're the ones buying the stocks that's true, but a lot of other people bought too. we have people on the investment committee come in and say i bought more pelaton today, and i'm proud of it, because it's a new world, and this is the way that everything is going to be, and i bought more zoom today and more teledoc, but the stocks are down 30% to 40% from the highs part of the point is if you thought last week, if you thought rates topped out, josh, so these stocks were attractive again, because they were so far off the highs, the bond market activity today is suggesting t

s of facebook google and twitter made their return to capitol hill virtually on thursday for a hearing on their roles and allowing misinformation to spread on their platforms from the 20 twentieth's action to deadly riots at the u.s. capitol and beyond the questions seem to be all about who is to blame for inciting violence so joining me now to discuss is policy analyst molly barrows contributor with america's lawyer now molly of what is the goal of this congressional hearing. well supposedly on its face lawmakers really want answers from these big tech c.e.o.'s to face that google and twitter wanting to know what they knew about their role if any in citing violence whether it was the congressional or excuse me the riot the attack that we saw the capitol in january that is the impetus of what led lawmakers to call for this hearing back in february and i think they're really just trying to pin them down on real answers whether or not they'll get them it's been a lot of what we've heard before pointing the finger sharing the blame if you will but really what needs to happen is laws need

facebook twitter and google testify on capitol hill so what does they have to say about the spread of misinformation online we have a lot to get soon so let's get started. the united states has made it abundantly clear that it does not approve of its western allies working with russia or more specifically benefiting from russia's oil supply the threats made by u.s. officials and brussels this week have placed washington in a position where they appear ready to create a massive conflict within the nato alliance by imposing sanctions on some of their closest allies but while they lecture germany on how their support for the north stream to pipeline will divide europe and open the gate for russian manipulation the u.s. is leaving out one very important fact. washington itself actually profits from the use of russian oil and right now imports from moscow are at an all time high while the u.s. made headlines for imposing sanctions on a subsidiary of russia's state run oil company over alleged ties to venice whale last year it didn't do much more than that and it was things sions against ve