(l-r) Monika Bickert, head of Product Policy and Counterterrorism with Facebook; Juniper Downs, global head of public policy and government relations with Google's YouTube; and Carlos Monje Jr., director of public policy and philanthropy with Twitter, testify before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during a hearing titled “Terrorism and Social Media: #IsBigTechDoingEnough?,” on Jan. 17, 2018.

On Wednesday in the nation's Capitol, Twitter Inc., Facebook Inc. and Google were once again grilled by lawmakers about content on their respective sites. While representatives from these three tech behemoths previously fielded questions about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election before Congress, this latest hearing took a broader look at extremist propaganda on social media.

Sitting before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, a trio of policy heads—one from each company—discussed their efforts to combat extremist content, from creating counterterrorism teams to relying on technology and participating in a consortium of tech companies hoping to share knowledge on how to deal with this problem.

Questions from senators, however, revealed skepticism about whether enough is being done to combat online extremism. And some of the lawmakers said it might not just be a problem for social media companies to solve alone.

The Government's Role

A lot of the conversation at the hearing focused on what these three platforms have already done and are willing to do to address the fact that terrorists and others with nefarious intent are looking to social media to spread their messages.

The U.S. State Department's Global Engagement Center, for instance, is tasked with fighting terrorist propaganda and disinformation from Russia. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, expressed concern, though, about the current administration's “reluctance to support, fund and staff” the center, and raised a question about what the government's role should be when it comes to preventing the spread of extremist propaganda.

For Facebook, collaboration with governments around the world is an effective way to find solutions, said Monika Bickert, head of product policy and counterterrorism at the social network. “Often, what we find is that government can be very effective as a convening power for bringing together civil society stakeholders and then [for] industry and researchers to get together and share their knowledge,” added Bickert, who was formerly an assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Government has “an important role in combating this issue,” echoed Carlos Monje Jr., Twitter's director of public policy and philanthropy in the U.S. and Canada. “Not only [can government help by] investing in counterspeech but in investing in groups that are authentic voices in their communities,” he said.

Social Media or Public Utilities?

But at what point would government involvement be a hindrance to these companies and their users? Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced this issue in the form of a question about what the risks would be if social media companies were regulated like public utilities, which some have suggested is a good approach.

“To me, this is kind of distressing,” said Lee. “In part because I worry about what that would do to private property, what that would do to these thriving businesses that have given so many people so much of an opportunity to be heard. I also worry about what that would do to public safety.”

Lee added: “Sometimes, when government gets involved and it sets a certain standard in place that becomes both the floor and the ceiling, understandably, I would worry about that.”

Facebook's Bickert said regulations often “create unforeseen consequences” that get in the way of providing the services that users want and need. What's more, Bickert added, because government interests are often aligned with those of Facebook, “the kind of progress that you're going to see is going to happen, regardless of what we're seeing from governments, what we're hearing from governments.”

That's not to say there's no value in conversations with policymakers, she said, “but the incentives exist independently.”

Juniper Downs, global head of public policy and government relations at Google's YouTube, agreed that the motivation to create a safe environment for users already exists within the company, regardless of increased regulatory burdens. And treating YouTube and others as public utilities would change the benefits that can be offered by tech companies, she said.

“The tech industry is incredibly innovative,” said Downs, who was formerly senior counsel for public policy and government relations at Google. “[It] has created tremendous economic opportunity, and anything that slows down that innovation will cause damage to the ability of the industry to continue to thrive.”