How much more lipstick can we put on this pig?

Big tech’s problems are like a prize pig at a country fair: too big (and maybe too ugly) to cover up. So, once again, the top CEOs in Silicon Valley are testifying in front of Congress. From the latest headlines:

• Facebook, Google CEOs suggest ways to reform key internet law

• 'Yes or no?' U.S. lawmakers fume over Big Tech's answers on misinformation

What is the issue? Why so much frustration on both sides?

A big part of the conversation which the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Google are having with Congress: are these companies partially responsible for the riot at the U.S. Capitol? 

In the heart of all this is if Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability over user content should be reworked, amended or scrapped.

We should be able to look for good clues about the tech platforms’ intentions by examining their mission statements. I’ll just pick out Twitter and Facebook:

Twitter: “The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation.”

Facebook: “Founded in 2004, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.”

(As a side note, Facebook's mission statement is an example of how not to write a mission statement. Learn from companies like Disney how to do it properly: aspirational, but with enough concrete language in there that you can know very well whether you’re achieving or failing in your mission.)

Let’s get back to the pig. If you read those mission statements of both Facebook and Twitter, you shouldn't be surprised by the answers and behaviors of both CEOs to Congress.

You’ll notice that these CEOs are explicitly not seeking truth or providing correct information. That’s not their mission. They’re also not being judgmental or promising any policing on their platforms.

Au contraire, they want everyone on their platform for as long as it takes. A global conversation is nice…

But it’s not what they are about. Their technology (you know Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence), makes sure that you stay on their platforms as long as possible - even if it means manipulating your behavior and emotions.

They don't care if you are a real person or anonymous troll spreading misinformation. What they care about is profit. Both companies are public ones and they have to deliver to their shareholders.

And that's the true nature of the pig.

What about the lipstick? In written testimony released on Wednesday, Facebook argued that Section 230 should be redone to allow companies immunity from liability for what users put on their platforms only if they follow best practices for removing damaging material.

What about the lawmakers grilling these CEOs? They got up in arms about a small kerfuffle in Washington, DC. Perhaps they forgot 2011 and the Arab Spring- where about 60,000+ died in protests.

The above-mentioned platforms played major roles in organizing protests and were sources of up-to-the-minute reporting for people around the world. When Twitter and Facebook help overthrow governments we don't like, it is a freedom of speech. When it is our government, we get touchy.

To the lawmakers - don't blame Twitter and Facebook for societally ills. It is your job to create laws on behalf of people you represent. And don't get hypnotized by words like 'best practices'.

To Messrs. Zuckerberg and Dorsey - smarten up and clean your act. If you don’t, the government will do it for you. Build platforms that really help us communicate and learn from each other in a civilized and profitable way. Live up to your mission statements.

Let's see which recurrent pattern will prevail.