Adam Schiff Issues Veiled Threat To Elon Musk: “If you will be responsible moderators of content, we will give you immunity”

Dem Rep Adam Schiff issued a veiled threat at Twitter CEO Elon Musk on CNN Sunday telling Jake Tapper he sees a big problem with the ‘banning of journalists’ and ‘explosion of hate speech on Twitter.’

Elon Musk says hate speech is way down since he took over and Schiff is complaining about reporters getting banned because for the first time it is liberal reporters getting the boot not conservatives.

Adam said: “I think we have got a big problem right now with social media companies and their failure to moderate content and the explosion of hate on Twitter, the banning of journalists on Twitter.

“I don’t think these companies should enjoy an immunity from liability when they behave this way. We can’t tell them what to say or not say, but we — we gave them immunity. We said, if you will be responsible moderators of content, we will give you immunity.”

TAPPER: Former President Trump is under other investigations. You alluded to the one in Georgia from the district attorney of the county there.

A Georgia grand jury is winding down its investigation into Trump’s role in trying to get the secretary of state to find enough votes to flip the state. There’s the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation moving forward after a federal judge removed the special master. There’s also the special counsel that’s been appointed. Do you think that Donald Trump is going to face some kind of criminal charges in the coming months independent from your investigation?

SCHIFF: The short answer is, I don’t know.

I think that he should. I think he should face the same remedy, force of law that anyone else would. But I do worry that it may take until he is no longer politically relevant for justice to be served. That’s not the way it should be in this country. But there seems to be an added evidentiary burden with someone who has a large enough following.

And that simply should not be the case. But I find it hard, otherwise, to explain why, almost two years from the events of January 6, and with the evidence that’s already in the public domain, why the Justice Department hasn’t moved more quickly than it has.

TAPPER: I want to turn to another topic, because, right now, as you know, it’s the end of the year, and there are all these efforts to bring legislation that has not been brought to the floor of the Senate or the House for a vote and put it in the omnibus bill or the spending bill.

Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley are pushing to include antitrust legislation in the omnibus to rein in the monopolistic behaviors of companies, big tech, Apple, Google, Amazon, that hurt smaller companies.

It seems, from the reporting I have been able to do, that some of the obstacles to this happening, even a vote on it in the Senate, are Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and a bunch of House Democrats from your home state of California. They’re not you, but other California Democrats.

And I have to say, I’m surprised. I know that these big tech companies give a lot of campaign cash. But isn’t the Democratic Party supposed to stand for this, fundamental fairness, anti-monopolistic behavior, competition?

SCHIFF: Absolutely. And we do.

Now, I don’t know the particulars of what they’re proposing to include in the omnibus. And that may be the problem. I mean, these are not simple issues. I’m particularly concerned, though, about the practice some of the large tech companies have of, whenever there is a budding, promising new entrant into the market, they buy them out, because they don’t necessarily want to develop that product line themself, but they don’t want the competition.

REP. SCHIFF: “We’ve got a big problem right now with social media companies and their failure to moderate content and the explosion of hate on Twitter, the banning of journalists on Twitter. […] If you’ll be responsible moderators of content, we will give you immunity.” pic.twitter.com/zujwUbEmUd

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 18, 2022

And we should absolutely take aim at that and other anti-competitive actions of big tech. And I think we have got a big problem right now with social media companies and their failure to moderate content and the explosion of hate on Twitter, the banning of journalists on Twitter.

I don’t think these companies should enjoy an immunity from liability when they behave this way. We can’t tell them what to say or not say, but we — we gave them immunity. We said, if you will be responsible moderators of content, we will give you immunity.

They haven’t been, so why should they continue to enjoy that immunity from responsibility and liability?

TAPPER: Are you talking about getting rid of Section 230, is it? Is that what you’re…

SCHIFF: I am.

I think Section 230 either should be much more narrowly drawn, so that companies have to have a clear policy, what their community standards are, and transparency and accountability in how they implement it. They shouldn’t be using algorithms to accentuate fear and hate and loathing. And, if they do, they shouldn’t have any kind of safe harbor.