Google, Twitter and Facebook should evaluate their biases before Congress intervenes Google, Twitter and Facebook have demonstrated politically biased policies. They should self-regulate so Congress doesn't have to intervene.

Steve Scalise and Cathy McMorris Rodgers | Opinion contributors

Add Google to the list of tech companies who owe the American people answers. A leaked video of Google executives surfaced recently that depicts them lamenting the 2016 election outcome. Google co-founder Sergey Brin told employees that he found the election “deeply offensive.” It is clear that left-leaning political bias exists among senior employees at Google. The question remains: How do their personal biases affect their products and choices?

The House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg this year to have a transparent discussion about fair and free platforms for the battle of ideas. As members of the committee, we asked questions that Americans are concerned about regarding content bias, harassment, hate speech allegations and personal data privacy.

Dorsey was asked why Twitter quickly banned Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s Senatorial campaign announcement due to its pro-life message because it was deemed by the company as an “inflammatory statement that was likely to cause a strong negative reaction.” Dorsey apologized, and admitted that it was a mistake that his company later corrected.

Similarly, after seeing a number of examples of content discrimination, we asked Zuckerberg for answers on how Facebook will ensure that content is judged objectively, without bias based on religious or political ideology. The American people deserve to know the process and bias involved in algorithms and human content managers who screen content if these tech giants will be able to restore confidence that they are not discriminating against people based on their political views. We look forward to the outcome of Facebook’s audit, and appreciate their ongoing commitment to seriously looking at these issues.

Politically motivated anger can translate into violence

It’s equally important that social media platforms focus their efforts on screening truly illegal and violent content. I, Rep. Scalise, know better than anyone what happens when politically motivated anger escalates to violent and life-threatening actions.

Before Senator John McCain’s funeral, a Twitter account posted a photo of Meghan McCain grieving over her father’s casket with a photoshopped gun pointing at her. Almost immediately, dozens of individuals reported it. Despite this, the tweet remained publicly visible for half a day. The post was later removed and the account suspended, but not until public outcry hours after the original post from her husband, Ben Domenech, who is verified with almost 70,000 followers.

More: Facebook 'mobs' attack conservative views within company, some employees say

More: Did social media do the right thing by banning Alex Jones?

More: Facebook is removing 5,000 targeted advertising functions to prevent discrimination

Twitter’s guidelines include a ban on “specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm” and “targeted harassment.” With a weapon pointed directly at Meghan McCain, this couldn’t have been a more clear and blatant violation, and Dorsey apologized for the slow response. Throughout the hearing he also stated his intent for the victims not to bear the burden to remedy posts like this.

Social media platforms have been used for ISIS recruitment, human trafficking, to incite violence and to harass, or dox, private individuals. Users, businesses and politicians alike must call upon these tech companies to create innovative technology solutions and to implement vigorous procedures to stop the promotion of violent or criminal activity.

Silicon Valley should make the first move on reform

However, we must be very careful to not create laws and regulations that overstep government’s role and ultimately cause more problems than they solve. Regulation would likely enshrine the current internet ecosystem and result in stifling future competition to current tech giants.

It is also dangerous for Congress to get involved in deciding what speech is acceptable on these platforms. Defining political speech or hate speech a certain way in law can have unintended consequences that may permanently damage a fair and free marketplace of ideas.

We are challenging all Silicon Valley CEOs to embrace their role as both champions and stewards of a free and fair public square. You should present users with clear, consistent and transparent content management standards — and openly communicate when you update or change your practices. You must also rise to the challenge of quickly responding to violent threats.

This will restore trust that users can use these platforms without fear of being victims of violence, or skepticism that what they are seeing is filtered through an ideological lens. It won’t be easy, and we will all be watching, but the future of civil discourse and the public square depends upon it.

Steve Scalise represents Louisiana’s 1st congressional district and serves as majority whip of the U.S. House of Representatives. Cathy McMorris Rodgers represents Washington’s 5th congressional district and serves as House Republican Conference chair in the U.S. House of Representatives.