Never mind Reddit. If you wanted to see the internet's darkest corners come to life on Wednesday, you only had to look to Capitol Hill.

In Washington DC, an alt-right blogger clutching a selfie stick was removed from a Congressional hearing while a Republican politician "chanted" her out in his most authentic auctioneer voice.

Senator Marco Rubio jostled with online conspiracy theorist and vitamin spruiker Alex Jones, who called him a "frat boy".

Loading

This was the strange scene (more so for being viewed from Australia over a livestream) in which Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey took on a particular preoccupation of the White House: is Silicon Valley biased against conservative voices?

While not a new concern for Republicans, this question has been boosted lately thanks to the social media habit of the American President.

"Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good," Donald Trump wrote in August — a charge Google strongly denied.

In July, he tweeted that Twitter was "'SHADOW BANNING' prominent Republicans" — or making their tweets less visible on the site without removing them — and warned the "discriminatory" practice would be investigated.

On Wednesday, Facebook's chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and Mr Dorsey appeared in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating foreign manipulation of their platforms — and were largely praised for their efforts so far to counter it.

But it was Mr Dorsey's second appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Committee where Mr Trump's unproven allegations haunted proceedings.

In his prepared testimony, Mr Dorsey tried to pre-empt the committee's bias fixation.

He pointed out hashtags like #MAGA or Make America Great Again were incredibly popular.

"Our quality filtering and ranking algorithm does not result in tweets by Democrats or tweets by Republicans being viewed any differently," he wrote.

"Their performance is the same because the Twitter platform itself does not take sides."

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey takes his seat on Capitol Hill. ( Getty Images: Drew Angerer )

This attempt to push proceedings in a different direction didn't stick — despite the efforts of Democrats, who asked the assembled politicians not to waste "precious resources to feed deep state conspiracy theories proffered by our President and his allies in Congress".

One Republican representative asked why, upon the creation of a new Twitter account, a staffer was recommended high-profile Democrats to follow instead of Taylor Swift or Kim Kardashian.

Another pressed Mr Dorsey on his personal political leanings (he said he was a registered independent voter).

Twitter's juggling act

It was a curious position for Twitter to be in. In recent months, the company has proven it will tie itself in knots to keep far right voices on the platform despite their worst behaviour.

In August, Apple, Google and Facebook removed Mr Jones, whose show Infowars indulges in conspiracy theories about the children murdered during the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Twitter kept him operational. And how?

Because, as Mr Dorsey tweeted at the time, "he hasn't violated our rules" (reporting by CNN and others that have reviewed Mr Jones's Twitter activity suggests that is not the case).

In fact, according to Mr Dorsey's tweet, it is someone else's job to keep Mr Jones honest:

"Accounts like Jones' can often sensationalise issues and spread unsubstantiated rumours, so it's critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly," he wrote.

Loading

Even Mr Trump has arguably broken Twitter's guidelines against abuse and threats of violence.

But in January, Twitter jumped through another hoop, stating that tweets by world leaders were reviewed within their own political context.

"Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate," the company wrote in a blog post.

Mr Dorsey said on Wednesday Twitter was place for "simple, free and open exchange". But the idea that a social media platform can be purely neutral is a shield Silicon Valley has held onto for far too long.

The act of writing a set of rules banning abusive conduct, unwanted sexual content and hateful symbols is a moral choice and a statement of values.

That Wednesday's hearing was the result, after all Twitter's awkward contortions, should tell the company partisans will never be satisfied.

The risk more broadly is regulation to rein in the influence of social media, though it may be necessary, is looking increasingly likely in the United States.

"The era of the wild west in social media is coming to an end. Where we go from here is an open question," Democratic Senator Mark Warner said in the morning hearing.

The Department of Justice announced on Wednesday it would be looking at concerns technology companies "may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms".

While it was not front of mind for committee members, the rest of us — the rest of the world — will have to deal with whatever bargains are struck in the uniquely fraught and febrile backrooms of Washington DC.

A place where internet memes now come to life.

Scary thought.