Missouri Sen. Hawley says social media addiction ruling should end federal protection for big tech 69%

By Jason Rosenbaum0%

3/28/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Indoctrination, and Begging the Question, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.8% saturation with 286 hits. Analysis detected 2,352 faulty-reasoning hits from 928 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.2% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,851 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.70% of the article peer group.

U.S. 
Sen. 
Josh Hawley is hoping jury verdicts in California and New Mexico against social media companies provoke Congress to revisit federal lawsuit protections. 
Meta and YouTube recently lost high-profile civil cases in those two states. 
The New Mexico case revolved around whether Meta was doing enough to protect kids on their platforms. 
And the California jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay roughly $6 million to a woman who accused social media companies of producing addictive products. 
"Twenty-four different jurors found… they just were not going to allow these companies that have ripped off kids, destroyed their lives, lied to them and make billions of dollars of profit on it  they weren't going to let them get by with it," Hawley said. 
While Meta and YouTube plan to appeal the ruling, Hawley told St. 
Louis Public Radio that the case should prompt Congress to revisit what's known as Section 230 protections  which, in general, protect social media companies from liability for user-created content. 
"It is time to declare independence from the big tech companies and actually get to work protecting the American people," Hawley said. 
"And I hope that these verdicts will be watersheds." 
Asked Thursday if it would be worthwhile to pursue legislation cancelling federal contracts for companies who have social media products that don't allow users to turn off infinite scrolling and algorithm recommendations, Hawley called that idea "tremendous." 
Major technology companies like Meta, X, Google and Amazon that use either of those features all have federal contracts, mainly around artificial intelligence. 
"I hope that'll be a wake up call to the United States Congress, because the United States Congress has sat around and done nothing except keep their hand out to have cash put into it so that they would do nothing against these corporate executives," Hawley said. 
Hawley has been a major critic of large technology companies since entering national politics. 
And while both Democrats and Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have largely shied away from aggressively going after those companies  Hawley is part of a bipartisan contingent of legislators who have sought to scale back or completely rescind Section 230 protections. 
Illinois Democratic Sen. 
Dick Durbin said in a statement Wednesday that the California jury award and a separate case out of New Mexico show that "Big Tech has become Big Tobacco." 
"Now, it's time for Congress to sunset Section 230 once and for all," said Durbin, referring to legislation he co-sponsored with South Carolina Republican Sen. 
Lindsey Graham to phase out Section 230 over a two-year period. 
Going after Section 230 protections as a way to force social media companies to alter their platforms is likely to provoke opposition from tech companies. 
Opponents of that idea contend it will lead to widespread censorship of content and stifle innovation. 
Hawley said there's consensus around changing the federal law, pointing to legislation he sponsored with Durbin to make it easier for victims of child exploitation to sue technology companies that passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously. 
But he added, however, that "social media companies spend more money than anybody else in Washington in order to make sure no bills that they dislike ever make it to the floor of the United States Senate." 
He said the bill he sponsored with Durbin still hasn't received a vote on the Senate floor. 
"When senators have to vote, they know what the right thing to do is," Hawley said. 
"They're just getting so much money from these social media companies that they don't want to do the right thing. 
So, you have to force them, and the way you force them is that you put it up for a vote." 
Hawley decries DHS shutdown 
Hawley joined other Republicans in calling for an end to a partial government shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security. 
For more than a month, Congress has been struggling to pass legislation funding parts of DHS. 
Democrats want to include guardrails on immigration enforcement agencies, a demand that occurred after the now-scuttled operation in Minnesota. 
Republicans have, for the most part, not wanted any restrictions. 
And Trump complicated matters when he said publicly he wouldn't sign any DHS funding bill without passing the Save America Act  which, among other things, severely restricts absentee voting and requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. 
Asked if it was a mistake for Trump to connect the DHS funding bill to the Save America Act, which has no pathway to pass out of the Senate, Hawley said "he wouldn't give him any advice, but I would just say to the senators, to my colleagues, it's time to open up DHS, and it is absolutely time to get TSA reopened and working." 
"The Democrats are the ones who shut it down a month and a half ago, but I think they regret that decision now," Hawley said. 
Durbin earlier this month said Democrats offered to pass legislation that funded other DHS agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration, only to be rebuked by Republicans. 
"These are fundamental questions that relate to the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, and to the laws of this land. 
We want to make sure that they're followed, and that's why we're negotiating the future of ICE and Border Patrol," Durbin said in a recent Senate floor speech. 
"The men and women of TSA should not be held hostage to our negotiation." 
Copyright 2026 St. 
Louis Public Radio 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 5.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 8.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.6%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 2.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 30.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 6.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias30.8%This article: 7.3%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias7.3%This article: 2.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias11.5%This article: 1.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.1%This article: 5.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 1.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem7.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 6.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 5.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 4.9%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon10.8%This article: 14.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 7.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion14.1%This article: 15.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question15.0%This article: 17.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.7%This article: 2.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque2.7%This article: 1.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 7.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading7.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 5.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.0%This article: 7.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice7.1%This article: 16.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination16.1%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

928 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers55%attributed speech419writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSt. Louis Public Radio • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 37 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 65 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Hawley • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Josh Hawley

100%flagged-word coverage
363 attributed words71% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Indoctrination+34.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Hawley: 34.2%34.2%Quote-first Misdirection+12.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Hawley: 12.7%12.7%Unattributed Quote+10.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Hawley: 10.2%10.2%Biased Writer Voice+3.3 ptsWriter: 6.9%Josh Hawley: 10.2%10.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.