Separate problems
The socials are extraordinarily guilty of monetizing privacy. But even FB's behavior on their own platforms are not nearly as egregious as the persistent web-wide tracking which has been identified as an attack.
But that did not appear to be on issue today. Today, the issue is "fake news" and "fake ads". Yeah. Good luck with that. We have in the US the First Amendment specifically so you can lie in the press. I will attempt to quote Thomas Jefferson, "I prefer not to read the papers, as it is better to be uninformed than malinformed."
Take, for instance, the following paragraph from the article: "Unintentionally reflecting the infamous argument by the National Rifle Association that 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,' Sandberg assured senators that 'bad speech can be countered by good speech.'" First, who says that the NRA argument is "infamous"? You might not like it, but you are going to have a really hard time finding a cop or a soldier that disagrees. Is it "fake news" to call the argument "infamous"?
Proceeding, however, it gets worse. I would expect reporters, of all people, to be sensitive to free speech issues. "Bad speech can be countered by good speech" isn't some unintentional reflection of an infamous argument, it's an almost trivial modification of a core argument that free speech advocates have been using for centuries. I don't know how to read this except that she (and her editor) are disdainful of both the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.
I hardly need to educate my fellow commentards about the technical subtleties and difficulties of actually identifying speech as being much of anything at a level that scales. Nor the hilarious contradiction of claiming to be 203-compliant should they actually significantly intrude on the flow of information across their platforms. It is hardly a surprise that these hearings failed to address these issues. Which is a shame, we need to honestly address what is happening before we decide what should be done.
The whole "Only US citizens can take out ads" idea is wonderful. Again, good luck. For reasons that should be obvious here.
And the third-party "fact checkers"? I consider most of those to by hyper-partisan. I expect you to have different view on that--and a whole lot of other things. But let's not pretend that the free flow of information in society is something that can be trivially tampered with.