You're almost right.

You are correct that they are filled with showboating. But at the same time they very often trigger changes in both policy and public opinion.

If nothing else, they allow us to see that a particular issue is on the radar in Washington, and not just something a bunch of randos on the internet are barking about.

There are hundreds, even thousands, of hearings like this that are productive. The difference is that they're handled more quietly, and are relegated to CSPAN, not HN.

I think GP's cynicism is warranted in this case. I listened to the first hour of this hearing, including Cruz's rant, and it's pretty clear that Congress is not touching Section 230 anytime soon. They're content just dragging these CEOs into Congress for a tongue-lashing every once in a while. There's nothing of substance being discussed.

GOP senators going through these motions is kind of like a weird mirror image of when the Dems bring in the relevant CEO from the latest financial fraud for grilling, but no relevant laws get changed

The difference being that the laws should be changed in that case, whereas here maybe Section 230 is kinda OK.

Of course, GOP Senate can't do anything to stop them since the Dems not only enjoy the benefits of the censorship but they are encouraging more of it. All the R's can do is grandstand about it.

I've started watching some CSPAN hearings lately, going to the first-party source, because the reporting was so polarized. I'd hoped that that the difficulty of finding reasonable, moderate platforms was in part a problem of an extreme vocal minority being amplified by a media incentive to generate views. Unfortunately, I found that senators can be just as vitrolic as the anchors.

A few days ago I read this comment on HN which says CSPAN is part of the problem too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807616

I don't have the perspective to evaluate this claim though. I don't know much about the intersection of politics and media in the 80s and 90s. It seems worth considering though. The premise seems straight forward: broadcasting politicians changes how politicians behave.

Hearings are a means of inquiry & discovery. That some electected representatives come with axes already well ground & biases all set, are there to score points, is unfortunate & not entirely surprising, but I'm not ok with normalizing this bad behavior. I like to think the Senate has hearings that do function too, where there are more adults present.

That, or the current front-runner for president (and next-best alternative to the incumbent President Trump) supports repealing Section 230, and if the Republicans can drum up enough popular support for a repeal that might be enough for Biden to support it as a "bipartisan" effort.