At the Senate hearing on Wednesday, the executives of Twitter, Facebook and Google will deliver a full defense of the language on their platforms, according to their prepared statements released on Tuesday.
All three executives will also strongly support Section 230, the law that has protected their companies from liability for much of the user-generated content posted on their websites – even if the law does not stay the same.
Here's a look at what every business executive might want to argue.
Jack Dorsey, Twitter's executive director, used his prepared testimony to offer suggestions on how Congress could change Section 230 without restricting the online language.
"Without Section 230, platforms could potentially be held responsible for everything people say," he said. Businesses should instead be encouraged to be transparent about their moderation policies and give users a say in regulating the algorithms for their newsfeeds so they can appeal moderation decisions, he said.
Mr Dorsey also threw a slap on Facebook, warning of sweeping new regulations. This is because "comprehensive regulations can further solidify companies with large market shares and can easily afford to scale additional resources to meet requirements," he said. "Twitter doesn't have the same breadth of interwoven products or market sizes as our industry peers."
Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and its parent company Alphabet, emphasized the usefulness and value of Google in his prepared comments. Google, which sued the Justice Department last week for anti-competitive and monopoly practices, is offering services like Search, Gmail, Maps and Google Photos "for free," Pichai said.
Mr. Pichai left his defense from section 230 to the end of his prepared testimony and kept it short. He said Google and its video website YouTube could only "provide access to a wide range of information" because of a legal framework such as Section 230. He also reiterated that Google had approached its work without political bias.
"Otherwise it would run counter to our business interests and mission, forcing us to make information available to any type of person, regardless of where they live or what they believe," Pichai wrote.
Mark Zuckerberg, the executive director of Facebook, said in his prepared testimony that he supports Section 230. Without them, companies like him might have to censor more content to avoid legal risks.
But Mr. Zuckerberg also said that Section 230 needs significant changes "to ensure that it works as intended". He said that people across party lines have complained about how the law deals with content and that the government should legislate changes instead of relying on corporations to decide how to govern themselves.
"By updating the rules for the Internet, we can keep the best of it – the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things – while protecting society from greater harm," Zuckerberg said.
Mike Masnick, editor of TechDirt blog and long-time tech policy chronicler, said that while large companies like Facebook could afford the cost of complying with more restrictive updates to Section 230, smaller competitors couldn't. Like Mr Dorsey, he argued that such changes would secure Facebook's dominant position in the market.
"Make no mistake: this is Mark Zuckerberg pulling up the innovation ladder that he has climbed behind him," Masnick wrote in a blog post on Tuesday.