Even before the Senate Commerce Committee's big Section 230 hearing kicked off on Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was promoting it like a WWE matchup between a hero and a heel. "The free speech champion takes on the czar of censorship," Cruz crowed Tuesday night in a tweet pushing a "Cruz v. Dorsey Free Speech Showdown."

It didn't take long Wednesday for the pro wrestling analogy to pan out: The hearing, featuring the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Google, was just as messy and about as intellectually stimulating. There was shouting. There were props. There was talk of strangling dogs and working refs and at least one excessively unkempt beard.

But over the course of the entire four-hour flogging, there was not much by way of substantive discussion of Section 230.

The hearing was, like so many hearings before it, just another opportunity for Republicans on the committee to accuse the tech leaders before them of liberal bias and for the Democrats on the committee to accuse the Republicans of partisan bullying. It also seemed like a great opportunity for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to put to use what he's learned on all of those silent meditation retreats .

Though he was accompanied, virtually, by Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai, Dorsey bore the brunt of the committee's questions. That was no accident. Twitter has been the most aggressive tech company in moderating President Trump's social media activity recently. Over the summer, Twitter took its first step toward reining in the president's tweets when it put warning labels on his tweets about mail-in ballots and shooting looters in Minnesota. That prompted President Trump to rush through an executive order, instructing various government agencies to rethink Section 230 protections.

Earlier this month, Twitter took a more heavy-handed approach to a viral New York Post story about Vice President Joe Biden's son, temporarily blocking anyone from so much as posting the story to Twitter. Twitter later reversed its stance on the Post story, and Dorsey acknowledged the company's mistake. That didn't stop the Republicans on the committee from repeatedly skewering that and other content moderation decisions Twitter has made recently.

But Dorsey, who in past appearances before Congress has repeatedly copped to Twitter's mistakes, instead defended many of Twitter's recent decisions that the committee's members raised. In one instance, committee chair Roger Wicker asked Dorsey why Twitter took action on President Trump's tweets before labeling another tweet from a Chinese communist party spokesperson, which falsely claimed that COVID-19 was being spread by the U.S. military.

Dorsey calmly stated that while the company did eventually label the COVID-19 tweet, Twitter prioritizes enforcement based on the "severity" of potential offline harm. "There are certainly things that we can do much faster," Dorsey said. "But generally, we believe that the policy was enforced in a timely manner, and in the right regard."

Dorsey similarly defended the company's decision not to take action on violently anti-Semitic tweets by Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei, in which he called for the removal of the "Zionist regime" through "armed resistance." "We did not find those to violate our terms of service, because we consider them saber rattling, which is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries," Dorsey said.

He added that the company had labeled President Trump's tweets about shooting looters in Minnesota, however, because "speech against our own people, or a country's own citizens, we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm."

The attention on Dorsey and on Twitter shielded Zuckerberg and Pichai from much scrutiny, save for a few tense moments when members pushed all three witnesses to say which newspapers they've fact-checked, which Democrats' posts have been suppressed and whether their employees were mostly conservative or liberal. The three CEOs mostly hedged or promised to follow up , though Zuckerberg conceded that his staff "skews left-leaning."

None of these cherry-picked examples from Republicans or questions designed to cast tech companies as arms of the Democratic Party did much to shed light on Section 230 or the updates that both parties agree it needs. Not that Democrats added much more to the discourse. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii declined to ask any questions at all, calling the hearing "an attempt to bully the CEOs of private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential candidate by making sure they push out foreign and domestic misinformation meant to influence the election."

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana called some of the Republicans' accusations "baloney, folks."

That may be true. But it doesn't mean there aren't lots of real, hard questions about Section 230 to be asked of these powerful men. With a handful of exceptions, questions about the actual law were scarce.

In fact, the most substantive proposals for how to update Section 230 came from Dorsey himself, who laid out a three-point plan for expanding Section 230, including requiring tech platforms to publish their moderation guidelines, institute an appeals process and create a system by which people could choose the algorithms that filter and rank content on their feeds.

These, of course, would be relatively easy for Twitter, Facebook and Google to comply with, as all of those companies already publish their guidelines and allow for appeals. And none of those updates would address the problem of, say, revenge porn sites being protected from liability under Section 230 or dating apps willfully ignoring the offline harassment their users are facing as a result of their online connections.

But after four hours of fighting, those proposals are as far as anyone got. And who could be surprised? Cruz, after all, didn't promise solutions. He only promised a show.

The CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google are being hauled before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday for a hearing provocatively titled, " Does Section 230's sweeping immunity enable big tech bad behavior ?"

It's certain to feature political theater and partisan bickering. But it's a prime opportunity for Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey to offer their best defenses of the internet's prized liability shield — and signal what changes they'd be open to.

Here are the key points the CEOs will make, according to their prepared testimony.

Sundar Pichai, Google

"Let me be clear: We approach our work without political bias, full stop. To do otherwise would be contrary to both our business interests and our mission, which compels us to make information accessible to every type of person, no matter where they live or what they believe."

"Of course, our ability to provide access to a wide range of information is only possible because of existing legal frameworks, like Section 230."

"As you think about how to shape policy in this important area, I would urge the Committee to be very thoughtful about any changes to Section 230 and to be very aware of the consequences those changes might have on businesses and consumers."

"At the end of the day, we all share the same goal: free access to information for everyone and responsible protections for people and their data. We support legal frameworks that achieve these goals."

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook

"Without Section 230, platforms could potentially be held liable for everything people say. Platforms would likely censor more content to avoid legal risk and would be less likely to invest in technologies that enable people to express themselves in new ways."

"Without Section 230, platforms could face liability for doing even basic moderation, such as removing hate speech and harassment that impacts the safety and security of their communities."

"However, the debate about Section 230 shows that people of all political persuasions are unhappy with the status quo."

"I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it's working as intended. We support the ideas around transparency and industry collaboration that are being discussed in some of the current bipartisan proposals."

"We stand ready to work with Congress on what regulation could look like in these areas. By updating the rules for the internet, we can preserve what's best about it — the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things — while also protecting society from broader harms."

"I'd like to close by thanking this Committee, and particularly Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell, for your leadership on the issue of online privacy. Facebook has long supported a comprehensive federal privacy law, and we have had many constructive conversations with you and your staffs as you have crafted your proposals. I understand that there are still difficult issues to be worked out, but I am optimistic that legislators from both parties, consumer advocates, and industry all agree on many of the fundamental pieces."

Jack Dorsey, Twitter

"Procedural fairness at Twitter also means we ensure that all decisions are made without using political viewpoints, party affiliation, or political ideology, whether related to automatically ranking content on our service or how we develop or enforce the Twitter Rules. Our Twitter Rules are not based on ideology or a particular set of beliefs. We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our Twitter Rules fairly."

"As we consider developing new legislative frameworks, or committing to self-regulation models for content moderation, we should remember that Section 230 has enabled new companies — small ones seeded with an idea — to build and compete with established companies globally. Eroding the foundation of Section 230 could collapse how we communicate on the internet, leaving only a small number of giant and well-funded technology companies."

"I do not think anyone in this room or the American people want less free speech or more abuse and harassment online. Instead, what I hear from people is that they want to be able to trust the services they are using."

"In some circumstances, sweeping regulations can further entrench companies that have large market shares and can easily afford to scale up additional resources to comply. We are sensitive to these types of competition concerns because Twitter does not have the same breadth of interwoven products or market size as compared to our industry peers."

"I believe the best way to address our mutually held concerns is to require the publication of moderation processes and practices, a straightforward process to appeal decisions, and best efforts around algorithmic choice. These are achievable in short order."