MIKE DAVIS: 30 years of Section 230 is more than enough
Thirty years ago, Congress passed Section 230 to help fragile internet start-ups survive litigation attempts on multiple fronts. In 1996, Americans logged on with dial-up modems and gathered on message boards. Lawmakers wanted to protect burgeoning companies from crushing defamation, copyright and other lawsuits over something a random user posted. Congress aimed to nurture innovation, protect free speech and let a competitive marketplace flourish.
That may have made sense then. Today it does not.
What Congress framed as a narrow free-speech shield became a permanent amnesty program for trillion-dollar Silicon Valley monopolists. Section 230 no longer protects speech. It protects power.
Instead of scrappy start-ups, Americans now answer to online oligarchs. Google. Facebook. Amazon. Apple. These companies do not merely host content. They control search, social media, online commerce, app distribution and digital advertising. They shape what Americans see, read, buy and believe. And they invoke Section 230 to shield themselves while they censor, silence and cancel their political opponents.
UNDER OATH, META'S ZUCKERBERG SHOWED WHY BIG TECH CAN'T POLICE ITSELF
Congress granted platforms immunity for content users post, and Congress allowed them to moderate content in "good faith." Lawmakers assumed competition would discipline abuse. If one platform censored too aggressively, users could leave for another.
That competition never materialized. Big Tech executives bought rivals, crushed start-ups and leveraged network effects to lock in dominance. They turned platforms into monopolies. They used scale to entrench power. Even conservatives who distrust these companies must still use their platforms to reach voters, customers and each other.
Meanwhile, courts expanded Section 230 far beyond its original purpose. Judges stretched the statute to cover conduct Congress never contemplated. Silicon Valley lawyers pushed aggressive interpretations, and courts accepted them. As a result, trillion-dollar monopolists now decide what Americans may say online while they coordinate with politicians and bureaucrats who demand crackdowns on so-called "misinformation."
That is not a free market. That is government-enabled censorship.
Conservatives paid the price. Big Tech companies hunted down, censored and canceled voices that challenge the ruling class. They deplatformed doctors and scientists who questioned COVID orthodoxy. They censored Hunter Biden’s criminal activity under the guise of "content moderation." Americans would rather call it viewpoint discrimination. They deplatformed the sitting president of the United States of America.
At the same time, these companies insist they need blanket immunity to avoid liability for horrific content – human trafficking, terrorism, drug trafficking – content they monetize through ads and engagement. They profit from the system at every step. But when harm follows, they point to Section 230 and deny responsibility.
JILLIAN MICHAELS: BIG TECH BUILT A DIGITAL DRUG — AND OUR KIDS ARE HOOKED
That is not neutrality. That is corporate welfare.
Section 230 does not appear in the Constitution. Congress created it in 1996, and Congress can reform or repeal it. No company possesses a constitutional right to government-granted immunity. When lawmakers grant special protections to powerful corporations, those corporations use that protection to accumulate even more power.
Washington made that choice. Washington can reverse it.
If Meta had competed against Instagram instead of acquiring it, Americans might enjoy more choices and less centralized control. If YouTube had competed with Google instead of merging into it, creators might not depend on a single gatekeeper. Consolidation strengthened censorship power. Immunity protected consolidation.
For three decades, Congress and federal regulators coddled Silicon Valley. They tolerated consolidation. They defended immunity. They ignored warning signs. Now, Americans live under digital gatekeepers who answer to no one.
Conservatives do not want bureaucrats to police speech. But we must refuse to let trillion-dollar corporations wield government-granted immunity while they silence half the country. We must reject permanent amnesty for politically biased monopolists.
Thirty years is long enough. Congress should strip Big Tech of its Section 230 immunity. Lawmakers should restore competition, enforce antitrust laws, and hold platforms accountable under the same legal standards that govern everyone else.
Stop the amnesty. End the sweetheart deal. Repeal Section 230.