“I’m more determined than ever to strip Section 230 protections from Big Tech (Twitter) that let them be immune from lawsuits.” In the days following, freshman Rep.

Jekielek: Kalev, you put together a really fascinating report that I've just been reading, trying to deal with this issue of big tech moderation, big tech censorship.

Capitol, these big tech companies ramped up their policing of content, which saw Trump’s account permanently suspended from Twitter and indefinitely banned on Facebook and Instagram.

“Unelected big tech CEOs should not be able to abuse the protections granted to them by Section 230 to block speech and withhold information from the public, just because it doesn't suit their political beliefs,” Steube said.

You've also been deeply involved in coming up with this common carrier approach to dealing with Big Tech or Section 230. We've heard a lot about Section 230. I'm going to get you to explain a little bit about the details.

Breaking up big tech isn’t so easy and repealing 230 would be a dystopian disaster. Then on the heels of the midterm elections, in America Q&A, we ask: Do you think it’s possible for elections to be completely free of cheating or corruption?

The longtime data researcher is proposing a large, mandated requirement for transparency for tech platforms, which could be added to Section 230. Leetaru laid out the proposal in a 79-page working paper (pdf) released on Oct. 13.

our nation’s laws, rein in Section 230 and hold Big Tech accountable.”

Yet Congress has provided "extralegal immunity" for Big Tech companies by enacting Section 230, "permitting them to censor constitutionally-protected speech," he said.

Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) announced that he’s co-sponsoring a bill to amend Section 230 to ensure Big Tech platforms uphold U.S. consumers’ right to free speech.

“Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it—corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity.

“Our Republican Senate just missed the opportunity to get rid of Section 230, which gives unlimited power to Big Tech companies,” Trump tweeted on Jan. 1.

Both Trump and Biden have advocated for reforms to—or outright elimination of—Section 230. Their concerns range from addressing Big Tech censorship to protecting the "mental health and safety" of children in the digital age.

Graham on Dec. 15 introduced a bill that would sunset Section 230 protections for Big Tech companies on Jan. 1, 2023.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Big Tech, including Facebook, from most lawsuits because it bars website providers from being liable for information "provided by another information content provider."

And specifically, it is crucial that all of the rethinking conservatives have done the past few years on Big Tech, when it comes to Section 230, antitrust, and common carrier regulation, not be rendered moot now that Musk runs the big blue bird.

This censorship behavior, which is antithetical to the protections Big Tech receives under Section 230, has also raised concerns about social media platforms censoring content on behalf of the government.

Senate's Commerce Committee held a hearing on Oct. 28 on whether immunity given to Big Tech by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act empowered these companies to restrict speech or selectively censor social media content.

But over the years, as the internet has displaced the old media conglomerates, Davis said, “the Big Tech monopolists have turned Section 230 from a liability shield into a censorship sword.”

Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit in New York agreed to review a lower court’s ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects big tech companies such as Vimeo from civil rights liability in censorship cases.

"They should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving special legal protection under Section 230," Watnik said of Big Tech.

“If Big Tech persists, in coordination with the mainstream media, we must immediately strip them of their Section 230 protections,” he said in an Oct. 15 Twitter post. “When government granted these protections, they created a monster!”

Trump has also floated the idea of completely repealing Section 230 protections. "If Big Tech persists, in coordination with the mainstream media, we must immediately strip them of their Section 230 protections," he said in an Oct. 15 Twitter post.

Freedom of the press has been gone for a long time, it is Fake News, and now we have Big Tech (with Section 230) to deal with.

And Biden’s pick for Commerce Secretary says she’s open to amending Section 230. Trump had repeatedly called for Congress to repeal Section 230. The law protects Big Tech companies from liability over users’ content.

Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act helped a small group of companies, including Google and Amazon, rise to powerful heights. Those companies, collectively known as Big Tech, now wield enormous power.

"Certainly, many big tech companies are abusing the section 230 liability protections," Graham's spokesman said. "More will likely be done to curtail the censorship and content moderation problems more broadly.

Supreme Court truly had the legal teams at Big Tech sweating bullets because they gave the court an opportunity to reevaluate Section 230.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act allows internet companies to be generally exempt from liability for the material that users post.