Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a hearing to discuss reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act with big tech companies in Washington on Oct. 28, 2020.

“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.

In his tweet Tuesday, Trump wrote: "Also, get rid of Section 230 - Don’t let Big Tech steal our Country, and don’t let the Democrats steal the Presidential Election. Get tough!"

“Big Tech has long argued that it needs Section 230’s unique set of liability protections because websites simply couldn’t operate if they were held liable for comments or user-generated posts. … Not so, according to Google’s own ad policy!

"BIG TECH MUST STOP THE BIAS!" Trump's campaign added on Tuesday.

Under accountability, Republicans are seeking to reform tech's protection from legal liability for content on its platforms under Section 230.

This divergence has stymied efforts to rein in the Big Tech oligarchy on issues such as Section 230, the 1990s-era provision permitting platforms to engage in publisher-like content-moderation decisions without being legally treated as publishers.

"The time has come to break up Big Tech monopolies and restore fair competition," he said, adding that Section 230—a law that is part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—must be repealed or changed.

"However, following repeated and consistent reports of political bias, and the suppression of certain viewpoints, I fear that Section 230's sweeping liability protections for big tech are stifling a true diversity of political discourse on the Internet

Blumenthal said that "a series of hearings on Big Tech is long overdue on antitrust issues, on privacy concerns and Section 230." He also said he intends to bring "aggressive and targeted reform to 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.

Will he become an outspoken proponent of the need to reform Section 230, the arcane 1990s-era statutory provision that has been interpreted to give Big Tech platforms effective carte blanche for their discretionary content-moderation decisions?

Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have attacked Section 230, calling for it to be repealed, but on May 18 the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the Section 230 issue, much to the relief of the tech companies.

Big Tech and its supporters had been deeply concerned that the court could eviscerate Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally prevents internet platforms and internet service providers from being held liable for

"Also, get rid of Section 230—Don’t let Big Tech steal our Country, and don’t let the Democrats steal the Presidential Election. Get tough!"

"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.

Discussions over limiting or eliminating liability protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for tech companies that have engaged in censoring or political conduct have been heavily discussed in the past year.

Some conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, have said Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 should be repealed or at least changed, while others have said that Big Tech companies have violated antitrust laws and have pursued

(Reuters) Section 230 rose to new prominence after the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach, which saw Big Tech companies ramp up policing of user content that they said was harmful. 

Yet Congress did special protections under Section 230 of the law, shielding social media platforms from lawsuits for content that its users create. Big Tech is now "gargantuan," he said.

Marsha Blackburn has spoken against Section 230, which insulates Big Tech from lawsuits over what they publish. Can the states get involved? General Skrmetti: Tennessee led on this with the state’s amicus brief in the Gonzales v.

Perceived unbalanced moderation of users’ content by social media companies has raised concerns over First Amendment rights and a lack of checks and balances for decisions made by these big tech companies.

Section 230 also applies to LinkedIn.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that eroding Section 230 protections would harm everyone on the internet, whether it be small blogs, big corporations, or individual users.

Discussions over limiting or eliminating liability protections under Section 230 for tech companies that have engaged in censorship or political conduct have been heavily discussed in the past year, spearheaded by Trump.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a hearing to discuss reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act with big tech companies in Washington on Oct. 28, 2020.

"Section 230 is the most important law protecting internet speech and removing Section 230 will remove speech from the internet," Dorsey told lawmakers, before laying out three recommendations to address concerns about big tech overreach in suppressing

We're being heavily censored by Big Tech. Our solution? Create our own independent platform free of censorship. Join us today on EpochTV.

"Following repeated and consistent reports of political bias, and the suppression of certain viewpoints, I fear that Section 230’s sweeping liability protections for big tech are stifling a true diversity of political discourse on the Internet," Senate

The president also said the bill doesn't include a repeal of Section 230, a measure that provides Big Tech companies and social media firms with a liability shield.