Big tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter have been repeatedly criticized for acting as publishers instead of online platforms for third-party content.

Protections under Section 230 aren’t intended to be used to protect publishers. A number of antitrust investigations into big tech companies are underway.

“I believe it's time for America to take away [Section 230] from them, to use the RICO statutes, and also the monopoly laws that we have, and to take Big Tech, and to push back against this.” the pastor said.

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.

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.

Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, have called for the revocation of the federal Section 230 law that serves as a liability shield for social media and technology companies. Ngo, in his statement, echoed some of those concerns.

“This legislation would make Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act] immunity conditional for market-dominant Big Tech companies—in order to receive the special government protection, these platforms would be required to adhere to a First Amendment

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

Lawmakers from both major political parties have called for Congress to change Section 230 in ways that could expose tech companies to more lawsuits or significantly increase their costs. Reuters contributed to this report. 

To strengthen individual citizens' ability to hold Big Tech firms accountable, Frederick recommends reformers develop legislative proposals based on these principles: Remove Section 230 liability protection if tech companies censor based on views protected

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.

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.

immunity to big tech companies by not treating them as publishers.

legal immunity giveaway to the Big Tech giants.

Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 that largely provides protection to big tech companies from being sued for content on their websites.

Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is advocating for the White House to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

We all have bills as it relates to Section 230 in addressing this very issue. And you're right, the Democrats aren't going to address this. You know why? Because right now big tech is helping them.

Big Tech and its supporters are 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 what

This principle is amplified by the fact that these same social media platforms receive blanket liability protection under the infamous Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

They argued that Trump's rights were denied when the three Big Tech companies banned him.

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.

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 (Greg Nash/Pool/AFP via Getty Images) The name of the pilot system

Congressional Republicans are trying to hold big companies accountable for what they call censoring of conservatives, by curtailing Section 230, which is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, which largely provides protection to big tech

Ron DeSantis, a Republican, unveiled legislation earlier this month that would let Big Tech companies like YouTube be fined or sued for some moderation decisions, effectively sidestepping the contentious protections they enjoy under Section 230 of the

Conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, have argued for the revocation of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which serves as a liability shield for online publishers.

#BREAKING: I'm working on legislation to revise Section 230 so we don't have election interference from companies like Twitter. LISTEN for more details and my hot takes on Big Tech: https://t.co/MF4D4HYcJv — Rep.

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.

Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), a longtime critic of censorship by Big Tech, said he can't support the current bill, and not just over Section 230. "The NDAA does NOT contain any reform to Section 230 but DOES contain [Sen.]

Trump and his administration had repeatedly called on Congress to limit or amend Section 230. But tech advocacy groups have pushed back against such a move.

Rick Perry added that Section 230 protections that shield internet platforms from liability serve as a "get out of jail free card" for big tech companies and work in contradiction to the First Amendment allowing for freedom of speech and freedom of press