The global consequences of being deplatformed by Big Tech are major, according to digital privacy expert Attila Tomaschek.

to restore President Obama’s network neutrality policies, a possible push to eliminate Section 230 protections for the internet, a retreat from the tech war with China, and pressure on Silicon Valley tech companies to hire more women and minorities."

Big Tech and its supporters are deeply concerned that in the Google case, 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

Over the years, conservatives have complained that Big Tech firms are censoring or throttling right-wing news websites and pages, prompting Trump and others to consider repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that serves as a liability

However, Bokhari did not agree with this view because Big Techs' censorship power comes from a special government privilege given to them in 1996 in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Zuckerberg’s view is consistent with Big Tech’s court representations when seeking legal immunities under Section 230 of the Communications Act. 

You have the Squad being anti-Big Tech, and then you’ve got Senators Tom Cotton [(R-Ark.)] and Josh Hawley [(R-Mo.)] being anti-Big Tech.

In a 2021 concurring opinion, Justice Thomas suggested a role for Congress to provide a legislative fix, including changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But Congress is unlikely to act, as long as Democrats control either house.

Republicans have argued that the federal rule has allowed Big Tech firms to censor their political opponents, while some have gone further, arguing that social media giants should be regulated as utilities.

The decision not to penalize Twitter will likely trigger calls to reform or abolish Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that serves as a liability shield for major platforms.

to restore President Obama’s network neutrality policies, a possible push to eliminate Section 230 protections for the internet, a retreat from the tech war with China, and pressure on Silicon Valley tech companies to hire more women and minorities."

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.

Bondi on Wednesday suggested that Section 230 is currently outdated because it was drafted in the mid-1990s with the intention to protect children from harmful content online.

Republicans have argued that the federal rule has allowed big tech firms to censor their political opponents—while some have gone further, arguing that social media giants should be regulated as utilities.

Therefore, Twitter and Facebook, by censoring and banning the lawmaker, have blatantly violated the letter of the law as written under Section 230.

Republicans have begun pushing back, especially in the area of big tech censorship.

The issue at hand is over whether the two tech giants will be viewed as violating freedom of speech or will be exempted from Section 230.

The move is sure to draw the ire of certain members of Congress and Trump himself, who in recent weeks, have suggested social media and tech companies should not have the protection of the federal Section 230 law.

They also include Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts the technology sector from the liability that constrains other publishers. And they include government cash and tax subsidies on a level unavailable to others.

“Both [Big Tobacco and Big Tech] have made products with lethal design defects—leading to destructive addiction. Tobacco exploited nicotine’s grip, Big Tech used infinite scrolling, & a myriad of other devices,” he wrote on social media.

He said a Democratic-majority House and a Biden White House "will have no interest in overturning the Section 230 provision, which in many ways got them to where they are."

Republicans and Trump have suggested that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act should be revoked or changed as they have argued that it serves as a liability shield for Big Tech firms.

In July last year, Gosar introduced the “Stop Censorship Act” (H.R.4027), which would amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Section 230 is a “gift” to tech companies and warned it “could be removed.” But conservatives have protested loudest about viewpoint discrimination by the big three—Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Look at what mass media is doing, look at what big tech is doing. They have a monopoly. They're protected under [Section] 230 [of the federal Communications Decency] Act, we've got to somehow make them accountable through liability.

Constitutional lawyer Craig Parshall told The Epoch Times in May that Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act—which shields social media and other companies from content-related lawsuits—helped a handful of Big Tech firms rise to powerful heights

He also added that threatening companies’ Section 230 protections could be another means of forcing them to the negotiating table.

Ethical concerns have also been raised, as well as what to do about Section 230, an outdated law protecting platforms from litigation for content their users post, which critics and lawmakers say needs to be repealed or reformed.

The former commander-in-chief, meanwhile, has often blamed Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for what he said has given social media companies the ability to regulate content posted on their platforms.

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