Trump last week vetoed the NDAA, in part, because it did not include the removal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

If Congress can't or won't do it, President Trump is looking to do this in a second term with FCC regulations that will bring Section 230—which is big tech's financial subsidy—back to its original intent.

My view is that conservatives have talked about Section 230 reform, and walked into this bizarre trap, whereby for the past couple of years they just tried to use it as a bludgeon and a threat.

"Twitter's decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Attkisson: One thing, this debate over Section 230, without getting too arcane, but a lot of people are saying, "Well, these big tech companies are censoring Trump and Trump supporters and Republicans, but not liberals."

But I think the first thing that you do is, when you do antitrust before you take off Section 230, all you're doing is you're taking the big 5 sharks or 10 sharks that are in the platforms currently, and you divide them up into little piranhas.

human trafficking, that that is not necessarily a guaranteed immunity for the big tech platforms.

Currently, tech companies such as Google are "indemnified against lawsuits for manipulating content on their platform under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996," says GreenMedInfo's Sayer Ji.

“Big tech must not censor the voices of the American people.”

Senators also raised the prospect that Congress could remove protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that give online platforms broad immunity for what users post.

As I pointed out in a previous article, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects tech giants from lawsuits over the things that are published on their sites.

It's notable that most social media companies were feverishly working against Trump, who called for the abolition of Section 230 on many occasions.

Jekielek: You're obviously a big advocate for free speech, and at the same time criticizing the interpretation of Section 230, or how it's used. You feel like these platforms should be held accountable for the speech they allow.

They induce those companies with Section 230. They coordinate with those companies to take down misinformation as defined by the White House, and Jen Psaki will boast about it in the White House Press Conference room.