Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., says Google interfered in the election by suppressing search results for Trump’s failed assassination attempt on ‘The Big Money Show.’
Thirty years ago, Congress passed Section 230 to help vulnerable internet startups succeed in multi-jurisdictional litigation efforts. In 1996, Americans logged in with dial-up modems and met on message boards. Lawmakers wanted to protect the growing companies from defamation, copyright, and other lawsuits over random user submissions. Congress aims to increase innovation, protect free speech, and allow a competitive marketplace to flourish.
That might have made sense at the time. Today it does not.
What Congress did as a small shield for speech became a permanent multi-billion dollar amnesty program for Silicon Valley. Section 230 no longer protects speech. Protects energy.
Instead of fragmented startups, Americans are now turning to online oligarchs. Google. Facebook. Amazon. An apple. These companies don’t just host content. They control search, social media, e-commerce, app distribution, and digital advertising. They shape what Americans see, read, buy and believe. And they invoke Section 230 to protect themselves while they process, silence, and cancel their political opponents.
UNDER OATH, META’S ZUCKERBERG SHOWS WHY BIG TECH CAN’T POLICE ITSELF
Congress gave platforms protections for user posts of content, and Congress allowed them to moderate content in “good faith.” Lawmakers thought competition would punish abuse. If one platform is tested too strongly, users may leave for another.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms Inc., appears during the Meta Connect event in Menlo Park, California, on September 17, 2025. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Getty Images)
That competition never happened. Big Tech executives have bought competitors, crushed startups, and acquired network effects to lock in dominance. They turned the fields into monopolies. They use a scale to concentrate energy. Even conservatives who distrust these companies should still use their platforms to reach voters, customers, and each other.
During that time, the courts expanded Section 230 beyond its original intent. The justices have stretched the law to cover conduct that Congress never contemplated. Silicon Valley lawyers pushed for aggressive definitions, and the courts accepted them. Because of this, trillion-dollar monopolists now dictate what Americans say online while working with politicians and bureaucrats to curtail so-called “disinformation.”
GOOGLE’S DECISION TO BACK BIDEN-ERA YOUTUBE ACCOUNT HAILED AS ‘MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT’ FOR FREE SPEECH.
That is not a free market. That is an assessment by the government.
Conservatives paid the price. Big Tech companies hunt down, investigate, and suppress voices that challenge the Ruling Class. They discredit doctors and scientists who question the COVID Orthodox. They examined the criminal activity of Hunter Biden under the slogan of “content moderation.” Americans would like to call it ideological discrimination. They despise the sitting President of the United States of America.
Hunter Biden, son of US President Joe Biden, arrives at J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building on June 06, 2024 in Wilmington, Delaware. Hunter Biden’s gun-toting murder trial continues today as more witnesses are called. (Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images / Getty Images)
At the same time, these companies insist that they need complete immunity to avoid liability for horrific content – human trafficking, terrorism, drug trafficking – content they monetize through ads and engagement. They benefit from the program at every step. But when injury ensues, they point to Section 230 and deny liability.
JILLIAN MICHAELS: BIG TECH IS BUILDING DIGITAL MEDICINE — AND OUR KIDS ARE BEING CAREFUL
That is not neutral. That is corporate welfare.
Article 230 does not appear in the Constitution. Congress established it in 1996, and Congress can amend or repeal it. No corporation has a constitutional right to government-granted immunity. When lawmakers give special protections to powerful corporations, those corporations use those protections to amass more power.
Washington made that choice. Washington can reverse it.
JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT SLAMS BIG TECH FOR SEXTORTION, THREATS AGAINST CHILDREN AS HE PAYS FOR KEY INTERNET REFORMS
If Meta had been competing with Instagram instead of acquiring it, Americans might have enjoyed more choice and centralized control. If YouTube were competing with Google instead of merging with it, creators might not have to rely on a single gatekeeper. The merger strengthened the research force. Secure reinforcement of defense.
For three decades, Congress and federal regulators controlled Silicon Valley. They tolerate integration. They protect against insecurity. They ignored the warning signs. Now, Americans live under digital gatekeepers who answer to no one.
Conservatives don’t want officers in police talks. But we must refuse to allow multi-billion dollar corporations to use government-provided defenses while silencing half of the country. We must permanently reject amnesty for politically biased independents.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
Thirty years is long enough. Congress should strip Big Tech of its Section 230 immunity. Lawmakers should restore competition, enforce antitrust laws, and hold platforms accountable under the same legal standards that govern everyone.
What an amnesty. End the lover’s pact. Repeal Section 230.
CLICK FOR MORE ON MIKE DAVIS
