> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. If section 230 is no big deal, let's

> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. If section 230 is no big deal, let's just repeal it. What's the hoopla about it, then? Why are companies so adamant to protect it? The section itself is very broad, but the impetus for the passing of Section 230 was to protect free speech by removing liability concerns for what others say online. > On July 23, 2013, the attorneys general of 47 states sent Congress a letter requesting that the criminal and civil immunity in section 230 be removed. The ACLU wrote of the proposal, "If Section 230 is stripped of its protections, it wouldn't take long for the vibrant culture of free speech to disappear from the web." [1] So, apparently big tech has killed that vibrant culture and in 2021, I think we can declare it dead. Tens of thousands of people are getting purged from social media, others alienated, ostracized, and shadow banned. There is a concerted effort to manufacture consent through targeted algorithmic hijacking of free speech. And so, we find ourselves in a situation where the current situation is UNTENABLE. A free society cannot have its discourse completely dominated by a handful of corporations. This is a civil rights issue. I'm sorry, some people want to weasel out of this with arguments of technicality. Technically, before labor laws were passed in the 20th century, there was nothing wrong with asking someone to work 60-70 hours a week and paying them the same rate. There was nothing illegal about paying someone 10 cents an hour prior to minimum wage laws. But we realized that some broad protection for certain workers rights were worth intervening in the free market for. That is the issue of the 21st century. We are the content producers on social media. We should have rights to not be deplatformed. And no, it's not acceptable to arbitrarily empower a handful of corporations to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not. If the speech is not illegal, it should be protected. And in the U.S. we have broad, broad protections for speech for an extremely important reason. Cannot forget that. Too many societies have fallen to tyranny as a result of free speech restriction. Tens of millions perished for the right to speak freely. That can't be understated or forgotten. Ever. The 21st century deserves a movement for a digital bill of rights. [1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple-free?redirect=blog/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv...