12/1/7/2020- President Donald Trump has announced that he plans to veto the defense bill because it does not include the termination of Section 230. While this move is bound to drive people insane, and we will hear narratives about how “Donald Trump must hate the troops”, not many people understand that the suppression of news and voices is a risk to national security.
Section 230 has given immunity to tech giants like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook for a long time. They claim to be non-biased platforms, not publishers, who are not responsible for the content that is posted on their sites by independent users. Americans agreed, and they grew exponentially without the threat of being sued over content that users posted. Over time, they have become the public square where people are able to express their views, opinions, and commentary.
Now that millions of channels are being banned on YouTube, Twitter is censoring stories, and Facebook is hiring fact-checkers to decide what news you can read, it is important that they now officially state their intentions and become liable.
To be transparent, our position is that no one should be censored from these platforms, but when they are deciding what passes for “news” and what you cannot speak about, they are not publishing, and they should hold the same liability as everyone else.
*What do you think? Should Section 230 be removed from YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook? Should any company gain special treatment from the government?
Lindsey Graham is quoted saying:
“Social media companies and mail-in voting will destroy conservatism if we don’t push back”The Daily Caller
While our national security and military should be funded, it is a risk to our internal security to have mega-corporations setting social policy based on ideologies while getting special benefits from the government.