Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) proposed legislation Wednesday to end big tech companies’ legislative immunity, which would prevent them from censoring conservative and alternative viewpoints without significant recourse.

Sen. Hawley proposed the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which updates the way the federal government treats social media companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The Missouri conservatives’ legislation removes the big tech’s immunity received under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that would prove that their algorithms and content-removal policies remain politically neutral.

Sen. Hawley’s legislation would only apply to large tech companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, not small and medium-sized tech companies.

“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley in a statement Wednesday. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”

Hawley’s legislation arises as the Donald Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will reportedly begin antitrust investigations into America’s largest technology companies.

Other conservatives, such as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), have proposed eliminating or amending Section 230 to curb big tech companies’ ability to censor conservative and alternative viewpoints.

Sen. Hawley’s legislation would:
Remove automatic immunity under Section 230 from big tech companies.
Give big tech companies the ability to earn their immunity through external audits.

However, the Federal Trade Commission could not certify large social media companies from immunity except for a supermajority vote by the agency.

Big tech companies would have to pay for the cost of conducting the audits.
The companies would have to reapply for immunity every two years.

Preserves immunity for small and medium-sized companies.

The bill would not apply to companies with less than 30 million active monthly users, more than 300 million active monthly users worldwide, or those companies that have more than $500 million in global annual revenue. snip Link

Well Facebook says they have over 2 billion active monthly users, so the bill would not apply to them, and I’m guessing google, twitter and Snapchat all have more than $500 million in revenue (not profits, but revenue mind you), so this bill will do nothing to help.

It looks like the reporter in the link got the facts wrong.

Another source reports:

The bill would only affect companies with more than 30 million U.S. users, 300 million global users, or $500 million in annual revenue, but that would cover giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter. Link

I posted to start a thread about some inevitable positioning that we'll likely see.

The actual bill is found HERE.

The proposed legislation defines covered entities as those

that, at any time during the most recent 12-month period—
(A) had more than 30,000,000 active monthly users in the United States;
(B) had more than 300,000,000 active monthly users worldwide; or
(C) had more than $500,000,000 in global annual revenue.

I would have preferred that they put an "or" at the end of (A) too.

Thanks for the correction! This is much better.

Big Tech screwed up when they attempted to influence the political process. Legislation was an eventuality.

I support it. These guys are rats.

V.

Here's a Tucker interview of Hawley about the legislation . . .

https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBu.../1142249161015717888

Hawley wants to have political neutrality with Big Tech monopolies.

The recent government contract to Google alone with no comparable bidder should make us wonder if there is something to this. No?

FB actively censors conservative views

the latest stunt is to remove the 'share' button on anything related to President Trump, or to simply block it from being seen by anyone else (but they don't tell you they're blocking it)

quote:

FB, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, and YouTube actively censors conservative views

FIFY.

All I want in life is fair (close approximation) playing field. Either be a platform and let all speak, or be a publisher. It's not fair they get treated legally like a platform, but in reality are publishers. So treat them as such.

Its probably needed, but its a complicated mess.

Part of me is really bothered by the surge in anonymous libel which that law led to, and by the refusal of the publisher's to comply with suits against the people who lie.

I think the ability to lie about people, devoid of consequence, is part of the degradation of society.

However, I can see the merits in anonymous communication in totalitarian regimes - but it seems like we have Big Sister aiding the tyrants in their oppression, and abetting the liars, in their abuse.