Conservatives Call for Repeal of Section 230 Immunity for Big Tech

Thirty years of the law has enabled tech giants to silence political opponents, critics say

Published on Mar. 2, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Thirty years after Congress passed Section 230 to protect nascent internet companies from lawsuits over user-generated content, conservatives are now calling for the law to be repealed. They argue that Section 230 has morphed from a shield for start-ups into a permanent amnesty program for trillion-dollar tech monopolies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, which they say use the law to censor and silence their political opponents.

Why it matters

Section 230 was originally intended to foster innovation and free speech online, but critics say it has instead enabled Big Tech companies to accumulate immense power and control over online discourse. Conservatives argue these companies now use their Section 230 immunity to engage in politically-motivated censorship, while still avoiding liability for hosting harmful content like human trafficking and terrorism.

The details

When Congress passed Section 230 in 1996, the goal was to protect nascent internet companies from being sued over user-generated content. But over time, courts have expanded the law's scope far beyond its original intent, allowing tech giants to invoke Section 230 to shield themselves from liability. Critics say these companies now use their immunity to censor and deplatform political opponents, while still profiting from harmful content on their platforms.

  • Section 230 was passed by Congress in 1996.
  • The law has been in place for 30 years as of 2026.

The players

Mike Davis

A conservative commentator and founder of the Internet Accountability Project, who has called for the repeal of Section 230.

Mark Zuckerberg

The CEO of Meta (Facebook), whose testimony before Congress highlighted concerns about Big Tech's ability to self-police content moderation.

Google

A major tech company that has been accused of using its Section 230 immunity to censor political speech.

Facebook

A social media giant that has faced criticism for its content moderation practices and use of Section 230 protections.

Amazon

An e-commerce and tech conglomerate that has also benefited from Section 230 immunity.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Section 230 no longer protects speech. It protects power.”

— Mike Davis, Founder, Internet Accountability Project (conservativeangle.com)

“That is not a free market. That is government-enabled censorship.”

— Mike Davis, Founder, Internet Accountability Project (conservativeangle.com)

“Conservatives do not want bureaucrats to police speech. But we must refuse to let trillion-dollar corporations wield government-granted immunity while they silence half the country.”

— Mike Davis, Founder, Internet Accountability Project (conservativeangle.com)

What’s next

Congress is expected to consider proposals to reform or repeal Section 230 in the coming years, as the debate over Big Tech's power and content moderation practices continues.

The takeaway

The debate over Section 230 highlights the tension between protecting free speech online and holding tech companies accountable for the content on their platforms. Conservatives argue the law has empowered tech giants to silence their political opponents, while critics say reforming or repealing Section 230 could have unintended consequences for the open internet.