Photo by Michael Vi

A group of approximately 50 young conservative activists assembled at Sylvan Theater in Washington D.C. on Dec. 5 to protest against social media censorship by big tech monopolies such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Social media influencers and activists; Angel Quiroz, Morgan Ariel, Natalia Godoy, Noelle Fitchett, and Emma Jimenez took center stage and shared their personal experiences on how big tech monopolies have restricted certain political content of theirs from being shared on their platforms. 

/Users/Emma/Desktop/DSC00623.jpeg
Photo by Andres Aguilar

Over the past few years, social media users have stressed that the popular social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have been abusing their power with political bias by restricting and policing speech. Although these social media platforms are private companies, they have received special exemptions from current law based on their claim of being a platform as opposed to being a publisher.

Currently, under Section 230 Communications Decency Act of 1996, big tech giants are protected from liability for restricting content that they may deem as going against their “community standards,” and shields them from content created by third party users. 

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey,  nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults believe social media sites have deliberately censored specific political viewpoints.

In a series of tweets, President Trump threatened to veto a major defense bill unless Congress agreed to strip away the legal shield currently protecting social media platforms.

“Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it – corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand,” Trump tweeted.

“Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk.”

32-year-old event organizer, political activist, and social media influencer Angel Quiroz from Lodi, New Jersey shared the following statement with Scriberr news:

“I helped organize this event because I was tired of the constant censorship many of us were experiencing on social media. I personally know of many social media influencers who have had their platforms taken down abruptly after putting years of hard work into building them. Our government officials should work with big tech corporations on enforcing transparency when it comes to how algorithms work and by making them decide whether they are publishers or platforms. There also needs to be complete transparency when it comes to how big tech giants use data they receive from its users.”

/Users/Emma/Desktop/E8319BFE-7BAB-4259-9B7B-BCAD39AEC625.jpg
Photo by Andres Aguilar

30-year-old event organizer, entrepreneur, content creator, and activist Morgan Ariel from Chicago stated the following with Scriberr News: 

“Big tech working with the government has created a society dependent upon technology and they are using that technology to manipulate the masses, dictate our beliefs, and the political climate in our nation. Without a free and even exchange of information we cannot properly sustain our republic. A free and even exchange of information births ideas and keeps creativity alive. My goal is to put pressure on our political leaders so they know how imperative it is to push for immediate legislation that will protect our first amendment rights. Big tech censorship is threatening the essence of what our nation has been founded on which is freedom.” 

/Users/Emma/Desktop/5329F3DD-60B0-4664-89DC-EC00DCB63B4A.jpg
Photo by Andres Aguilar

Author’s note:

Social media platforms have not only become a dominant location for expressing a political speech but they have also reached an extreme level of power by controlling what content their users can post and be exposed to. Nonetheless, the question remains, should big tech monopolies continue to be protected under section 230?

Written ByEmma Jimenez

How Nonpartisan Was This Article?

Show us on the slider what kind of bias, if any, you thought the author had. Why are we asking?

Liberal Center Conservative

Thank you for Voting!

Your input is helping other readers identify bias and helping them break through their ideological "bubble"!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *