On November 28, Giuliani tweeted that Section230 must be terminated immediately for national security reasons.
On the 27th, President Trump also tweeted: “For purposes of National Security, Section 230 must be immediately terminated!!!”
Both of them used the words “national security” to highlight the dangers of social media to the United States. It also shows President Trump and Giuliani’s determination to push for repealing Section 230.
Let’s start with a brief look at what Section 230 is.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides exemption protection for internet platforms under Section 230, known as “CDA230”.
The article states that Internet Service Providers (ISPs)are not liable for the words or actions of third-party users. It also protects the rights of ISPs to take technical measures to restrict offensive content.
In short: The ISPs are not responsible for user speech and can restrict user expression as needed.
In the past, national security generally referred to national defense to maintain territorial integrity, political independence, and freedom from any external military threat. In today’s globalized world, especially in the age of the Internet, it includes any non-military means of confronting non-traditional external or internal threats, guarding the lives and property of citizens, and freeing them from anxiety and fear.
So how does Section 230 threaten U.S. national security?
1, It indulges social media to cover up the truth about the virus and hydroxychloroquine, resulting in 61,997,466,000 infections and 1,449,124 deaths worldwide, including 13,454,254 infections and 271,026 deaths in the U.S. (as of November 28, 2020, EST).
The Total number of lifelong illnesses and deaths caused by the virus has already exceeded 13 times the total number of U.S. casualties in World War II by 13.725 million (the total number of U.S. casualties in World War II was 1.013 million).
2, Allowing social media to manipulate the U.S. election.
On the eve of the U.S. election, Biden’s Hard Drive gate scandal exposed a large amount of evidence that the Biden family took bribes from the CCP, betrayed U.S. interests, and jeopardized national security. However, social media, including Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, chose to unilaterally ban and block a large number of accounts that spread the truth to escort Biden’s campaign.
On the other hand, these social media outlets allow a large number of accounts and media outlets to spread rumors， attacking President Trump and manipulate public opinion to achieve the purpose of manipulating public opinion and thereby disrupting the US election.
3. Social Media has Long-term restrictions and blocking accounts of the Whistleblower comrades. It is also Obstructing the spread of the truth and helping the Chinese Communist Party commit biochemical weapons massacres. In 2017, Mr. Guo Wengui, the Whistleblower revolutionary leader who broke the news, issued an early warning: The CCP implemented the 3F plan and the BGY Plan for the United States, and the darkest moment for the United States is coming. However, under the instigation of the CCP, social media blocked and expelled Mr. Guo Wengui under the guise of Section 230. As a result, the forces of justice were suppressed, the truth did not spread, and millions of people died worldwide.
Under the protection of Section 230, social media has been guilty of doing evil on demand. Social media blocked a large number of accounts that opposing the CCP, recommending HCQ, supporting the Whistleblower movement and spreading Hunter Biden Hard Drive. These accounts include dignitaries and celebrities, for example, including Mr Bannon, Dr Zelenko, President Trump’s team, and the New York Post.
In 1996, Clinton （pro-Chinese Communist Party） signed Section 230, and in 1998, the CCP established the firewall system. What they have in common is that the media can publish false statements and false information irresponsibly and mislead the people without assuming legal responsibility. At the same time, they can delete without being held accountable any messages that are detrimental to those in power, rulers, or dictators. This is the consequences of Section 230 that pretends to promote the development of the Internet industry but is monitoring public opinion and controlling public opinion.
(The content of the article is the author’s personal opinion only)