News

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s subcommittee hearing titled “Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” RECOGNIZING CHANGES IN THE INTERNET   “Since 1996, Section 230 protections have allowed the U.S. tech industry to flourish. “This legal framework emboldened Americans to pioneer, creating Internet and social media platforms that promote innovation, user content, and social media interaction. “Its intent was to provide online platforms immunity from liability for content posted by third-party users. “But as the Internet exploded in growth, it also increased challenges that were not contemplated when the law passed in 1996. “Section 230 must be reformed. “As we heard in our last hearing on this topic, the current online eco-system is flawed. “Many of these platforms are rife with content such as online sex trafficking, illegal arms sales, child pornography, and other illicit crimes. “In response, Big Tech platforms hide behind Section 230’s broad immunity. “In that process, courts have rewarded their destructive behavior. “We need to reform Section 230 to hold platforms accountable for the role they play in facilitating and enabling harmful behavior. “But in doing so, Congress must be thoughtful and deliberative. There is no silver bullet to fix this issue.”  REFORMING SECTION 230 “Some argue that amending or repealing Section 230 violates the First Amendment rights of these platforms to host the content they so choose. “Yet, no other industry has complete protection from all liability for harm it causes. Newspapers, broadcasters—fundamental mediums that exemplify our First Amendment rights—are subject to publisher liability or can be sued for defamation. Not Big Tech. “Over the past several Congresses, there have been numerous proposals to hold Big Tech accountable for when it acts as a publisher in moderating content on its platforms, but to no avail. “Which is why, today, we are reviewing a discussion draft that will sunset Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 effective December 31, 2025.” HOLDING BIG TECH ACCOUNTABLE “I hope this legislation will bring people together—including those who support, oppose, or are interested—to carefully discuss Section 230 reforms. “One thing is certain: Big Tech’s behavior has brought Republicans and Democrats together on a commitment to find a long-term solution to reform Section 230. “Congress has a monumental task ahead—but we must reform the law in a way that will protect innovation and promote free speech, allow Big Tech to moderate indecent and illegal content on its platforms, and be accountable to the American people.  “I look forward to our discussion today and to working with my colleagues on a broader discussion about purposeful reforms to Section 230. It is up to Congress, not the courts, to reform Section 230, and changes to this law are overdue.” 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing titled “Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”  “Ranking Member Pallone and I recently unveiled bipartisan draft legislation to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “As written, Section 230 was originally intended to protect Internet Service Providers from being held liable for content posted by a third-party user or for removing truly horrific or illegal content. “The intent was to make the Internet a safe space and allow companies to remove harmful content in good faith without being held liable for doing so.  “However, the Internet has changed dramatically since then.  “Over five billion people around the world use social media, with the average person spending more than two hours a day on social media.  “The Internet has become vital for people to connect, work, find information, and make a living. “Big Tech is exploiting this to profit off us and use the information we share to develop addictive algorithms that push content on to our feeds.  “At the same time, they refuse to strengthen their platforms’ protections against predators, drug dealers, sex traffickers, extortioners, and cyberbullies.  “Our children are the ones paying the greatest price.  “They are developing addictive and dangerous habits, often at the expense of their mental health. “Big Tech has failed to uphold American values and be good stewards of the content they host. “It has been nearly three decades since Section 230 was enacted. “The reality is that many of these companies didn’t even exist when the law was written, and we could not comprehend the full effect of the internet’s capabilities. “It is past time for Congress to reevaluate Section 230.” IMMUNITY “In recent years, U.S. courts have expanded the meaning of what Congress originally intended for this law, interpreting Section 230 in a way that gives Big Tech companies nearly unlimited immunity from legal consequences. “These blanket protections have resulted in tech firms operating without transparency or accountability for how they manage their platforms and harm users. “This means that a social media company, for example, can’t easily be held responsible if it promotes, amplifies, or makes money from posts selling drugs, illegal weapons, or other illicit content. “As more and more companies integrate generative artificial intelligence technologies into their platforms, these harms will only get worse, and AI will redefine what it means to be a publisher, potentially creating new legal challenges for companies.  “As long as the status quo prevails, Big Tech has no incentive to change the way they operate, and they will continue putting profits ahead of the mental health of our society and youth.”  SOLUTION “Reforming Section 230 and holding Big Tech accountable has long been a priority of mine and Ranking Member Pallone. “Last Congress, we both introduced our own legislation to reform the decades old law. “Unfortunately, tech companies did not engage with us in a meaningful way and no solutions or reforms were made. “Big Tech is satisfied with the status quo. “So much so that they have become masters at deception, distraction, and hiding behind others in order to keep Section 230 unchanged. “That’s why we’re taking bipartisan action now. “Our discussion draft will bring Congress and stakeholders to the table to work in good faith to create a solution that ensures accountability, protects innovation and free speech, and requires companies to be good stewards of their platforms. “Let me be clear. “Our goal is not for Section 230 to disappear. “But the reality is that nearly 25 bills to amend Section 230 have been introduced over the last two Congresses. “Many of these were good faith attempts to reform the law and Big Tech lobbied to kill them every time. “These companies have left us with no other option. “By enacting this legislation, we will force Congress to act. “It is long past time to hold these companies accountable. “The shield of Section 230 should be there to protect the American people, not Big Tech. “I am hopeful that this legislation is the start of an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way to achieve that goal. “It’s vital that we develop solutions to restore people’s free speech, identity, and safety online, while also continuing to encourage innovation.” 

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) joined NBC News’s The Chuck ToddCast with host Chuck Todd. Chair Rodgers reflected on her time in Congress as well as her top priorities to rein in Big Tech, including Section 230 reform and the American Privacy Rights Act. On Section 230 Reform: “This is the moment. It's been an is sue before Congress for years, ever since Section 230 was put into place in 1996 in the Telecommunications Act. “The agreement for Big Tech—they weren't big at that time, because it was even before Google and Twitter and Facebook—was they were to moderate content, illegal, illicit in exchange for these liability protections. “It's just very different. They have broken trust. They are not doing what they are [supposed] to be doing under Section 230. “The courts have ruled in such a way that they have basically given them unlimited liability protections. “I believe that this is a time when we—Congress—must act to protect individuals online, to protect our personal privacy rights online. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been working on this for decades, and we have a bill. “We have the Section 230 bill, we have the American Privacy Rights Act that Senator Cantwell as the Chair of [Senate] Commerce has hammered out with me, and I believe that there is a sense among Members on both sides of the aisle that the American people know this needs to happen, and this is our moment.” On Protecting Americans Data from Big Tech: "Americans have no real understanding as to how much data is being collected. “Right now, there is no limit. So, tech companies, other companies, businesses are collecting unlimited amounts of data.” [...] “I think there's a growing concern among Americans that they are concerned about the amount of data, especially with AI, and this new world where there's going to be even larger data sets and computations. The individual is just going to get lost in that whole new world. That only increases the cry that we need to protect our identity online. “We need to have individual privacy rights online, and I can tell you that this is an issue at home. When I talk about it, it's one that gets the heads nodding.” [...] “[The American Privacy Rights Act] is protecting individuals, but especially our kids. Parents are very concerned about the amount of time that kids are spending online [...] The way that [the algorithms] are structured right now is to get your kids online, pull them in, and take them down destructive paths.” On Tech Companies Avoiding Responsibility: “That's where Section 230 comes into play, because they got the liability protections in exchange for this commitment that they would be moderating this content. “Now we know that they have established algorithms that have become really about keeping us online for profit. “There's this sense that they're putting their own profit ahead of what is best for us as a people, best for our children. “We passed the TikTok bill earlier this year, and the President signed it into law, forcing the divestiture of TikTok. “When we passed that bill, we weren't sure what the outcry was going to be, because people said, 'Oh, it's so popular...all these kids...177 million Americans', and yet there hasn't been this overwhelming outcry from the users. “I think it is because, in our heart of hearts, a lot of people know that something needed to take place.” On Protecting Americans from Applications Controlled by Foreign Adversaries, like TikTok: “The bill targeted TikTok, but it also targets other apps that would be controlled by foreign adversaries.” [...] “We defined [foreign adversary] as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.” [...] “You remember the previous administration had attempted to force TikTok to divest because of the national security concerns, and the courts had ruled that they didn't have the authority to do that. “So, there was a sense that Congress needed to act to clarify that there are laws on the books for foreign ownership, yet the CFIUS laws and the other laws were not covering these apps. They're relatively new. “So, I believe that a targeted approach was important, but Members on both sides of the aisle were saying we need to address the [conduct of] technology companies that are headquartered in the United States of America. “We need a privacy standard in the United States of America. We need to protect our kids online. “There was this drumbeat that was certainly a part of that debate.”  On Who Should Control Americans Data: “Well, ultimately, you should have control over your data.” [...] “The approach that I've taken in this proposal [the American Privacy Rights Act ] is to put into law a privacy right. I know there's this debate around ownership and if they should have to pay the individual. “We're putting into law a privacy right, so that a company, or any kind of a business entity that's collecting data, can collect only [data] for their business, for their service. “You would have a right to know what that profile is. “This is called data minimization. “So, we minimize the amount of data that they can collect, and then anything beyond that, you would have to opt-in.” On Minimizing the Data Companies can Collect on Individuals: “We need a reset. We need to reset the internet to empower the individual. “So now what this would do is reset where the individual will have a right to know what the profile is and make sure it's actually an accurate profile. “Then, if your data is being sold, you're notified of that. So, it puts the burden on the business, the tech company, to actually notify you, and if you don't want your data to be sold, if you don't want it to be transferred, if you don't want them to know your location, then you can opt-out of that. “Right now, it's notice and consent, and that is the way it currently operates. “We're doing a reset to data minimization, and it puts the individual in charge of their data.” On Stopping the Collection of Children’s Data: “There's other laws that compliment this privacy law that you hear about: KOSA, the Kids Online Safety Act, COPPA, Children Online Privacy Protection Act , Section 230. I see them all as different pieces of what needs to happen to really do a reset to protect our identity online.” On Protecting Small Businesses: “Europe did pass a privacy law and I believe 80% of the world live in a country that has a privacy law in place. We don't. “[Europe’s data privacy bill] was put into place and it's very bureaucratic, it's very regulatory and it has is raised costs, especially the small businesses and the startups. “We want to make sure that [we support our small businesses]. “Part of Section 230 was to encourage liability protections for the small businesses and the startups, so that they can grow, and we have more competition.” [...] "We include a right to cure for businesses that, you know, so they would have a right to get it right. “If you're under 40 million, you're not included. If you're not selling data, you're not included in this. "It's only if you're actually in the business of collecting data and selling it to another entity that you would be [subject to the provisions of the American Privacy Rights Act]. CLICK HERE to listen to the full podcast. CLICK HERE to learn more about the American Privacy Rights Act.

Washington D.C. — Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4510, the National Telecommunications Information and Administration Reauthorization Act , led by Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) and Subcommittee Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA). Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released the following statement upon passage: “For continued American leadership, we must ensure the NTIA’s mission, structure, and responsibilities reflect the modern communications ecosystem. This legislation reauthorizes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for the first time in over 30 years and modernizes the mission of the agency. NTIA plays an important role in our ongoing efforts to close the digital divide and secure connectivity for every American. I thank Reps. Latta and Matsui for leading on this legislation to give the NTIA clear direction and ensure the U.S. is dominating in everything from responsible management of our spectrum resources to broadband and artificial intelligence.” 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing titled “The Fiscal Year 2025 National Telecommunications and Information Administration Budget.”  RATE REGULATION LETTER “The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is responsible for managing federal spectrum use and awarding funds to deploy broadband. “In December, following the last NTIA oversight hearing, Chair Latta and I sent a letter regarding your prior testimony suggesting that NTIA was allowing—and even encouraging—rate regulation by States participating in the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment, or BEAD, program. “In your response, you stated that NTIA will consider any definition proposed by an 'eligible entity,' provided that it meets the standards laid out in the BEAD statute. “We agree that NTIA is bound to that statute when implementing the BEAD program. “And the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act explicitly states that NTIA is not authorized to regulate rates charged for broadband services. “Yet we continue to hear from states that NTIA is pushing them to include rate regulated options in their initial proposals for BEAD funding, which completely violates the intent of the law. “Because of NTIA’s decisions, some states have said that additional federal funding will be needed. “They’ve veered away from the technology-neutral principles mandated by law and even sought to engage in rate regulation of broadband service, despite them knowing that this will fail to connect all Americans. “Many of these proposals jeopardize the success of the BEAD program and hinder the program’s mission, to connect as many Americans as possible. “While this program is distributed by the federal government and state broadband offices, it will be the participating providers, both big and small, that will ultimately determine the BEAD program’s success. “It’s vital that NTIA follows Congressional direction, administers this program to the letter of the law and rejects state plans that stray from these goals, regardless of political leaning and leadership.” CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS “I am encouraged that NTIA is working with agencies to streamline the permitting process for BEAD recipients. “With billions of dollars made available for broadband deployment, interagency coordination on all levels is key to ensuring this money is not wasted and efforts are not duplicated. “But I caution the agency against creating a permitting regime that only benefits government funded projects, which will further discourage investment and widen the digital divide. “This Committee has taken decisive action to rollback similar permitting requirements for all broadband projects. “H.R. 3557, the American Broadband Deployment Act, would allow all broadband infrastructure to benefit from the same categorical exclusions that BEAD recipients will enjoy. “I hope NTIA and the Biden administration will support that bill and work with us to get it signed into law.” SPECTRUM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN “Another shared priority is making spectrum available for commercial use, which is essential to maintain American leadership in next-generation wireless technology. “In March, the NTIA released its National Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan. “This plan provides a roadmap for ensuring America is leading in spectrum, including timelines for spectrum studies, and I commend NTIA for its transparency in this process thus far. “As the manager of federal government spectrum, I hope NTIA is collaborating with other relevant agencies to push for the most efficient use of spectrum and to identify spectrum that can be made available for commercial use. “Finally, I’m sure we will be hearing about the Affordability Connectivity Program today. There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing from the White House and Democrats on who is to blame. “The Senate, which is controlled by the President’s own party, has not yet acted to fund this program, or reached out to House Republicans to find a solution. “I will also note that as the funding cliff for this program approaches, we’ve seen a remarkable response from industry, offering low-cost options for broadband internet as low as $10 dollars per month, well below ACP’s $30 dollar floor. “We all share the goal of making sure Americans are connected. Hopefully we can move beyond trying to score political points and work together to find a viable, long-term, fiscally responsible way to make it happen.” 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s subcommittee hearing titled “The Fiscal Year 2025 National Telecommunications and Information Administration Budget.”  NTIA MUST RESPONSIBLY MANAGE THE BEAD PROGRAM   “Today, members of this committee expect an update on America’s largest investment to bridge the digital divide: the BEAD program.  “This $42.45 billion dollar fund is statutorily obligated to connect unserved and underserved Americans to reliable broadband Internet so that they are able to reap the benefits that come with connectivity.  “Since we last spoke, states submitted their initial proposals for this funding.  “Louisiana, the first state to submit their Volume II application, celebrated the approval of their initial proposal on December 15, 2023.  “Now, over four months later, NTIA has only approved the Volume II applications for three additional states: Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia.  “I hope NTIA will not miss the statutory timeline for this program. It is essential for you to work diligently to keep this program on track to close the digital divide.  “While it is important to have reasonable processing timelines for this program, ensuring that BEAD is a program that broadband providers will be willing to participate in is also essential.  “In February, the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General echoed the sentiment that Republicans have stated since the passage of the infrastructure law: the BEAD program must be technology neutral to fit the broadband needs of the different states and territories.  “The OIG warned that NTIA must relax the fiber preference and Extremely High-Cost threshold to take into consideration the limited availability of resources to support a fiber preference.  “Ignoring innovations in unlicensed fixed wireless and satellite technologies will make the BEAD program a 'deploy as much fiber as possible' program instead of the 'connect every American' program that Congress directed.” WORKING WITH STATE REGULATORS “In addition, members of this committee have expressed concern about NTIA forcing states to regulate broadband rates, imposing burdensome labor requirements, and ignoring other congressional directives. “Now that OIG has confirmed our earlier fears, we hope you will finally listen to the other concerns we have raised. “I expect that we will hear today from the Assistant Secretary and my Democrat colleagues about the need to provide funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program. “I will just note that the Senate is controlled by your party and has yet to send a solution to the House. “We have also not been asked to work on reforms to the program that would earn our support to fund. “However, I am actively participating in the bipartisan, bicameral USF Working Group, which is working on a long term, sustainable solution to ensuring that the Affordable Connectivity Program is sustainable long term, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support that effort. “Broadband is only one facet of our conversation today. “NTIA’s work spans from leading the executive branch in studies on federal spectrum use, reports on artificial intelligence and quantum computing, to spurring innovation in public safety and open radio access networks.” NTIA REAUTHORIZATION “As NTIA’s mission continues to expand, it is important Congress’ intent for the agency remains clear. Reauthorizing the NTIA is still a top priority for this committee, and I look forward to my bill with the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee being considered by the full House this week that will do just that. It has now been over 30 years since NTIA was last authorized.  “It is our duty to provide direction to the executive branch agencies within our jurisdiction and this committee takes that role seriously.  “We must move H.R. 4510, the NTIA Reauthorization Act through the Senate and to the Presidents desk.  “I must note I was disappointed, following our December oversight hearing, that we did not receive answers in the 30 days we requested on the additional questions we sent you, and instead, got a response months later on April 19th.  “This delay is unacceptable.  “As Members of Congress, and your oversight committee, you have a responsibility to respond to inquiries in a timely manner.  “Following this hearing, we expect prompt responses to our questions.” 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) announced a Communications and Technology Subcommittee legislative hearing titled “Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act."  “For years, lawmakers have made efforts to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but have faced relentless opposition. Failure to revisit and reform this law is both irresponsible and untenable. We look forward to hearing from experts and stakeholders as we discuss the future of Section 230 and consider draft legislation that would sunset the decades-old law and force Congress and stakeholders to work together in good faith to develop a long-term solution—one that both preserves the ability to innovate while also ensuring safety and accountability for the harms platforms pose.”  Subcommittee on Communications and Technology legislative hearing titled “Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act."   WHAT: A hearing to discuss legislation to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.    DATE: Wednesday, May 22, 2024   TIME: 10:00 AM ET   LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building   Legislative proposals to be considered: H.R. __ , legislative proposal to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 This notice is at the direction of the Chair. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be live streamed online at https://energycommerce.house.gov/ . If you have any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Noah Jackson at Noah.Jackson@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Sean Kelly at Sean.Kelly@mail.house.gov .

Highlights from the Communications and Technology Subcommittee Field Hearing on Increasing Rural Broadband Access The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a field hearing in Bakersfield, California, last week. Members spoke with local leaders about ongoing challenges with meaningful connectivity in rural communities and how we can close the digital divide. In Bakersfield specifically, rural farmers use internet access to enhance their farming process. As Communications and Technology Vice Chair Randy Weber (R-TX) said , “Broadband connectivity enables some of the greatest technologies that we have today. Precision agriculture is increasing crop yield and decreasing the resources required for all sorts of farming. Access to broadband internet is providing new opportunities to rural communities for innovation: from drones used to monitor crop health to autonomous tractors.” Check out these stories from the hearing: “At a nearly two-hour field hearing inside the Mechanics Bank Convention Center, Central Valley farming representatives joined rural internet service providers in highlighting the importance of high-speed connectivity to precision agriculture as well as poor communities reliant on computers for health care, education and remote work.”  [...]  “Two farming industry representatives called to testify before the committee explained how so-called precision agriculture requires high-speed internet to sustain technological advancements that have increased yield while reducing need for water and materials such as pesticides.  “‘None of it would be possible without broadband and high-speed broadband,’ said Don Cameron, vice president and general manager of Terranova Ranch, a specialty crop operation located southwest of Fresno. Beyond its value in ag, he noted, broadband access helps deliver lessons to schoolchildren.”  “A delegation of U.S. congress members part of the Congressional Western Caucus and House Energy and Commerce Committee was in Kern County Friday.   “Friday morning, in Bakersfield, they held a field hearing to discuss how to expand broadband — or high-speed internet — access to rural communities, like many in Kern.”   [...] “Rep. Jay Obernolte: ‘Our children are not going to succeed in 21st century America with the knowledge necessary and the job skills necessary,’ said Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake). ‘We’re not going to be able to do that without finishing the job of extending broadband.’ “Obernolte also noted with AI being an inseparable part of the near future, children must be adapted to modern technology.” “Don Cameron, General Manager for Terranova Ranch was one of the four people that testified on Friday. In his eyes, as the world progressively gets smarter, so has farming, which means internet connectivity needs to keep up. “‘The hope is that we will have high-speed internet, the money that's being allocated will get to the last mile, that will get to the farm and we will be able to join the rest of the world with high-speed internet,’ said Cameron. [...] “In turn, the federal government is putting money towards bridging that digital divide, but all across the country, the question now is how that money gets spent.”   From left to right: Reps. Randy Weber (R-TX), Russ Fulcher (R-ID), and Jay Obernolte (R-CA)   From left to right: Reps. John Duarte (R-CA), Burgess Owens (R-UT), and David Valadao (R-CA) CLICK HERE to watch the hearing. CLICK HERE to read Rep. Weber’s opening statement.

“Our measure aims to restore the internet’s intended purpose.” Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) today unveiled bipartisan draft legislation to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. As laid out in the Leaders’ opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal , the legislation seeks to encourage Congress and stakeholders to work together over the next 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also incentivizing these companies to be good stewards of their platforms. Excerpts from The Wall Street Journal op-ed by Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone: The internet’s original promise was to help people and businesses connect, innovate and share information. Congress passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996 to realize those goals. It was an overwhelming success. Section 230 of the act helped shepherd the internet from the “you’ve got mail” era into today’s global nexus of communication and commerce. Unfortunately, Section 230 is now poisoning the healthy online ecosystem it once fostered. Big Tech companies are exploiting the law to shield them from any responsibility or accountability as their platforms inflict immense harm on Americans, especially children. Congress’s failure to revisit this law is irresponsible and untenable. That is why we’re taking bipartisan action. [...] Over the years lawmakers have tried to no avail to address these concerns, thanks in part to Big Tech’s refusal to engage in a meaningful way. Congress has made good-faith efforts to find a solution that preserves Big Tech’s ability to innovate and ensures safety and accountability for past and future harm. It’s time to make that a reality, which is why we are unveiling today bipartisan draft legislation to sunset Section 230. Our measure aims to restore the internet’s intended purpose—to be a force for free expression, prosperity and innovation. It would require Big Tech and others to work with Congress over 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also encouraging these companies to be good stewards of their platforms. Our bill gives Big Tech a choice: Work with Congress to ensure the internet is a safe, healthy place for good, or lose Section 230 protections entirely. CLICK HERE to read the full op-ed. CLICK HERE to read the bipartisan discussion draft legislation.