INTERNACIONAL
Bipartisan lawmakers want to strip Big Tech’s legal immunity that can shield social media companies
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
It was the mid-1990s. And the world was online.
No doomscrolling for hours through Instagram and X.
But people were plowing through GeoCities. There were Hotbot searches – before the days of Google and AI. There was even Ask Jeeves, long before Grok.
The U.S. Capitol building is shown in Washington, D.C. A Romanian man admitted to participating in a series of «swatting» calls that targeted members of Congress, as well as other government officials. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
Congress was on the precipice of adopting a landmark telecommunications law which would dictate the digital landscape for decades.
When signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law, former President Clinton declared how the measure would plow «a superhighway to serve both the private sector and the public interest.»
RAND PAUL SAYS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT PLATFORM LIABILITY
Yup. Back then, some still referred to the internet as «The Information Superhighway.»
The 1990s were heady. Full of optimism and possibility. The. U.S. won the Cold War. The economy boomed and was «new.» The internet linked the world.
But there was a serious debate about free speech. Who should regulate what was online? Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) address what was proper to post, the same way it oversaw the TV and radio airwaves?
In the early ‘90s, the National Security Agency (NSA) used a cryptographic backdoor to intercept phone calls called the «clipper chip.» That raised questions about government surveillance. Would that carry over to what the government «watched» when people posted content online?
A U.S. National Security Agency logo is displayed on a smartphone screen with stock market percentages in the background in this photo illustration on Jan. 30, 2024, in Poland. (Omar Marques/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images)
Congress ultimately decided to give the internet a lot of leeway – in the interest of free speech. Telecommunications firms persuaded lawmakers to grant them a legal shelter. «Carriers» weren’t responsible if «customers» posted questionable or offensive material.
«We said that the FCC would not regulate either the content or the character of the internet,» said then- Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) during a 1995 floor debate. «We can’t have the government in the interest of uniformity coming up with standards to regulate this industry.»
Cox was a key player behind shaping policy in that 1996 telecommunications law. So was then-Rep. and now Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
«The internet is the shining star of the information age,» proclaimed Wyden in 1996.
RULING AGAINST META AND GOOGLE COULD SET THE STAGE FOR CHANGES IN HANDLING HATE CONTENT
But the Oregon Democrat fretted about some of the filth which was already permeating the internet in its earliest renditions.
«My wife and I have seen our kids find their way into these chat rooms which make their middle age parents cringe,» said Wyden.
But like Cox, Wyden feared that «censorship could really spoil much of its promise.»
So they fought to keep some government regulation out of the telecommunications law. And they inoculated internet providers with something called «Section 230» of that law. Section 230 shielded telecom firms with immunity from lawsuits and criminal charges based on what customers posted on their forums.
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) described the logic behind Section 230 and the role of service providers:
«If you, as a public service, put up a billboard in a hall and someone puts something on the billboard that says, ‘Congressman Obernolte beats his wife,’ the owner of the billboard is not responsible for the content of that message,» said the California Republican.
Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., attends a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands hearing on the 9/11 Memorial and Museum Act and other legislation in the Longworth Building on Dec. 7, 2021. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images)
But lots of people and entities post all sorts of things on today’s worldwide «billboard.» That’s why some lawmakers want to fundamentally alter social media as we know it by paring back Section 230.
«Section 230 is absolute liability protection, immunity for the largest social media companies in the world. It’s driving people to suicide. It is ruining our society,» said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the most ardent advocates for changing the law. «If you buy a bad car, you can sue. Every product you buy, the company has to stand behind it. This is the only area of the law I know where the largest companies in the world have absolute legal immunity.»
Graham went as far to suggest that what is available online – and how people use social media – is «as dangerous as drinking.»
WHY META AND GOOGLE ARE LOSING COURT BATTLES FOR DAMAGING KIDS BY TRYING TO GET THEM ADDICTED
«It’s putting profits over people,» chimed in Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). «(Social media) should not have this absolute shield when it is destroying the lives of young people by driving toxic content at them through its algorithms.»
Bipartisan lawmakers are boiling about what social media firms allow users to post without legal consequences – even though Congress is partially responsible for creating this problem three decades ago.
«As long as these companies believe they’re immune from liability, they’re going to tell all of us to go to hell,» said Graham.
UNDER OATH, META’S ZUCKERBERG SHOWED WHY BIG TECH CAN’T POLICE ITSELF
Some lawmakers want to strip legal immunity from Big Tech for what winds up on their platforms.
«What we ought to do is start by allowing victims of child porn and other child abuse material and sexual abuse material to sue these companies,» said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
Lawmakers believed that enhanced opportunities for voices and speech would enable the internet to flourish. They argued that the free market would create a rich environment online. So they sidelined their instincts to overregulate.
«Government is going to get out of the way and let parents and individuals control it rather than government doing that job for us,» said Cox in 1995.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., talks with reporters in the U.S. Capitol during votes on Tuesday, March 10, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
But lofty hopes for a lush «marketplace of ideas» online are dashed by some of the digital slop – and addictive nature of «phones» today.
«You talk to people and they’re scared to death of social media. They’re scared to death of AI,» said
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.).
That’s why lawmakers demand changes to Section 230.
One lawmaker says free speech safeguards are crucial for the people deciding what users see online. But not the technology behind it. Today, the technology makes many of those decisions about what we see and hear on our phones.
«If you just have an algorithm spewing all this information..» sighed Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). «The First Amendment doesn’t protect an algorithm.»
In 1996, Ron Wyden told C-SPAN during an interview that «censorship could really spoil much of (the internet’s) promise.»
And in 2026, Wyden is still leery of infringing on free speech through regulation. He says the hands-off approach helped the development of Wikipedia and the social media platform Bluesky. A more aggressive posture could stifle development.
«To get rid of (Section) 230, you’re going to have to roll over me,» said Wyden this year.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
In 2026, people are struggling to harness the technology. Trying to ween themselves off addiction to phones. Figuring out ways to keep kids from phones in order to build reading and vocabulary skills.
The digital optimism of the mid-1990s is gone. And those who were there are nostalgic for the sound of an old, staticky modem and the delightful proclamation that «you’ve got mail.»
first amendment, big tech backlash, technology, fcc, regulation, politics
La Organización Meteorológica Mundial (OMM), cuya secretaria general es la científica argentina Celeste Saulo, advirtió que el fenómeno de El Niño ya está presente y se intensificará hacia un episodio fuerte entre julio y septiembre, con riesgo de olas de calor, sequías y lluvias intensas en todo el mundo.
Una nueva investigación publicada en la revista Science Advances llegó con una propuesta que abre un debate científico y ético sin precedentes: las simulaciones sugieren que aclarar artificialmente las nubes sobre el Pacífico sur podría debilitar ese mismo fenómeno antes de que cause sus peores estragos.
La técnica propuesta se llama aclaramiento de nubes marinas y consiste en inyectar aerosoles, partículas muy pequeñas, en la atmósfera baja para que las nubes reflejen más luz solar y enfríen el océano.
El estudio fue liderado por Jessica Wan, de la Institución Scripps de Oceanografía de la Universidad de California en San Diego, junto con John Fasullo, Nan Rosenbloom y Chih-Chieh Chen, del Centro Nacional de Investigación Atmosférica de Estados Unidos, y Katharine Ricke, de la Escuela de Política Global y Estrategia de la Universidad de California en San Diego.
El Niño-Oscilación del Sur (ENSO, por sus siglas en inglés) ocurre cuando los vientos alisios se debilitan y las aguas del Pacífico oriental se calientan por encima de lo normal.
Eso desata efectos a distancia llamados teleconexiones: alteraciones del clima que golpean regiones muy alejadas, desde sequías en Australia hasta inundaciones en América del Sur. Un solo episodio puede costar billones de dólares a la economía global.
El Centro Nacional de Predicción del Clima de los Estados Unidos alertó el jueves 9 de julio que “existe un 81% de probabilidad de que se presente un El Niño muy fuerte durante el período de octubre a diciembre de 2026″.
Podría ubicarse entre los eventos de El Niño más grandes en el registro histórico que data desde el año 1950.
Ningún estudio anterior había evaluado si la geoingeniería solar podía usarse para intervenir directamente sobre El Niño en escala estacional.
Los investigadores partieron de una pista concreta: los aerosoles de los incendios de Australia de 2019-2020 aclararon las nubes del Pacífico sur y contribuyeron a desencadenar una La Niña —el fenómeno opuesto, con enfriamiento de las aguas ecuatoriales— que duró varios años. Si el fuego lo hizo, la pregunta fue si podría hacerse a propósito.
Los investigadores simularon seis estrategias sobre los El Niños de 1997-1998 y 2015-2016, al variar cuándo empezaba y cuánto duraba la intervención.
La más intensa —de junio a febrero— redujo la temperatura del mar en 1,88 grados durante el El Niño de 2015-2016, “prácticamente restaurando condiciones neutras del ENSO al final del pico del evento”, según el equipo científico.
En las simulaciones, el aclaramiento de nubes marinas redujo el calor y las lluvias excesivas en la mayoría de las regiones que El Niño suele golpear.
La caída en el índice que mide los daños económicos sugirió “el potencial de grandes beneficios económicos globales”.
El debate científico surge porque la técnica funcionó mejor para combatir el calor y la lluvia que para revertir el frío y la sequía, así que sus beneficios no llegan a todos por igual.
Los riesgos climáticos son tan reales como los beneficios.
El estudio detectó un calentamiento sobre Europa y Asia en zonas que El Niño normalmente no toca, lo que significa que la técnica crearía un problema nuevo donde antes no había ninguno.
Las estrategias más largas también adelantaron y amplificaron La Niña posterior, con potencial de generar daños propios en otras regiones.
El debate ético es el más difícil. Si el aclaramiento de nubes marinas se aplica cuando El Niño no llega a desarrollarse, se podrían generar consecuencias climáticas no deseadas sin ningún beneficio que las justifique.
Los investigadores advirtieron que esos casos “presentan riesgos éticos que deben considerarse con cuidado antes de cualquier implementación futura” y propusieron repetir las simulaciones con distintos modelos y extenderlas a eventos más moderados, que son los más frecuentes y difíciles de predecir.
océano Pacífico,nubes estratocúmulos,albedo,reflexión solar,vista aérea
INTERNACIONAL
AOC-backed candidate ripped for ‘bizarre response’ to transparency question: ‘Pretty basic’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, says he’s waiting on outstanding paperwork needed to accurately fill out his tax disclosure forms.
El-Sayed’s statement appears to be trying to defuse allegations from his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Michigan, that he is trying to mask his net worth, hiding the true nature of his wealth until after the Michigan Aug. 4 Democratic primary.
«You’ve sought an extension through August 13, I believe, which is after the primary,» El-Sayed, who is endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and other far-left lawmakers, was asked on Wednesday. «Was this to avoid transparency with your voters? Why not release them before the election?»
DEM CIVIL WAR HITS PRIMARY DEBATE STAGE IN FIERY BATTLEGROUND SHOWDOWN: ‘WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?’
Abdul El-Sayed, candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, speaks before U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., takes the stage at Mumford High School on May 3, 2026 in Detroit, Michigan. (Sarah Rice/Getty Images)
«No,» El-Sayed replied. «Taxes get complicated.»
«My wife and her family own property abroad and getting all those tax forms is a thing,» he added.
As a part of his candidate disclosure report filed in June 2025, El-Sayed has reported a number of holdings. Among them: a salary from Wayne County worth $278,900 and an assortment of other assets bringing his net worth to somewhere between $580,000 and $1.7 million.
As a part of that disclosure, his wife reported a rental property in Bangalore, India worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The disclosure went on to say that his wife brought in between $5,001 and $15,000 in «income.» Another rental property in Ann Arbor, Michigan that was worth between $250,001 $500,000 brought in between $5,001 and $15,000.
To some viewers, El-Sayed’s responses this past week are confusing, given the existence of his 2025 filings.
«A bizarre response,» Chuck Ross, a Washington Free Beacon investigative reporter, wrote in a post to X. «He filed a Senate financial disclosure in June 2025 that listed his wife’s rental property in India.»
«When it comes to actual transparency and investment, the fact that he is saying ‘my wife has foreign assets. My wife has investments abroad.’ Look we need to know you have allegiance to the United States of America,» Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., told Fox News. «You need to come before the people that are working to elect you and you’ve got to show them what you’re about.»
«If you have nothing to hide, then just release the tax returns. These Trump tactics are an extremely bad look,» another observer wrote.
WATCH: SURFACED VIDEOS OF DEM SENATE CANDIDATE BACKING ‘DEFUND THE POLICE’ CONTRADICT RECENT DENIALS
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a progressive champion, endorsed far left candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s high-profile 2026 Democratic Senate primary. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Hen Mazzig, a pro-Israel political commentator, also bashed El-Sayed’s response.
«Didn’t realize being unaware of the extent of your own wealth was a characteristic of the working class,» Mazzig said, referring to El-Sayed’s promises to represent everyday Michigan voters against corporate interests.
El-Sayed’s responses on Wednesday come after the Michigan primary debate on Tuesday evening, where Stevens accused El-Sayed of a lack of candor.
«Well, look, transparency is oh so important. This is why I have released my tax returns. My opponent, Abdul, he said that transparency is key, but yet he hasn’t released his tax returns,» Stevens said.
«Look, I am the only one running for United States Senate in Michigan who is not a millionaire,» Stevens said.
When asked if Stevens’ assertions were true, El-Sayed hinted that the figure was a little ambiguous.
«If you take my assets and my wife’s assets together, then I guess they add up to something like that,» El-Sayed said in his Wednesday interview.
In another sit-down with MS Now, El-Sayed pledged to release his tax documents ahead of the primary.
OMAR’S DISCLOSURES ERASED MILLIONS, LEAVING HER WITH POTENTIAL NEGATIVE NET WORTH. SHE WON’T EXPLAIN WHY
U.S. Senate candidate from Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, has been endorsed by Bernie Sanders and embraced comparisons between he and Zohran Mamdani. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
«We absolutely will. Sometimes finances are complicated. I can only control what I can control, and unfortunately, when it comes to tax documents, sometimes they are really complicated to get,» El-Sayed said.
«We are absolutely going to release it before the primary.»
politics, taxes, democrats senate
Elecciones 2027: qué son las listas colectoras que impulsa el Gobierno y por qué generan críticas
Las fuertes declaraciones de Didier Deschamps
Cómo cambia el consumo cuando juega la Selección: las compras se concentran antes del partido y luego se frenan casi por completo
“Andá pa’ allá, bobo”: Jorge Macri le respondió al alcalde de Nueva York por las críticas a la Selección argentina
Ensayan un mecanismo de geoingeniería para prevenir los daños del Fenómeno de El Niño
María Becerra contó por qué dejó de ser vegana: “No podía seguir con esa alimentación”
Ojo con las multas de tránsito: las más caras llegan a $3.8 millones
Mora récord: Caputo aseguró que bancos privados están rescatando a sus clientes con préstamos al 25% anual
Portugal vs España: formaciones, hora y dónde ver por tv
¿Conviene un plazo fijo? Esto ganás con $1 millón y las tasas de cada banco
ECONOMIA3 días agoMora récord: Caputo aseguró que bancos privados están rescatando a sus clientes con préstamos al 25% anual
- ECONOMIA3 días ago
¿Conviene un plazo fijo? Esto ganás con $1 millón y las tasas de cada banco
- ECONOMIA3 días ago
Inédito: la billetera de una petrolera rinde más que usar Mercado Pago o invertir en plazo fijo
