NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
It was the mid-1990s. And the world was online.
No dooms scrolling for hours with Instagram and X.
But people were farming with GeoCities. There was Hotbot search – before the days of Google and AI. There was even Ask Jeeves, long before Grok.
The US Capitol building is shown in Washington, DC A Romanian man admitted to participating in a series of “swim” calls directed at members of Congress, as well as other government officials. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
Congress was on the verge of passing landmark telecommunications legislation that would set the digital landscape for decades.
When he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law, former President Clinton announced how the measure would pave “a highway to benefit private industry and the public interest.”
RAND PAUL SAYS WELCOME TO YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE HAS CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT PLATFORM LIABILITY
Yes. Meanwhile, some still call the Internet the “Information Superhighway.”
The 1990s were tough. Full of hope and possibility. I. The US won the Cold War. The economy was booming and “new.” The Internet connected the world.
But there was a serious debate about freedom of speech. Who should control what's online? Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dictate what was broadcast, the same way it oversees TV and radio?
In the early 1990s, the National Security Agency (NSA) used a cryptographic backdoor to intercept calls called a “clipper chip.” That raised questions about government oversight. Will that extend to what the government is “watching” when people post content online?
The logo of the US National Security Agency is displayed on a smartphone screen with stock market shares in the background in this Jan. 30, 2024, in Poland. (Photos by Omar Marques/SOPA/LightRocket/Getty Images)
Congress finally decided to give the Internet more freedom – with the goal of free speech. Telecommunications firms have lobbied lawmakers to grant them legal protection. “Carriers” were not responsible if “customers” sent questionable or offensive material.
“We said the FCC would not regulate the content or character of the Internet,” said Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) during a 1995 debate. “We cannot have the government do things in the same way and come up with policies to control this industry.”
Cox was a key player behind the policy shaping of that 1996 telecommunications law. It was so-Rep. and now Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
“The Internet is the shining star of the information age,” Wyden declared in 1996.
REPRESENTATIVE META GOVERNANCE AND GOOGLE CAN SET A STAGE FOR CHANGE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HATE CONTENT.
But the Oregon Democrat became concerned about some of the dirt that had been floating around the Internet on his original translation.
“My wife and I have seen our children go to these adult sites, which makes their middle-aged parents discouraged,” said Wyden.
But like Cox, Wyden fears that “censorship can ruin a lot of your promises.”
So they are fighting to keep some government regulations out of the telecommunications law. And they injected internet providers with something called “Section 230” of that law. Section 230 protected unsecured social media firms from lawsuits and criminal charges based on what customers posted on their sites.
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) explained the logic behind Section 230 and the role of service providers:
“If you, as a public servant, put up a billboard in the hall and someone puts something on the billboard that says, 'Congressman Obernolte is beating his wife,' the owner of the billboard is not responsible for the content of that message,” the California Republican said.
Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., attends the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands regarding the 9/11 Memorial and Museum Act and other legislation at the Longworth Building on Dec. 7, 2021. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images)
But many people and organizations post all kinds of things on today's global “billboard.” That's why some lawmakers want to change social media as we know it by repealing Section 230.
“Section 230 is a complete defense against the crime, the lack of protection against the biggest social media companies in the world. We are driving people to kill themselves. We are destroying our society,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.), one of the most ardent advocates for legal reform. “If you buy a bad car, you can be sued. Every product you buy, the company has to stand behind it. This is the only area of law that I know where the biggest companies in the world have absolute legal immunity.”
Graham even suggested that what's available online – and how people use social media – is “as dangerous as drinking.”
WHY META AND GOOGLE ARE LOST IN COURT WARS FOR HARMING CHILDREN BY TRYING TO MAKE THEM ADDICTIVE
“It puts profit over people,” cried Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “(Social media) shouldn't have this complete shield if it's destroying young people's lives by driving toxic things at them through its algorithms.”
Bipartisan lawmakers are seething over which social media companies allow users to post without legal consequences — even if Congress is partly responsible for creating the problem three decades ago.
As long as these companies believe they are innocent, they will tell us all to go to hell,” said Graham.
UNDER OATH, META'S ZUCKERBERG SHOWS WHY BIG TECH CAN'T POLICE ITSELF
Some lawmakers want to strip legal immunity from Big Tech for what happens on their platforms.
“What we need to do is to start by allowing victims of child sex and other child abuse and sexual abuse to sue these companies,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
Lawmakers believed that improved opportunities for words and speech would make the Internet flourish. They argue that a free market will create a rich environment on the Internet. So they put aside their emotions to over-control.
“The government will get out of the way and let parents and individuals manage it rather than the government doing that work for us,” said Cox in 1995.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., talks to reporters at the US Capitol during the vote on Tuesday, March 10, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
But the high hopes for a good “marketplace of ideas” on the Internet are being dashed by another digital meltdown – and the addictive nature of “phones” today.
“You talk to people and they are scared to death of social media. They are scared to death of AI,” he said.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.).
This is why the lawmakers want Section 230 to be changed.
One lawyer says free speech protections are important to the individual people to determine what users see online. But not technology behind it. Today, technology makes many of those decisions about what we see and hear on our phones.
“If only you have an algorithm that spits out all this information..” sighed Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). “The First Amendment does not protect an algorithm.”
In 1996, Ron Wyden told C-SPAN during an interview that “censorship can destroy a lot of (the Internet's) promise.”
And in 2026, Wyden is still guilty of violating free speech by regulation. He says the hands-off approach helped the development of Wikipedia and the social media platform Bluesky. Aggressive posture can stunt growth.
“To finish (Section) 230, you're going to have to roll over me,” Wyden said this year.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
In 2026, people struggle to use technology. Trying to stop being addicted to phones. Finding ways to keep kids off their phones to build reading and vocabulary skills.
The digital optimism of the mid-1990s is gone. And those who were there were not forgotten by the sound of the old, static modem and the cheerful announcement that “you have mail.”
