Have you ever mentioned your wanting for a certain product, and within mere minutes see it pop up as an ad on one of your devices? The general public can agree that they too have experienced the same peculiar coincidence.

Over the past year, the dangerous power of tech titans has been indisputable. From their numerous user privacy violations to their various censorship scandals, Silicon Valley and its figureheads appear to be their own realm.

A professor at the UCLA School of Law, Mark Grady, stated: “These companies have become so bold because they’re limited to shockingly little.”

A prime example of unrelenting technological dominance is the idea of “digital eavesdropping.” Oftentimes, many Americans refer to this phenomenon by personifying their devices, saying they are “listening to their conversations.” Rather than the phenomenon of devices listening to your every conversation, your traffic on certain websites produces data that identifies your interests.

Perhaps you have been looking to purchase a new computer. You have been doing research on Google to find what may be the best computer at the best price for you. In addition, you may have been going onto different websites and looking at your possible options. All of this technological traffic is used to generate ads that are specific to you in order to boost sales in certain industries. Algorithms are compiled in order to mimic the idea of “listening” to you, a questionable, yet successful marketing tactic. The crafty tracking process provokes questioning of the true transparency regarding user privacy, a scandal that seems to continuously lurk in the shadows.

This continues to be a precarious situation filled with the weaponization of user data. Another example of big tech’s immeasurable power is the wrongful use of Section 230.

Grady doesn’t seem to believe much of anything is being done.

Section 230 gives companies like Twitter and Facebook the power to regulate speech as they please without any repercussions. This is often wielded as a weapon against what companies deem as “hate speech” on numerous platforms. Twitter and Facebook have taken it upon themselves to institute the idea of “hate speech” in order to protect users from false information or dangerous people. While this may be a good idea in a perfect world, the unavoidable human bias makes for poor execution of this ideology.

“While tech companies face antitrust scrutiny for their size and market power, answers to the question of what the government can do about their control of online speech are vague, at best,” Grady said. “That’s in part because antitrust laws aren’t focused on ‘the tendency of monopoly to produce less diverse speech.”

It is no secret where political favoring lies with the Silicon Valley tech titans. As a result, there is a valid sense of curiosity regarding the unbiased regulation of speech. In this day and age, for someone to tolerate an opinion that they don’t agree with is uncommon, if not rare. How can the American public expect any better from companies with such limitless power and exorbitant monopolies?

There was a clear double standard evident to anyone willing to pay attention during the 2020 Election. Amidst the election process, President Trump was banned from posting on Twitter. While many see this as a rightful limitation given the chaos of the time, there were many others inciting violent and heinous crimes on the platform that saw no limitations. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly called for the demise of America and death to its citizens and politicians. Despite his odious online presence, he has seen no limitations or bans on the platform. How could such hateful speech be enabled on a platform that swears to banish exactly that? Whether this has been intentionally overlooked or simply ignored, only the untouchable company itself is to know. Khamenei’s active Twitter account serves as a flaw in the system of “hate speech” while embodying the clear political intent in the weaponization of Section 230.

As the American public, I feel it is our rightful duty to advocate for the abolishment of Section 230. These omnipotent private entities threaten Americans’ first amendment rights in regards to freedom of speech. To allow the persistent growth of power via the tech titans is to forfeit our fundamental rights given to us by our founders. In addition to the possible violation of our rights of free speech, Section 230 sets an incredibly biased precedent for our political leaders. How is America to function as it is meant to if an entire population of opposing viewpoints is silenced? Our founders built this nation in hopes of disagreement fostering change. Instead, the idea of opposing views has been eliminated in its entirety at the hands of technology companies and politicians.

As students, such as myself, continue to approach adulthood, we must realize that with age comes responsibility. As the next generation of this nation, it is our duty to enact change with our voices. Whatever side you stand on, advocating for what you believe is a fundamental right that we cannot allow to be violated.