The core sticking point is, I think, is that Section 230 was envisioned as a 'common carrier' exception. Common carriers do not apply editorial control to the content they transmit.
In the modern landscape, where practically every mainstream (and most of the non mainstream even) platform has extensive policies and applies them in a manner that's equivalent to editorial control, they are no longer a common carrier, they are a publisher.
Should that exemption and safe harbor be expanded to all publishers? If no, do you really want the Government picking and choosing favorites? Either way you choose, I believe there will be many first and further order implications.
You can either get Congress to modify the definition, or you could try to get a case through the courts to clarify its interpretation. As one of those indirect implications, I am actually not sure which one would be more of a footgun.
In the modern landscape, where practically every mainstream (and most of the non mainstream even) platform has extensive policies and applies them in a manner that's equivalent to editorial control, they are no longer a common carrier, they are a publisher.
Should that exemption and safe harbor be expanded to all publishers? If no, do you really want the Government picking and choosing favorites? Either way you choose, I believe there will be many first and further order implications.
You can either get Congress to modify the definition, or you could try to get a case through the courts to clarify its interpretation. As one of those indirect implications, I am actually not sure which one would be more of a footgun.