I think the issue with social networks like Twitter and other, claiming legal benefits of 'platforms' while acting as publishers and crowdsourced-publishers.
It is like having a for-profit business that claims tax umbrella of a charitable organization.
All we have to do is simply recongize, that these social networks are publishers of political content.
So they can choose to continue editorialization by crowdourcing, but comittees, by AI, by whatever they want.
And they can live happily but as publishers.
The ISPs (for which section 230 really was meant) -- can continue to be impartial and claim the protection benefits of that section.
It is like having a for-profit business that claims tax umbrella of a charitable organization.
All we have to do is simply recongize, that these social networks are publishers of political content.
So they can choose to continue editorialization by crowdourcing, but comittees, by AI, by whatever they want.
And they can live happily but as publishers.
The ISPs (for which section 230 really was meant) -- can continue to be impartial and claim the protection benefits of that section.