Interesting, the deferral to the intent of the law's author - it kind of makes the whole argument about the second amendment seem silly. That would be a dangerous game to play in this case though, given the fact that 230 is a small part of the much larger product of the mid 90's moral panic - the Communications Decency Act. Courts have ruled pretty narrowly on the issue of editorializing and 230 protections, but in cases of defamation they've made it clear that so long as the edits don't alter the meaning - they're protected. At the same time, courts have made it clear that simply changing the context on another's work can be enough to constitute fair-use and effectively create a new work. Those aren't compatible ideas.

The purpose of these tags is to alter the underlying message, they even admit it - they wouldn't function as intended otherwise. I think the funniest example I've seen of this was a 1970s documentary about our imminent destruction by way of global cooling, narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Youtube's little wrong-thought tag helpfully informed me of our imminent destruction by way of global warming.