> Section 230 will not exempt them from what they do.

I'm glad we came to an understanding but this is a strawman. You might as well be saying "Section 230 does not exempt twitter from the law". This is very obviously not something anyone is arguing.

Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.

Destroyed is too strong; it would basically terminate all social media sites, news aggregators, comment sections, forums.. everything since precisely nobody is going to sign up for the legal liability. (Except, maybe, for megacorps like Facebook, with a net gain of nothing)

I would like to see it greatly narrowed.

Even if we ignore this particular instance as a special case where the act was justified, large companies having unfettered control over most political discourse in the country, and wielding that power in an arbitrary, unaccountable way is still a problem.

People should be allowed to control their own websites.

The leap you're making here is that by moderating things on their platform, they suddenly become the publisher of said information. This is neither in the text of the law, nor in how the courts have interpreted it.

Yes, if Twitter publishes something defamatory in their own name, they're liable. No, they are not the publisher of any content they choose to moderate.