These arguments are always full of motivated reasoning; they start with the desired goal (Twitter shouldn’t be allowed to block people I like, usually), then they try to work backwards from the law to that outcome. This produces some fairly hilarious misinterpretations of how Section 230 works, along with the occasional misreference to State Action by the better read.

Because they are supposedly active in moderating content (I am not talking about taking down illegal stuff here). Moderating content to fit their narrative arguably makes them a publisher with all the consequences.

I guess what they are saying (entities that are meddling with 230) is either be totally neutral with the exception of taking down illegal stuff and spam or face the outcome.

> Moderating content to fit their narrative arguably makes them a publisher with all the consequences.

The problem being that there is no proof that this happens. Despite all attempts to construct some kind of "one side gets moderated stronger than the other" narrative this stays a conspiracy theory.

The other problem is that moderating content doesn’t make them the publisher. That is literally the point of section 230, giving platforms the ability to moderate without becoming responsible for the content.