Right, and the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law so the policy must define the limits until Congress acts to clarify the law. Hence the rulemaking.
Facebook and Twitter's actions yesterday and the controversy over the role of 230 make the lack of clarity apparent.
If Congress doesn't like the new administrative policy, allow them to clarify.
If Congress does not so delegate such authority, interpreting the law is solely the job of the courts. They did not delegate such authority for section 230.
Agencies do not get to just look at any random law that is outside the are they were given power over, decide it is not clear, and make an enforceable rule clarifying it.
Can you give an example limit you're imagining that would pass muster? To me
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
doesn't leave much to the imagination, and AFAIK courts have consistently backed that up.
Section 230 is not such a law. It creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be used. There is nothing in it for the Executive to execute. It is only executed when someone raises it as a defense in a court case, and it is the judiciary that decide what it means.
The FCC can interpret it all they want, but that interpretation will be at best persuasive authority in any court case involving the application of 230.