> it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism
Is it clear? Have you read what the authors of Section 230 have had to say recently?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/autho...
"The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to "interpret" Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website's moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment" (pg 17)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-C...
From roywiggins' post earlier[1], a direct quote from one of the authors of 230:
"The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality."
The law before Section 230 was such that if you moderated content, you were responsible for it. You can read about CompuServe and Prodigy's different approaches to moderation and liability. Congress decided that internet services should be given immunity from liability for third-party content, but it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism. They are acting as publishers now and I would not be surprised if Section 230 is amended by congress.