Don't buy that for argument for a second.

The letter of the law might need to adapt, the spirit does not.

We don't need to allow the media to be weaponized with abject lies that are killing Americans are damaging our country.

Wanting something, and it being practical, are entirely different things. That's the trouble with slogans. They don't get us anywhere.

Yes, and obviously I understand the legal difference between these two models as well. Section 230 is still an experiment, one that was put in place primarily to protect intermediaries, like ISPs. It allows for a free and open Internet, and without it, the Internet as we know it is dead. How do we square this against the control and restrictions a publisher has? Because that is what keeps publishers in check, and prevents them from printing lies, or publishing things that are too radical. And how do we pragmatically solve this issue, in a way that can be as fast as the Internet? One way to look at it might be, how bad would this dystopia look, you know, the one where a 'publisher' is redefined a bit. Section 230 should continue to protect ISPs, and Proxies, and anything that supports complete and total net neutrality. But any service that 'filters' what I see, in any way whatsoever, should automatically fall under old school publisher libel laws. That's the issue. It's not that Facebook or Twitter are broadcasting freely, it's that they are modifying and adjusting what user's see, using unknown algorithms. Much like the FCC regulates the RF spectrum, and approves devices, the FCC needs to approve algorithms, and determine if they qualify for Section 230. Fixed it. Discuss.