I agree that this is a problem that I wish was addressed, but honestly, I dont know what kind of overreaching, anti-freedom (/s kind of?) law would need to be passed. The reason it worked for news papers was they were printing news, and news has to be true (or at least not outright lies).
Twitter, Facebook, *chan, parlor, Truth social (is that actually a thing yet?) would all just say they dont print the news, and that every post is opinion.
Which even the NYT opinion pieces don't fall under the same editorial scrutiny as their news, and legally are completely separate.
Nonsense
You should look at the thingy called "Opinion", and what kind of disclaimer NYT put around it
Someone is spouting nonsense here, but it isn't me.
you could sue person, much harder to sue newspaper
you could sue someone for a twit if you want to, nothing could stop you
No such protection exists for print media.
Twitter can control what it "prints", but is not responsible.
Those situations aren't the same. At all.
Historically, there were platforms (like newspapers) that had full control of what information they disseminated and had full responsibility for that information, and "common carrier" platforms (like the phone company) that did not control what information was disseminated and accordingly were not responsible for it.
Twitter and its brethren want the best of both worlds -- freedom to censor, but no responsibility.
They should have to choose one or the other.