Currently, these social media giants can't be sued for published content, unlike mainstream media can. But when they act as editors of the content, the Section 230 shouldn't apply anymore, so the argument goes.

This is 100% as it should be.

(IFF) any website is "playing editor" (censoring content) (THEN) that website is legally responsible for ALL content on their website.

(IFF) people start getting kicked off the yo.utubz and the fa.cebox left and right (THEN) THEY SHOULD JOIN A CENSORSHIP FREE COMMUNITY (with user controlled view settings).

Let them join bitchute, LBRY, and hopefully hive.

These behemoths have been editing content just like a newspaper, but dodging legal challenges by claiming they don't censor anyone (but they obviously do).

You can't have it both ways.

(EITHER) you edit content (OR) you don't.

You can only claim "I'm not responsible for user generated content" if you DON'T CENSOR (EDIT) CONTENT.