OK, I want to break something down at this point. Social networks, web applications, newspapers, and other media outlets are not "the government".
Why do I make that statement? Because I keep seeing people crying "wolf" about how facebook is violating their free speech rights. This is 100% untrue (right now) and opens up a thorny debate that has been around since people were dialing up on 1200 baud modems to bulliten boards in the 1980s. Here's the root of the problem/question:
if somebody posts illegal content, who can be sued/go to jail for it?
In the olden days (before section 230) it was (for the most part) "anybody and everybody involved". This means, if you uploaded...IDK kiddie porn, copywritten materials (music, books), legit conspriators or contrive to overthrow the government are all examples everyone seems to use... the creator of the content, the place they uploaded it to, the phone company, anyone who downloaded it, and you name it could be sued/jailed.
Thus, back in the olden days they created a law that protected (somewhat) intermediaries who are simply "platform providers" some legal protection from liability in the case illegal content was put on their platform. This solves, however only HALF the problem...sure myspace can't necessarily be sued for hosting illegal music uploads, but now the music industry isn't protected from folks pirating their product. So the "other half" protects folks who are effectively being ripped off (think pirated music/movies) by giving content providers the right to moderate (by taking down illegal content) materials uploaded without the risk of the person uploading suing them for "getting rid of their content".
The conundrum around the current situation, however, is..."who gets to decided how content should be moderated?". Right now that's in the hands of the platform provider (facebook, google, whomever) and the problem is, if they decide a bunch of Antifa or Proud Boys posts are in violation of their own terms, they have the right to remove the content, ban the user, or...really do anything that want (including nothing).
So the problem becomes thorny...at this point facebook could take every "pro biden" post (well there are logistical problems, but that's a different issue) down and other than the poster fuming about it (unless they were banned) nobody would know. The upside is that there are market forces at work because facebook makes money from advertising "pro MAGA" materials to the proud boys and "BLM" material to BLM supporters...so they need to keep some of that material to pay the bills. (how can you shill MAGA hats and #BLM t-shirts if you block all thier posts?)
At the end of the day, there is I think emerging awareness that "the system" as we know it around these digital content and social platform has some pretty serious flaws and suspect in the next few years they will start to be regulated a little more closely. I don't think section 230 will necessarily be rolled back, but there will definitely need to be some adjustments in order to both maintain a free and open internet, but also hold companies that profit from divisive and objectional content being posted by third parties accountable for fostering a potentially toxic environment.