” There does need to be a remedy for the latitude these companies enjoy to manage their content editorially,”
The entire point of 230 is that they are NOT supposed to be have editorial control like a newspaper or TV station. They are protected by 230 because they are supposed to be like the phone company, a completely neutral channel.
If they want editorial control, they do not deserve lawsuit protection.
Exactly. Compuserve was sued and found by the court not to be liable for anything said on Compuserve because they allowed all content to go unmoderated and therefore were just distributors; Prodigy was found liable because they had editors (nowadays, "moderators") and were found to be publishers. Politicians said the courts had it exactly backwards and 230 was born. The courts had it perfectly correct and it needs to go back to that.