That would play right into their hands. https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/the-repeal-section-230-narrative-is-being-pushed-by-silicon-valley/ Justice Clarence Thomas has written a well said (nonbinding) legal opinion that Section 230 isn't all that it's thought to be. Lower courts have granted more immunity than the law calls for. https://mobile.twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1316730136432185345 Section 230 gives immunity to unwitting distributors of illegal user-created content. It isn't a license to commit fraud, make massive in-kind campaign contributions, aid and abet terrorists / seditious rioters, etc. If you want the government to regulate these companies, it's only going to cement their monopolies by adding barriers to enter the market by up-and-comer competitors. Plus you'll invite meddlers of the likes of Adam Schiff's "QAnon misinformation" hearing. Just look at the UK, New Zealand, Europe - that's what you get when you invite government regulation of online speech. People go to jail for exposing things like Muslim rapists, grooming gangs, holocaust lies, etc.