I do not think that the companies that have the funding and technical ability to effectively astroturf facebook/twitter et al, would be rendered even mildly imp

I do not think that the companies that have the funding and technical ability to effectively astroturf facebook/twitter et al, would be rendered even mildly impotent were there 3x as many social media companies as there are now. Its a systemic failure on the way these companies act, not just a lack of competition. When facebook is showing friends and family that I made a comment, they fit fairly within the scope of a neutral carrier, akin to a phone call or text message. When facebook republishes a NY Times post or headline, on the official NYTimes facebook page, they are acting as a republisher, and so be it. Any user will associate the story with the NY Times. But when facebook publishes my post and headline, on the official "MY Times" facebook page, they are taking my content, and publishing it, as a publisher. And they are doing so, in a manner that intentionally gives me the same appearance of gravitas as the NY Times. When Facebook then decides to show my post instead of the NY Times post to other people in their feed, they are then curating and distributing this novel content. That is to say, they are publishing this content, as a publisher. Your 3 options fail to differentiate between this nuanced but important difference. Facebook should not be required to police the content between individuals posting as individuals. And Facebook should not be held responsible for redirecting traffic to established publishers and content providers. But claiming that individuals, who are unable to publish without Facebook's platform, are also publishers, and therefore Facebook is not liable for their content, despite Facebook's actions to then selectively curate, distribute, and, in a word, publish their novel content, is not the spirit of 230.