The problem is that Twitter and Facebook are not acting like news sites because 1) they don't write the stories or in any way pay the journalists 2) news is a

The problem is that Twitter and Facebook are not acting like news sites because 1) they don't write the stories or in any way pay the journalists 2) news is a minority of the content 3) moderation is not the same thing as curation 4) hosting a story is not the same thing as publishing it. If I post an NBC News article to Twitter, NBC is the publisher. If that article contains libel, NBC is the one on the hook in court, not Twitter. (However, if Twitter discovered the article was very likely libelous then it would be both reasonable and responsible to restrict sharing the article). GP is really making one of two authoritarian arguments: a) Platforms are not allowed to make broad decisions about what sorts of content they want to host. Presumably GP would then also agree that YouTube's ban on pornography means that YouTube is a "publisher," and that every time Reddit remove a racist subreddit that it is acting like a "publisher." b) If a platform does not want to host the president's dishonest re-election propaganda, they should expect to face financial and legal consequences. Of course nobody would really say "b" out loud, hence the word games about "you see, Mastadon is a platform but Twitter is a publisher."