So, one thing that is interesting to me here is that cable companies do choose which companies to allow as channels. Like, they aren't merely a dumb pipe to acc

So, one thing that is interesting to me here is that cable companies do choose which companies to allow as channels. Like, they aren't merely a dumb pipe to access the world of television, hopefully having a disregard for what customers watch, but instead take an active role in curating their catalog to choose channels and content that will be accessible to their customer base. Due to this, while I personally find the premise of this demand chilling, it more argues to me that cable companies almost deserve their fate here: I think it would be entirely fair to try to hold cable companies at least somewhat liable for all of the content broadcast on all of their channels. Like, arguably, to me, this feels the same as the Section 230 controversy, but since a cable company isn't an "interactive computer service" I guess they are left out in the cold. If you really believe in Section 230, maybe you feel like it should be expanded to cover this scenario. And, if not, maybe you feel like cable companies it's catalogs of channels should either 1) do tons of fine-grained limitations and/or filtering or 2) simply not exist so that people can get their information from an actual platform (which cable companies actually already provide anyway: the Internet).