You could make the same argument about Google search, which is a decidedly more user-driven algorithm determining what you're seeing. Google can't and shouldn'

You could make the same argument about Google search, which is a decidedly more user-driven algorithm determining what you're seeing. Google can't and shouldn't be responsible for the factual accuracy of sites that it indexes and shows to users. Consider e.g. what happens when libelous content is indexed. AI generated content is a different story, and I would not expect a court to lean towards Section 230 protections for such content. But user generated content, or content index, scraped, or otherwise reproduced verbatim from real humans is a different story. If you want publishers penalized for revenue generation that comes from illegal content, then it seems appropriate to draft a law that requires attribution of said revenue to specific pieces of content, and the ability to use this in discovery.