It’s basically a discussion of safe harbor provisions. The interpretation is that the safe harbor provisions of US telecommunication law shouldn’t apply to firms that are directly exercising editorial control over content. That can be shaping trends, the blocking of certain news stories, algorithmic narrowing of your audience (not all your followers can see your posts) as punishment for the type of content, to outright banning. Theoretically (but IANAL, so I can’t say how strong the argument is), the reason for safe harbor provisions is that providers like ISPs can’t effectively control everything that happens on their network, so they’re shielded from liability for users’ posts and activities. But, if the firm makes moves to exercising strong editorial control over content (through directly removing or algorithmic punishment of content), the argument goes that the safe harbor provisions should no longer apply to them, and they would thus have the same liability as, say, newspapers. This would open Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to stronger copyright violation punishments, stronger punishments for allowing extreme left wing speech while silencing right wing speech, etc. People who promote the argument feel that social media firms are exercising political and editorial control over the content on the platforms and that conservative/right wing users are held to different speech standards than liberal/left wing users (which probably is true, if you look at how often, say, left wing users tried to engage in internet vigilantism against people they believed, without evidence, to be involved in the capitol riots, while similar behavior from right wing users would probably lead to account bans). Part of the argument, though, is caught up in what the people who promote it view as unfair treatment of former President Trump, but also with fear of corporate power over speech. It’s a little funny to see right wing anti-corporatism on the rise as left wing anti-corporatism hits a nadir, though I agree with them that I have concerns over social media acting as soft enforcers of speech restrictions for the current political regime, in ways that it would be illegal for the regime to act directly. If there is direct collusion or anything that can be perceived as covert collusion between the federal government and social media firms vis-a-vis permitted speech, that probably would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
