A possible solution that we can already see on the horizon is stopping social media's ability to censor its content. This is not by eliminating Section 230, but by establishing a government body, super partes, to carry out this role. This solution, besides being already known, is also the most dangerous. Zuckeberg and Co. in this film may look like useful idiots, however these actors are perfectly aware of what they are allowing to happen. At the end of the day, what matters to them is the financial result, they probably can't care less of the fact that their media are censored by state agencies especially if they can say: "Don't blame us, don’t you see what you have done?".
Obviously, those who propose it do not want to understand the difference between a censorship exercised by an entrepreneur or his teams on his media, which is totally legitimate and constitutional even if today totally polluted by the legislative system (Section 230), and the one exercised by the government or one of its bodies, which would be totally illegitimate and unconstitutional, no matter how much you want to dream it is super-partes. I emphasize the last part. Even if there were the possibility of having a government body capable of guaranteeing absolute impartiality, their simple existence would already be illegitimate and unconstitutional. This concept also remains valid from a practical point of view as well: what is impartial today may not be so tomorrow. But this is just a detail, the whole idea is simply wrong, period. The ultimate goal is therefore to obtain complete control of Internet communication by the government and now we have finally reached the point where both Washington's left and Washington's right will agree. The former will be able to say that it is absolutely necessary to put a stop to violent retoric, the latter will say that Big Tech cannot be allowed to exclude the conservative dialectic. In short, they will do it for us.