This course of action avoids the danger of unintended consequences inherent to more radical proposals like an “Internet Bill of Rights.” It simply acknowledges a widely known fact—that Twitter engages in ideological discrimination—and applies the law already on the books.
Twitter could respond in one of two ways. It could take meaningful steps to enforce an ideologically neutral and equally applied code of conduct, and thus regain its Section 230 protections. Or it could embrace its role as publisher and become like so many other online journals and newspapers, thus opening up the market for a new and genuinely neutral company to fill its niche.
Either way, we would be rid of the absurd fiction that a website that regularly bans conservatives without cause, turns a blind eye to hatemongers with the “correct” opinions, and writes leftist ideology into its terms of service is anything other than a publisher. Perhaps most importantly of all, making an example of Twitter would send a warning to other, larger tech companies that they can and will be held accountable for their actions.