Please help me understand: why shouldn't online sites be held accountable

[DonaldsRump]

46. Then there is no accountability and anything goes?

From what I gather, that's basically the situation now. Anyone can engage in a massive distortion/lie onine (e.g., "Hillary Clinton eats babies" ) and face no consequences?

That clearly allows social media etc. to be weaponized.

Social media can clearly control what content is hosted on their sites. It can do so with internal vetting, a jury system consisting of users, or both.

I don't have a view, but I truly am struggling to see the difference between broadcast/print media having responsibility for its own content or even letters to the editors/op-ed pieces that legally constitute defamation versus social media, where the content is generated by users. The social media site is providing the forum to express the user's statement (and is quite possibly monetizing that). Why shouldn't the social media site have a legal responsibility to ensure there is no defamatory content.

Otherwise, we will remain in the situation we are in today. Just think about Qanon. How did it arise in just 2 years? Social media. How did it arise? Through blatant lies.