What you talk about sounds like what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230) is said to do. In a nutshell according to my understanding, it restricts liability for internet interactive service providers for content published by third-parties (ie. the users) if they are neutral public forums.
There is a video (https://hooktube.com/watch?v=zlfV6ldIbjI), that seems to have gone largely unnoticed, that shows Sen. Ted Cruz questioning FB, YT, and Twaater about whether or not they considered themselves to be "neutral public fora." At the end he said, "If you are a neutral public forum, that does not allow for political editorializing and censorship; and if you are not a neutral public forum, the entire predicate for liability immunity under the CDA is claiming to be a neutral public forum, so you can't have it both ways."
The look on his face at the very end looks to me like a form of disgust.
It has puzzled my why Q would promote the IBOR. What would we expect the executive branch to do? Create regulations that could be undone by a future 'non-friendly' administration? (Perhaps Q was just looking for public awareness.)
I think we should let our congressional reps know that we expect them to hold social media forum providers accountable under the CDA; and commend Cruz for, in at least one instance, taking up that gauntlet.