> I don't agree that such things should be covered by 230 in the first place.

Indeed. In my opinion, even "algorithmic feeds" should lose section 230 protection because the service now acts in an editorial capacity and directly controls what the user does and does not see.

It's unfair for a service that manipulates what users see for all kind of financial and ideological reasons to be treated as a mere "carrier" of information.

Edit: Reading the article more, it strikes me as contradictory to claim that AI generated output is both "novel" (for the purposes of copyright) but also protected by section 230. How can it be both? If AI output is protected by section 230 because it's merely transmitting third party speech, then surely the AI model is also bound by any copyright licenses on its training input.