“My solution was to say to hell with them and not visit the sites anymore.“
Me too.
But to answer your original question - No, a future Democrat President could not use this same rationale against FR.
The difference is that FR and other forums or outlets which provide commentary and editorial opinions are already not exempted from regulation as “common carriers”. So this would take nothing away from FR.
Twitter and FB claim to be “common carriers“ - they claim to be serving as the “telephone lines“ over which people communicate, and therefore not liable for what gets said’ you whom.
But by “fact checking“ the President’s tweets, Twitter is trying to have it both ways. They want to be protected as “common carriers” but yet they wish to weigh in on the content. FB is playing it smarter by having Zuckerberg go out and say Facebook shouldn’t attempt to evaluate what is true or not true, or what is “right“ or “wrong”. But FB is in violation of common carrier regs as well - the President is making them choose -
FB has already chosen, so No, this could not come around and bite FR in the ass.
Still I can see a future Democrat administration trying to claim the FR too is a common carrier due to the fact we have local chapters who organize political rallies as well as other forms of political activism. I can imagine we agree that this argument would be preposterous. Yet if they bring to court and argue in front of some moron Obama appointed judge (because they will judge shop), anything can happen. I don't mean to sound like a pessimist but I really don't trust these people.