No, but I'd hold CVS responsible for displaying the sign in their stores.
"But if they're not promoting the content, and aren't profiting from it in a different way than other content, we can't hold them responsible."
That's the biggest issue Section 230 fails to account for: These companies are profiting off it. When Google or Facebook take down content, they still keep the profits they got from advertising it. Some of the most long-running ads on high traffic search terms on Google distribute malware, and they refuse to delist them due to the amount of money they make. Facebook refuses to restrict blatant lies on political ads because those political ads make it a huge amount of money.
Section 230 is a failure because Section 230 removes any financial incentive for platforms to moderate responsibility. If we were to replace Section 230, rather than removing it entirely, we would need a solution that makes it inherently expensive to host bad content, such that platforms are strongly incentivized to hire qualified staff to moderate and manage content.
If I report harmful content on Twitter or Facebook or Google, we need a system that ensures I receive a non-automated, competent response, and that the company is legally responsible for the decision they just made, such that they can't pawn it off on an algorithm or someone making 5 cents an hour.