I agree entirely. Now, the only problem is if it is gotten rid of entirely stripping sites like Poal of its protection to have "mean words" and "wrong think". I am concerned that this will ultimately be used to make censorship of these online platforms law not just "suggestions" and a "wink and nod" from the government.
If Section 230 was repealed, the legal status of Poal would revert to the pre-Section 230 state. Which was effectively common carrier vs private carrier. There were common carrier-esque BBS's where all legal content was allowed (similar to 4chan), and curated BBSes where the operator was liable for content but could moderate it to their heart's content.
Is there a site which isn't curated? Upvotes/downvotes, specific subs, banning people, deleting posts, etc. 230 seemed to be protection from government.
I dont think upvotes/downvotes tie into Section 230 at all. Deleting posts likely would only tie into Section 230 if it was selective deletion, e.g. the ideological censorship that's pervasive on Big Tech sites. If it was blanket (e.g. "No posts about tobacco"), it'd fall under common carrier the same as Fedex doesnt ship tobacco. What kind doesn't matter, the quality doesn't matter, who's doing the shipping doesn't matter, Fedex treats everyone equally in this regard.
Section 230 is protection from liability, primarily civil. E.g. if Whackadoo McGee posts "We should go burn down Minie Mouse's house", Section 230 doesn't protect Whackadoo. He'd still face criminal prosecution. The website host is protected by Section 230, but quite frankly the website host was protected prior to Section 230 by common carrier laws by the simple argument of "we didnt know the contents of Whackadoo's post"...the same as Fedex prohibits shipping explosives. If you sneak a bomb into a box labeled "machine parts", you're liable not Fedex.