[PeterisP]

This proposal starts looking weird as soon as you go into detail because it ties one persons rights to redress in court with the due process accorded to their opponent - because any due process would start only if a takedown (a) happens and (b) is appealed.

I.e. if user A makes a post that defames you, you complain, it gets taken down, user A makes an appeal according to the new "230+ process" and gets it restored - then you'd have no redress in court because the provider followed the due process. (in any case, due process would be about the process of evaluating whether the post meets some editorial criteria, but the criteria themselves can be absolutely arbitrarily set by the platform; if they decide to ban the posts which contain the letter "a", that's compatible with due process, as long as they look in the appeal and point out that yup, there was an "a" in it so the ban was appropriate; and if they decide to ban only posts which they're absolutely required by other laws and leave everything else, that still fits due process).

In the opposite scenario, user A makes a post that might defame you but it gets immediately taken down by an automated algorithm; user A complains but gets auto-rejected without due process - so then you'd have a right to redress in court, but for what? The post got taken down.

And if you had in mind right to redress in court for the person making the post, they don't have any valid claim pre-230, during 230 and in your proposed scenario either way.