[judge2020]

It would've also protected Prodigy Services if it existed at the time of this lawsuit[0]. Congress created 230 because they don't want service hosts being sued for millions for cultivating UGC on the internet (which, in turn, enabled the US to head up the boom of the internet economy), it's just that over time consumers chose big social media instead of random forums (and Reddit became the place to go for interest-base discussion).

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

[ocdtrekkie]

I'm indeed well aware the only case defense that 230 stans have is a 28 year old case that predates most people understanding the basic concepts of the Internet. :)

The fact there's only a single badly litigated case that is obsolete as heck to justify a law that got Trump elected and has a death toll in the hundreds is a great example of how little real justification 230 has.

[judge2020]

The point of the law is primarily to allow websites to remove porn and profanity.

If it was repealed tomorrow and Facebook had to choose between these two paths, which would they choose?

A: keep moderation; anytime someone posts something libelous, they're responsible for damages

B: no moderation; they let anything and everything go so that they become a service provider and thus aren't considered to be editorializing or approving the content people post

It's safe to say that 230 being gone would require every single website with UGC to choose between the two options. If you think it could be revised instead, feel free to suggest such.