Section 230 PROTECTS private companies from liability.
“creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service”
That will remove incentive for competition because all social networks will be responsible for everything everybody says and does on them.
So for example, let’s say someone opens up an anonymous image board in the united states for “freedom of speech” and they host lots of questionable content.
At present, the hoster can provide IP addresses but otherwise is not responsible for the content.
But with Section 230 gone, if a poster posts something illegal, the host of the imageboard is liable and any user can cause them to be shut down rather than the user being responsible for their own uploads.
I’m not even suggesting that’s a bad idea; maybe that’s a good idea. But it would remove incentive for creating new social networks because without Section 230, they become responsible completely for everything the user does on their services
The reason Republicans want Section 230 gone is then STATE GOVERNORS could then dictate content online.
So if it is a Christo-fascist US State, they can compel by law social networks to eliminate non-Christian imagery if they deem it in violation of State decency codes or force them to shut down.
See; Book bannings in US States happening at present and imagine that extending to users of online services in their States.
Look who wants Section 230 changed. Is it people in positions of power in government? Are they doing it for you or to enhance their own power and control?
Why would a President of the United States want Section 230 gone?
At the time, his administration would have gained control over all social media services and could shut any of them down based on any content on them.
Why does he and others want it repealed now? For him? “Burn it all down” – it’s revenge. For those still in political power? To gain more political power.