Interesting. Maybe I am getting this wrong. So if 230 is revoked, web site owner can be sued for content someone posted, whereas now they cannot be?
If the former, then a lot of web sites will indeed need to moderate dramatically more restrictive, and may in fact go out of business due to such huge overhead. But we'd end up with truly curated content, sort of what book publishing used to do.
Frankly, I'd applaud disparition of the so called public speech platforms hosted for profit derived from underlying data (living by the moto: more data is better than quality data), and not caring about content per se. No one complained in the old age of radio that they weren't all allowed to grab the broadcaster's microphone, for their right to burp whatever crossed their minds. If they were interesting enough, they were invited as speakers based on merit, and that's the way public speech should be allowed to be broadcast. If on the other hand group of individuals decide to put together their own chat room, private, that should be their own concern and no one else's.
The key word here is 'public' vs. private communication., using smeone else's medium to publish one's speech does not constitute exercising of free speech. The words I am posting here are available merely thanks to the kindness of Cake.