Also, any sort of "reform" would fuck over small providers again
The cafe site owner would have to keep guidelines and regulations on content, moderate content on such guidlines, and write them in such a manner that they were justifiable by law. In addition, if it the "transparency" bullshit the gop is pushing, he would also have to disclose a legal like document on why every shitposter who spammed pepes or gas the kikes was banned, the reasoning, etc.
Facebook can afford that, john doe out of Topeka, Kansas with a board hosted as a hobby, cannot.
Let us say A hosts a site.
A is immune to anything that other people say on the site so long as he takes due dilligence to remove content that violates US law, and can also remove content that is not illegal so long as he attempts to do so in a reasonable manner. Eg; spam of pepes.
A is not immune to anything he posts himself. eg; A calls EA's CEO Andrew Wilson a "fucking pedophile pedo doesn't work because its technically not a word
who fucks dogs and eats out of the bowl of niggers".
A is immune if someone else says that exact same phrase because he is a publisher.
Repeal 230 makes it so that if someone wrote that phrase and EA sued A, he would be liable in a deframation case.
Repeal makes it if you posted nudes Gods knows why you would, this isn't /hc/ or /b/
of a woman, and she sues A, he could be liable in court.
Repeal makes if it a random strelok posts the Tarrant wannabe manifesto, A would be held liable for spreading terrorist propaganda.
Repeal makes it if that someone posts CP on A site, A would be charged with possession of CP CP laws are way too broad and abusive, but courts wont rule on it because optics.. See: Mandatory disclosure
Mind you, that 230 doesn't stop him from still getting served, and still having to file against the motion, he has to fight a longer court case other than simply stating, "I'm a publisher under 230 and I've done my due diligence, and I don't moderate this because its not illegal and not objectionable to my own moderation guidelines".
Even if trump doesn't get it, Biden/Harris most certainly will get it. They want to destroy the free net because the free net spawned /pol/ which fucking memed a dude into the presidency. A free net which violently opposes any sort of conditioning and censorship is dangerous to tyrants. A free net that exchanges ideas and concepts which are inherently contradictory to the neo communisim of the bureaucratic elite who can dictate how to ruin people at a whim.
>spoiler pic is related. NSFW and NSFL unless your into fucking dogs then you're a fucking white woman
The majority of the normie
net fought against net neutrality, and COPA and PIPA. That left them too content or demoralized to fight GDPA in Europe and too divided in the US to fight 230.
Here's part of 230 below, the Good Samaritan clause is very important:
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.