There's good reason to think that low-volume, heavily-moderated forums like this one would have no problem without the CDA.
> Social media as it exists today would be risky for any entity to host that couldn't afford to vet all content before serving it to others.
"As it exists today" - and why should we assume that the present manifestation of social media is the best possible one? Why assume that large-scale content moderation is an unsolvable problem? It may be that the only reason present-day tech companies haven't solved it is because they don't need to.
If all their employees who are currently focused on getting people to click ads switched over to developing efficient moderation, could it be solved?
Email and Usenet didn't have the eyes on them and the billion dollar coffers legal teams could drain that they do today.
> There's good reason to think that low-volume, heavily-moderated forums like this one would have no problem without the CDA.
Without equivalent legislation that removes liability for hosting user content, all it would take is a cease & desist or arrest for someone to decide that the risk of hosting a free forum like HN just isn't worth the legal liability.
> "As it exists today" - and why should we assume that the present manifestation of social media is the best possible one?
Nobody suggested that the current manifestation is "the best one". You're posting on a forum where many people are able to amass small fortunes working for, and selling to, companies that regularly rely on Section 230. One only needs to look at the tomes of case law created by these companies based on Section 230 to recognize this.
> Why assume that large-scale content moderation is an unsolvable problem?
Again, nobody suggested that it is an unsolvable problem. It's a solvable problem with giant piles of money and an extremely lengthy payroll.
The problem is that the liability for user content being unwaived has a chilling effect for those without giant piles of money and an infinitely long payroll. GeoCities, personal blogs, personal sites, hobbyist forums, and other mainstays of the nascent internet would either exist with massive censorship or not at all.
> If all their employees who are currently focused on getting people to click ads switched over to developing efficient moderation, could it be solved?
How many people would be able to bootstrap a site that allows users to upload content in any form if they needed a billion dollar payroll to hedge against the liability of being sued out of existence, or being raided and arrested in the middle of the night?
This is correct. Section 230 removes liability for user content regardless of moderation. The moderation argument is a red herring.
> What's complicated about repealing a 2-clause law? Is there another part to this process I'm not aware of?
There is tomes of case law relying on Section 230 of the CDA, and much of the internet is able to operate as it does today because of it.
Without Section 230, services that enable users to share content would be encumbered with a mountain of liability that would most likely scare off investors.
Email providers are protected by Section 230, as are messenger apps, forums, Usenet, chat in games, etc. Social media as it exists today would be risky for any entity to host that couldn't afford to vet all content before serving it to others.