Bear in mind, the law is not going to actually or reasonably crucify you because someone left a nasty comment on your blog while you were asleep (nobody seriously believes this can happen). The law needs to be able to go after companies that built social platforms that create extremely bad social effects at scale, who are focused on creating as much engagement as possible to fuel ad revenue.
Honestly, the "largest" social platform that would likely benefit from Section 230's repeal is Reddit: They'd have to make some policy changes and probably discourage more cross-posting, and very large communities might need company-hired moderation. But the general design of it being built around small communities moderated individually is likely to allow it to adapt to the change pretty well. Maybe they'd shut down the really large general subs, but it'd be pushed more towards being a shared login way to be a part of a bunch of distinct communities.
I recently rejoined twitter (I watched a bunch of sci-fi shorts on the youtub and wanted to tell people about them) and it is messed up. It's a hate machine. People are so shitty to one another. And the doxxing mobs are fucking terrifying, flash-mobs of hate, ravening and lawless.
For this we invented the transistor?
I feel like this is the most important question of the whole mess. What you do in the privacy of your own e2ee tunnel is your own business.
How could Chuck sue the service provider for a message sent between Alice and Bob?
Edit: also would it genuinely endanger end-to-end encryption or only do so in the context of these platforms?
It's a genuine question since I don't understand all the nuances of these laws. If I put up a personal site without S230 protections, am I at risk? What about truly neutral ISPs and cloud hosts that do not curate content but just sling packets? What if all the data is encrypted from my server to the end user anyway?