This will not be the result. The scale of content posted on social media makes it impossible to remove content that could result in lawsuits or charges down the road. The only way for social media companies to avoid liability would be to eliminate moderation. Either that or remove comments and user uploaded content outside of a much smaller pool of vetted people - and at that point it's not longer really social media is it?

This thread is being throttled, reply in edit:

Understand that removing section 230 means that companies are treated as though they are the ones making the statements.that users post. One user recruits terrorists, or participates in sex trafficking and the whole site is responsible for recruiting terrorists and engaging in sex trafficking in the eyes of the law. With stakes this high delegating moderation to users doesn't cut it.

If companies like Facebook or Google don't have the resources to comply then there's zero chance that a smaller company with less resources can do so. There's a reason why removal of section 230 is being pushed by cable and traditional news. It's a death sentence for some of their biggest competitors.

> The scale of content posted on social media makes it impossible to remove content that could result in lawsuits or charges down the road.

Impossible or just expensive?

Reddit amortizes moderation over it's user-base, couldn't they share liability too? FB and Twitter could do likewise.

On the other hand, if it really is too expensive to moderate at scale maybe these companies should be broken up?

The cesspool's already on the clearnet, we have examples of what it looks like: 4Chan, Gab, Voat - are all platforms that pride themselves on minimal moderation.

If we want the entire internet to either look like that, or force platforms to review every post for potential illegality (an impossible task), then yeah removing S230 is the way to go. If we think that sounds silly, then preserving S230 is essential.