The President wants to kill 230 because Twitter is censoring his tweets. His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230.
It's politics; everything's always about politics. Whether this will be good for the industry and society is another question.
They clearly state in their ToS that speech is limited on their platform.
> His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230.
Well, his response was to state he was "looking to see if he could suspend their protection". There is nothing to be worried here, because anyone can tell him that the answer is that he can't suspend their protection.
It was just infantile bluffing that in most other situations would cause the person bluffing to lose face, but not in the current political reality. In most situations, it's best to not state orders that you can't possible enforce and that reveal your weakness.
I suspect “get off my property”.
Twitter and Facebook and everyone else have those same rights.
What multiuser system would survive a libel-law attack from a highly unfriendly jurisdiction? Email, forums, comments, and other forms of posting opinions would immediately cause any small operator to shutdown.
You just need a friend to make libelous comments on discus and then sue any site you want. 230 isn't a loophole, it's essential for speech on the Internet.