Seems like it starts to get weird if your forum gets millions of chess posts each day, and you pick the posts like "this global conspiracy is why the deep state is trying to ban chess," "how i saved my life by defeating a axe-murdering grandmaster (he is coming for your children too!)," "the 100 sexiest chess players," for the first page of your forum because those stories drive engagement and get you more clicks, and banish the other forum posts to page 103173.

I am curious, how would that be defined a law? Daily users? Unique visitors?

Do you think in that case the government deserves to know much visitors your website has?

Also wasn't the idea of Section 230 to be more for the internet companies? Would repealing mean that the internet provider can be sued for what you do? Wouldn't that be the end result?

For me Section 230 is the cornerstone of the web, and I'd be very against its repeal unless you can show me that the web after that is better/safer for me and for my parents. I am all up for some clarifications as long as they do not limit my right to have a website that won't be sued out of the world for something that someone else does.

And about FB, Twitter, Google, Apple deal with them with a proper tool -- antitrust. Noone will ever explain to me why FB was allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram.

I don't know the answers to any of your questions.

Not a great example. The forum's purpose is so narrow and well defined that most would not care about the moderation, even if it were for profit.

Add a minimum user number. Say 100k or an arbitrary threshold of substantive complaints. Either you'll be able to afford the traumatized drones in chairs, need to fundraise or get outside help. Fine solution in my book.

What you're really suggesting is that moderated forums with more than 100k users and controlled by a single entity should be de facto prohibited. But then it really has very little to do with Section 230 and you might as well just call it what it is -- antitrust.

No, that's your assumption.

A company should deal with the problems they create.

They could reduce their user base, get crushed by lawsuits and regulations resulting from their reckless endangerment, gross negligence, incompetence, and/or unfettered greed. There's Also the American option of buying politicians and legislation but that's a short sighted and ethically bankrupt decision.