You can see the language by scrolling down a bit and looking at the embedded document. It's near the top of the second page.
It begins with: "In general Section230 .... is repealed."
To be clear, I’m not taking a counter position to your statement; I’d like to understand your position better.
In short, if you post something on Facebook that someone else doesn't like, that person can't sue Facebook. But, crucially, there's nothing special about Facebook, Twitter, or the other big names here. If I make my own social media startup, I would also enjoy the same protections. It's the same reason you can't sue Wikipedia for libel if you don't like what's written about you. Indeed, wikipedia can only really exist because of Section 230 protections.
Now why would the negative effects be disproportionate towards small entities and startups? Because the big guys can afford their own content moderation systems. They certainly don't want to take on the role of censor, but they're perfectly able to. Little nimble startups can't, which makes repealing section 230 a form of regulatory capture by existing social media companies.
That’s essentially it.
It does not “give” companies the ability to not publish something, ie censor what someone posts. That right is inherent in the company being a private entity.
The Republicans, who are furious because Twitter blocked stories about the Hunter Biden laptop, like to claim that their freedom of speech was impeded, as if the first amendment applies to private individuals or companies. It does not, it only applies to the government limiting a persons right to free speech.
The vitriol against Section 230 is really designed to punish companies for not allowing proven false materials by the far-right. The Republicans want to open up the floodgates of lawsuits against these companies for this reason.
Repealing it will not made free speech more open, more likely it’ll construct it greatly as companies heavily restrict what can be published.
Per a question as to how this could hurt small business/startups, FB and Twitter have the resources to fight the lawsuits, startups don’t.
It also protects other users from liability.
> It does not “give” companies the ability to not publish something, ie censor what someone posts.
It does in fact make this legally easier, because any content moderation without 230 would give the firm publisher liability (basically, presumptive liability for illegal content) rather than distributor liability (in which they are only liable for content for which they have notice of illegality). Under the plain text of 230 they are protected against publisher liability if they comply with it (and under precedent they are also protected against distributor liability.)
> FB and Twitter have the resources to fight the lawsuits
No, they don't. They are unwinnable (Was it false? Was it harmful? Was it on the platform? You lose.) FB and Twitter are just big money piñatas without 230, until they radically retool the structure of their platforms.
What liability does it protect me (as a user of Facebook and Twitter) from?
Under (e.g.) defamation law without section 230, actions you take on the platform which affect the distribution of defamatory statements could make you liable for defamation, including when the “interaction” is hosting a space on the platform where it is posted, like a Facebook page or wall, or even the parent post on which it is posted as a comment.
I was consciences that the lack of 230 would doom the internet. Looking at the cesspit it’s become, I don’t Think It’s unreasonable to restrict section 230 a bit more.
Let’s see what the language is in the bill. Reporting like this is too light on details.