Frivolous lawsuits are a literal denial of service attack. It costs money to defend yourself in a lawsuit. In the US there's no default loser pays system.

If I sue you and lose, you're out the cost of your defense. You'd have to sue me for your expenses. While an attorney might take the suit on contingency you're guaranteed to win and unlikely to recoup all of your original expenses even if you do.

Frivolous lawsuits are not in any was a boogeyman. One need look no further than bullshit DMCA takedowns and bullshit patent suits filed in East Texas to see the model for frivolous lawsuits with a Section 230 repeal.

> Frivolous lawsuits are not in any was a boogeyman.

They certainly were in the 90's and 2000's. This lawsuit[1] became a talking point against "frivolous lawsuits", and ammo in a PR war for tort reform[2] in the US.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform#Frivolous_lawsuits

I find it quite odd that [1] is considered frivolous, given that the plaintiff required emergency surgery, left the hospital weighing 38kg and ended up partially disabled.

I agree with your point in general, but I'd also argue that there are companies that weaponize copyright and patent law in order to intimidate individuals and companies without the means to go to trial, even if they don't have a real legal standing to do so. GitHub seems like a great place for patent trolls to find their marks.