> The problem is that without section 230, it becomes impossible for any website to have user hosted content. If websites are responsible for shit their users say, no website that posts user content can exist.

That has nothing to do with section 230. Websites weren't responsible for user-generated content before section 230 and they still wouldn't be if it went away.

What section 230 does is extend the same immunity that content-blind hosts have always had to hosts that modify the content they get from users.

This comment upthread:

> If a user writes some content that stays as a comment somewhere and it is defamatory, then the user is responsible. So far, so good. This is what 230 used to address.

is wrong. Section 230 didn't address that case; the user was always the responsible party. To see section 230 at work, you need a more complicated setup:

1. User A posts defamatory content to a web forum.

2. User B posts defamatory content to the same forum.

3. The forum operators see User B's post, are outraged, and take it down.

This is where section 230 makes a difference. It says that, even though the forum takes control of user-generated content for the purpose of expressing its own views, it still isn't liable for content that it hasn't directly touched. In the absence of section 230, the forum would bear liability for user A's defamatory post as soon as they took down user B's post.

There's no problem hosting user-generated content without section 230. You only have a problem if you editorialize on top of that content.