Aside: retweeting doesn't obviously expose a URL, but in the similar scenario of dissemination by actual URL, I wonder if slugs therein would change things because then the downstream participant is actually themselves writing defamatory words (but I guess since the upstream participant specified those words first, even that is merely quoting existing info, not writing new info).
It doesn’t.
It says that in certain cases, they would by so doing be liable as a publisher of thr defamatory content.
> but section 230 says an individual can do so without repercussions
Section 230, with some exceptions, says that neither the service provider nor other users will be consider publishers of material submitted by a user. So, any liability they would have as the publisher of that material does bot exist, so long as the other conditions set for Section 230 safe harbor apply.
It absolutely does reply to users foe actions which merely effect the visibility of materials others have posted, like simple retweets, provided they have an arms-length relationship with the original poster (if they actively solicited the submission and then retweeted it, that’s potentiallt different.)