Without much doubt, a full Section 230 *repeal* would be extremely disruptive (if at all possible b/c of USMCA).

But everyone who has been opposing any *reform* for years, and who has perhaps even been opposing other effective measures to reign in tech, is part of the problem.

Just 2cts:

Most obviously, it shouldn't cover the mediation of commercial transactions by large platforms like e.g. Amazon/AirBnb.

Liability protections for mediating actual 'speech' could depend on additional requirements with regards to business models and other obligations…

For actual speech, everything comes back to the basic question of how to handle mega platforms like FB/YT:

1) Break them up and bank on competition (including nonprofit platforms, perhaps publicly funded)
2) Accept their natural monopolies and submit them to democratic control

3) Accept their monopolies and accept them as new sovereigns with state-level powers, technocratic+authoritarian as they are

While (1) and (2) seem to be mutually exclusive, they could both be part of a solution at different levels. Realistically, there will remain a bit of (3).

Anyway, I think content moderation, responsibilities, requirements, obligations, liability etc can only ever be discussed in relation to (1), (2) or (3).

One part of (2) for very large platforms could be:

Want immunity? No surveillance advertising, no data exploitation for commercial purposes other than providing the services.

What doesn't help at all is old technolibertarian talk of 'censorship', preserving 'the Internet as we know it' etc.

Today's platforms have unprecedented control over information flows and 'the Internet as we know it' is broken in many ways.