“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
This is section 230, and for years it made it so that platforms aren’t directly responsible for what their users do. Repealing it would in a way mandate moderating each and every post for any potential risk for a lawsuit. The companies with the resources to do that will do that, those without will struggle.
There’s a push to repeal or weaken Section 230. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3546/text https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-graham-introduce-bill-to-sunset-section-230-immunity-for-tech-companies-protect-americans-online
The more likely result from removing 230 (depending on how it was removed) is actually that all moderation stops. Moderation is what makes the companies liable without 230, so they just wouldn’t do it (and wouldn’t allow users to do it either). Any open community site would quickly become a cesspool. Small private closed communities would become the norm.
You could be right, but I read an opinion piece a while back that suggested that removal of 230 would allow the government to indirectly censor speech online by selectively punishing the platforms that don’t moderate in the way that the administration would like. This may not be a problem under the current administration, but what if a wanabe dictator were to somehow become president?