Sorry for the late reply. On how it is different - some of the 230 proposals want to change the good faith prong such that it would be much easier to allege tha

Sorry for the late reply. On how it is different - some of the 230 proposals want to change the good faith prong such that it would be much easier to allege that a Company was "informed" about certain activity and didn't take it down swiftly enough. Right now, even with recent changes, 230 gives some of these platforms reasonable leeway to avoid liability for this attack absent willfully ignoring notice. As for second and third order effects, again, we have evidence from the past year of what will occur. The crackdown on personal ads, Tumblr, etc. all came as a result of changes to this law through FOSTA-SESTA. Those sites weren't all in violation of the law; they just made a determination that they cannot reasonably risk having to litigate what were previously not edge cases with the budgets they have. The result? A lot of Tumblr and other traffic ended up on...Twitter. And why? Because Twitter, unlike other smaller entities, can weather litigation and regulatory costs much better relative to smaller competitors. Far from crippling the most egregious actors, it actually EMPOWERED them. What you are talking about are just first order effects when you pontificate about people not just allowing things on a social media site. But as illustrated above, this will impact far more than just someone allowing comments or not. It can fundamentally reorient dynamics for all sites that allow for user content to be posted, and there are very strong likelihoods that it will lead to a greater concentration of power in incumbent social media companies, exacerbating the very issues you are most concerned about.