Your intuition on this point is correct. Section 230 is functionally mostly about making users liable for digital copyright infringement rather than platforms.

Your intuition on this point is correct. Section 230 is functionally mostly about making users liable for digital copyright infringement rather than platforms. It is not really about speech. The conflation of the First Amendment with copyright law is a common corporate sleight of hand, but it should be pushed back on vigorously. The issue with the editorializing (which has become absurdly aggressive on the part of the 230 platforms) is that it weakens the defense that these corporations have enjoyed in shunting the liability onto their users. Within hours, all the platforms would be litigated into oblivion for the actions of the users in the absence of 230 protections. The EFF are paid-for apologists for (some) corporations and gadflies against (other) corporations. >And Section 230 doesn’t only allow sites that host speech, including controversial views, to exist. It allows them to exist without putting their thumbs on the scale by censoring controversial or potentially problematic content. And because what is considered controversial is often shifting, and context- and viewpoint- dependent, it’s important that these views are able to be shared. “Defund the police” may be considered controversial speech today, but that doesn’t mean it should be censored. “Drain the Swamp,” “Black Lives Matter,” or even “All Lives Matter” may all be controversial views, but censoring them would not be beneficial. This verbal sleight of hand of conflating speech protections with this liability shield enjoyed by these multi-trillion dollar corporations is most clearly used by the EFF in their paid-for chatter about how this "could" be used to silence speech. No, it couldn't be. The proposed amendments to 230 that have gained the most traction extend the liability shield to services with fewer numbers of users. That means that the proposed amendments would not do what the EFF says that it would do, which would be to silence small websites. Unless the speech infringes copyright or breaks some other statute such as those against libel/defamation/threats of violence, the removal of the 230 liability shield would have no impact. If you are an independent web host, you are already liable for your speech and if you pay for a conventional hosting provider, they will be protected by 230 no matter what. https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/Ending-Support-Internet-Censorship-Act-Bill-Text.pdf https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/En... The proposed Hawley amendment would only impact companies that meet at least one of these three criteria: >‘‘(A) had more than 30,000,000 active monthly users in the United States; (B) had more than 300,000,000 active monthly users worldwide; or ‘(C) had more than $500,000,000 in global annual revenue 230 is about shifting liability to users and protecting mega-corporations. The EFF is being disingenuous and deceptive in this press release made on behalf of its donors. The part of this release that is accurate is that 230 is not "at odds" with the First Amendment. While there are cultural concerns about whether or not the tech company actions are in line with the spirit of open debate, it is not really related to the First Amendment. The issue is that by actively moderating so much of the platform content and shaping what discussions are allowed, the companies are severely weakening their argument that they are not legally liable for the content that users publish outside of the bare requirements of the DMCA and the case law concerning the types of facilities they must have to handle copyright disputes. Modifying 230 is a recognition that when these platforms take an active hand in moderating content, modifying content, and publishing content, they should be held to the traditional liabilities of publishing content -- and those liabilities tend to be related to copyright rather than to speech per se. The EFF and its donors want to portray the issue as concerning speech rather than liability for what would overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright infringement. These are not the same things. If the companies want to maintain their immunities related to distributing content like child porn and illegally copied files, they must also avoid heavy handed moderation if they are operating at the scale described in the most popular proposed amendments so far. If they are not operating at the scale in the proposed amendments, literally nothing changes for them and they are still protected by the liability shield. The 230 beneficiaries under scrutiny want to continue shifting liability to their users while also gaining greater editorial control over what those users post and how that content is presented to other users. They want to continue to reap enormous profits with this legal privilege while ensuring that their users remain liable for content. You, the little guy, can be sued, whereas they, the big guy, cannot be sued for crimes committed using their network. Again, 230 is not about speech: this fundamental conflation is a beloved legal trick of corporate America, whether it is being used to extend the power of copyright law beyond reasonable historic bounds or to otherwise exploit the vagaries and loopholes in copyright law to make more money.