What Section 230 does is make business which operate platforms not liable for the user content posted on those platforms. It's a "safe harbor" provision that pr

What Section 230 does is make business which operate platforms not liable for the user content posted on those platforms. It's a "safe harbor" provision that prevents any company from having to take on the legal liabilities that come from hosting user-generated content they have no real control over. In short, if you post something on Facebook that someone else doesn't like, that person can't sue Facebook. But, crucially, there's nothing special about Facebook, Twitter, or the other big names here. If I make my own social media startup, I would also enjoy the same protections. It's the same reason you can't sue Wikipedia for libel if you don't like what's written about you. Indeed, wikipedia can only really exist because of Section 230 protections. Now why would the negative effects be disproportionate towards small entities and startups? Because the big guys can afford their own content moderation systems. They certainly don't want to take on the role of censor, but they're perfectly able to. Little nimble startups can't, which makes repealing section 230 a form of regulatory capture by existing social media companies.