I see three problems with the original posting. First is the presumption that repealing 230 will damage the internet in some way. I think that would have to b

I see three problems with the original posting. First is the presumption that repealing 230 will damage the internet in some way. I think that would have to be demonstrated in some way. tech companies already must have a strong legal department in 2020, especially the smaller unpopular ones fighting for basic banking and internet connectivity. Donald Trump the big defamer as the OP claims, only had one defamation lawsuit, from Stormey Daniels, which went no where. so I don't see how all of a sudden more lawsuits are going to jump in just because they can add twitter as a defendant. the second problem is the misunderstaning of what conservatives want. while it is correct to say that we want the terms of service to be applied consistently, and we disagree with vague labels of hate speech and disinformation, that is nothing like the fairness doctrine which is about balance. the core of what conservatives are asking for is that discussion over what government policy should be should not be censored by these platforms. when we have serious concerns about lockdown policies, election integrity, keeping predators out of girls bathrooms, preventing illegal immigration, these very discussions are censored by these platforms. this is dangerous, of course, because it allows our elected leaders to ignore potentially widely held views, and only see types of conversations that the left leaning heads of media and big tech permits. the third problem is the presumption that the left wants more censorship. while its true that the advocates for more restriction of potentially harmless speech because it is potentially harmful are on the left, there are studies that show people on the left feel more restricted about what they can say and see repercussions on. while there will always be some on the left that truely believes removing dissent is would be an improvement, that isn't widely believed, as anyone can figure out by talking to people with differing political views.