There's a difference between repeal and reform. Multiple executives at Facebook, including Zuckerberg, have appealed to the public and directly to Congress to

There's a difference between repeal and reform. Multiple executives at Facebook, including Zuckerberg, have appealed to the public and directly to Congress to reform Section 230. Specifically, what they want is for Congress to add regulations to the CDA to clarify how they should police user speech without losing their immunity. That way they both 1) avoid liability both for their users' speech and their "speech" (a.k.a. moderation or censorship) 2) create a regulatory moat from which they can dominate their space. This reform is something Facebook desperately needs, as they are increasingly being thrust in the middle of conflicts between their users and the government. They have been quite clear about this, so the author of this piece is being dishonest. They have not and will never ask to repeal it. Repealing the CDA (a.k.a "Section 230") would absolutely "stop" AND "hurt" Facebook. In fact, that's an understatement; it would destroy Facebook. It would expose them and most large internet companies to an avalanche of lawsuits and wipe out the three-sided business model of selling eyeballs to advertisers that currently powers the 'net. Whether or not that's good for users is an open question. I don't think we know what a post-CDA internet would look like. We do know that it's possible, because there was a pre-CDA internet. But it's a moot point. The threat of annihilation of Google, Facebook, and Twitter is exactly why the CDA will never be repealed by anything resembling the current Congress. They're too "big to fail."