I'm interpreting the comment above as advocating for the pre-Section 230 world, where as long as you didn't moderate at all, you were shielded from liability.

I'm interpreting the comment above as advocating for the pre-Section 230 world, where as long as you didn't moderate at all, you were shielded from liability. I'm not sure that's good for the world per se (there's also no obligation for YouTube to collect contact info, so either you've effectively legalized defamation/libel because there's no way to hold anyone legally accountable for it in order to remove it, or you're replacing it with a DMCA-like system where mere accusations of defamation are enough to remove a video, thereby increasing censorship). But it is true that it's specific policy choice by lawmakers and we could choose differently.