Your first source talks about all the things 230 is and is not. It’s good information. But just because something is codified in law and decided in court cases

Your first source talks about all the things 230 is and is not. It’s good information. But just because something is codified in law and decided in court cases does not mean that it is how the world ought to be. Agreed that under Section 230 as it is today, all the author says is true. But none of their content is about reforming or changing Section 230; it is all about interpreting it as it is today. Regarding [2], it is wise (necessary?) for any online platform to obey laws in places where they operate. But when I read about censoring spam or hate speech for instance, I can’t help but think of the scene in Game of Thrones where (forgive my poor recollection) a wildling tells Jon snow how lacking in freedom he is despite thinking he is “free”. Anyone advocating for unabridged (legal) free speech ought to be aware of the fact that there will be speech they do not want to see on their platforms if they get it. That is the price of freedom.