I think it's more nuanced than that, while there are bound to be people who are only pushing for it for profit, regular people who talk about getting rid of it

I think it's more nuanced than that, while there are bound to be people who are only pushing for it for profit, regular people who talk about getting rid of it are doing it because they're sick of the "moderation" excuse being used to take down stuff unreasonably with no recourse, where even if somehow they manage to get the problem fixed, they just get an apology with no actual change from the company. This is more of a problem with big platforms with millions of users, as so much discourse happens on these. Plus, there's the worker protections angle, many people depend on these platforms for their livelihood, and the platforms get the benefit of their content in exchange, yet the platform can massively harm their livelihood and the victim typically can't do much in return. In contrast, even gig workers with Uber etc get some basic legal protections. To pick a benign, non-polarizing example, YouTube is constantly banning or demonetizing people who have not broken their stated policies, be it a history channel or a completely sfw drawing tip channel. Another example of the power imbalance would be how Reddit can delete anything they want in the name of moderation, but when the users revolt and start to take away their content, Reddit can just undelete it. By talking of repealing 230, they're in-effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it was supposed to be our representatives' job to understand the people's underlying concerns and draft appropriate legislation.