Section 230 is critical for tech businesses and platforms that facilitate free distribution of speech. Without this, we can be confident that "user generated co

Section 230 is critical for tech businesses and platforms that facilitate free distribution of speech. Without this, we can be confident that "user generated content" would look very different, and moderation efforts would be much more censorious. As the EFF said in the article... > The law is not a shield for Big Tech. Critically, the law benefits the millions of users who don’t have the resources to build and host their own blogs, email services, or social media sites, and instead rely on services to host that speech. Even if you support a re-write of 230, you should oppose the proposed law to remove it because the timing of the proposed law. The proposal would expire 230 during an election cycle, and that would be horrific for online discourse about the election. The liability of hosting political discourse, and the potential to be sued for libel would make user content about politics toxic. It's undoubtable that at least one side of the political spectrum would use it to remove opposition and opposing opinions. The current administration has proven they're absolutely willing to take punitive measures against companies and people based on their speech, even when legally protected, and large companies have shown a willingness to comply, even preemptively, to avoid a fight that can disrupt their revenue.