Liability is not the same thing as a court order. If you sue someone for libel and win, and the libel is hosted on YouTube, YouTube can't say "nope, Section 230" and keep hosting it. The court can order them to take it down. YouTube just doesn't owe you any damages, you have to take that up with the user.

> Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional.

That would be the case if the government was deciding who could be indemnified based on content, but that isn't what's going on.

Consider what you would be doing to search engines. Their entire purpose is to sort content by relevance. There is no opinion-free way to do that, otherwise every search engine would have exactly the same results. You want to impose liability on Google and Bing because they index the whole internet and the internet has bad stuff on it?