I'm skeptical about the conclusions this article draws. If you eliminate Section 230, the implication is that major sites don't get to moderate their content if they don't want to be responsible for it, but that certainly doesn't imply the end of the Internet much less it as we know it today.

Section 230's main feature is to let sites dodge the responsibility that comes with the right to act as the modern public square in the US (and most other countries), where "public square" means that any conversation can be had there between members of the public provided that conversation isn't outright illegal (or so loud that no other conversation can take place).

Instead, Section 230 allows website operators to follow whatever moral code they see fit in terms of moderation. This gives disproportionate political power to particular American subcultures, and these people trend toward the Progressive end, injecting the public discourse with a Progressive bias rather than reflecting the country as a whole because they consider it their moral duty to stamp out content that is hateful, objectionable, or simply contradictory/insulting a Progressive cause (whether these judgments are correct or not is an entirely different matter).

They're clearly doing the best they can under their constraints and circumstances, and their value judgments are popular worldwide.

Were Section 230 to be eliminated the problems that Sen. Wyden mentions only get worse, because you either allow everything permissible under 1A or go out of business due to liability issues (remember, the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent do not allow other restrictions) without any popular moral code to clean it up. Advertisers won't realistically be able to pull funding because it affects the vast majority of the Internet equally (outside of dumping millions of dollars into small walled-garden services), and Articles 11 and 13 (not to mention the absolute lack of law even resembling the First Amendment) in the EU have done an excellent job ensuring that US tech companies would still face even greater difficulties in Europe.

There's an asterisk for SESTA-FOSTA here (where even unmoderated public squares might still face legal liability), but that law has yet to be seriously evaluated against the First Amendment, a challenge it will certainly fail (a reminder that Section 230 is the only surviving part of the Communications Decency Act because the rest contravened the 1A).