No, I don't, because there aren't any that are relevant here.
> which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact
No, 230 has an additional immunity for good faith effort by a provider or user to restrict access to material “the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” [47 USC § 230(c)(2)], which is in addition to the blanket protection from being treated as a publisher [42 USC § 230(c)(1)]. But note that since this is for material the provider feels is objectionable, the “good faith” involved is nothing like neutrality. There is no “good faith” caveat of any kind on the immunity in § 230(c)(1).
“Minimal impact” doesn't figure into it at all; neither the phrase nor any condition or restriction accurately summarized by it appears anywhere in § 230. That's complete fabrication.