Maybe it should distinguish between forums, where everyone sees the same content, and social networks, where people choose who to follow and who to block. Maybe social networks should be regulated as common carriers[1].
But simply removing the second paragraph of Section 230, making moderated forums liable for every post, would make them legally unviable.
dang can ban me, remove this comment, hide it, etc, but in no way will he or hackernews be legally liable if someone sees it; I am.
If 230 were not there, then there could be legal liability and the protection against it would be positive moderation or none at all perhaps. Positive moderation meaning dang would have to read and approve each post because HN would be taking on the liability of said post. Simply not scalable.
This is mostly dead. You are not in control of the content you see. The algorithm decides what to show you.
If your platform a) decides what content I see, or b) editorializes that content, then you are a publisher. Publishers do not deserve 230 protections.
I think this is where the line should be drawn.