content: 230 protections mean that if you run a website, you're not legally responsible for what users post as long as you don't editorialize and you treat information fairly.  A good example is illegal images of minors. If someone came to Voat and started posting it, Putt wouldn't be legally responsible because the platform is free, uncensored, and he's not editoralizing or publishing, the users are. He's protected by Section 230.  Now imagine you go to a website that no longer has Section 230 protection, and someone posts those same images. Now the website owner is responsible, by censoring, editorializing, and publishing they have assumed responsibility for the content on their platform. Losing 230 means you have to have people watching for any illegal content that's posted and instantly removing it. Having 230 means, as a site owner, you're only responsible if users report the content to you and you don't act on it, if it's blatantly illegal.  It makes it nearly impossible to run a large website, and it's impossible for any sort of startup to exist because they don't have the resources to police content. I highly doubt they'd get rid of the 230 protections, just the threat alone is enough to terrify these people.