Again, we see the examination of the softball question while completely ignoring the elephant in the room. 230(1) was never the problem. 230(2), the part that gets conveniently ignored is the problem. 230(2) is the nanny state provision which completely emasculates First Amendment protections, thus: The argument of Big Tech is that everyone has free speech rights AGAINST A GOVERNMENT POSITION. Big Tech, not being a government, is not bound to recognize any such principle. 230(2) basically lets Big Tech determine the parameters of free speech, and like minded politicians use Big Tech as a fig leaf to limit or slant open discussion, flag political speech they find ungoodthinkful, limit or hide search results, cancel or delist social media accounts or content they disagree with. And Big Tech has really gotten to the point where they're not even bothing to hide it anymore. By all means, keep 230(1), just don't protect Big Tech's openly slanted standards on what's offensive. That raises questions of what is offensive and to whom? Big Tech's totally protected response is whatever and whomever they say.
As a long time computer geek I certainly don't want government in my computer (anyone favor outlawing crypto?). But a Big Tech nanny that feels that no rules except their own preferences and biases apply is equally bad.