Reply to post:

That does happen but it doesn't apply to this case.

"A commentary published in the state-run People’s Daily minutes after the Alibaba announcement called such regulation “a kind of love and care.”" [NYT]

Jack Ma is alive, well, and free.

Contrast to how Amazon Shopping Portal can market counterfeited and/or defective goods with impunity, protected by section 230, while brick and mortar would incur liability for doing the same. Worse, Amazon have used their impunity to leverage sellers with the threat of marketing conterfeit copies of their goods:

"In PopSockets’ case, its hit product—a collapsible handle that attaches to smartphones—was contending with counterfeits on Amazon, said Mr. Barnett, the CEO. For more than a year, the Boulder, Colo., company made regular complaints to Amazon about the fakes, he said. It asked for its products to be “gated” on Amazon’s site, which would require resellers of PopSockets products to be vetted for authenticity. Amazon repeatedly turned PopSockets down, he said. n 2017, Mr. Barnett flew to Seattle to meet with Amazon. The executives in the meeting offered a solution, he said: If PopSockets agreed to spend $1.8 million on marketing on Amazon, it would gate the company’s products. He said Amazon never puts the terms in writing. “It’s always implemented during phone calls, or in person, but never in emails,” he said. Mr. Barnett said he agreed to Amazon’s terms and the counterfeits disappeared immediately." --- WSJ, 'How Amazon Strong-Arms Partners Using Its Power Across Multiple Businesses '

Congress wouldn't need to disappear Bozos to un-apply Section 230 to online sales portals - which has nothing to do with speech. Both parties have had majorities over the past 10 years when they could have passed such legislation. That they haven't done so is due to Amazon's strong lobbying power - legislators were bought.