What I’m talking about isn’t an effort to sensibly amend only the aspects of Section 230 that might be making it harder to prosecute perpetrators of harm. If that can be handled equitably, that would be great. The calls from Washington I’m talking about have been for repealing it. Like this bipartisan bill in particular, which seems to be their latest attempt.

From Wikipedia about potential outcomes of repeal:

Online platforms would become more cautious about censoring content if Section 230 were to be repealed, according to Harvard Law Review. Moderation may become overbearing for certain kinds of otherwise-protected speech, particularly for political or controversial subjects.[20] These outcomes could have global implications, particularly as other nations are already increasing their regulation of online speech. For example, Wikipedia relies on editors and needs anonymity to ensure free speech and reduce censorship. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that Wikipedia could not exist without these protections.[28]

In addition to social protections, the rule may also have economic advantages. In 2017, NERA Economic Consulting estimated that, combined, Section 230 and the DMCA contributed about 425,000 jobs to the United States’ economy that year, representing a total revenue of US$44 billion annually.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230