times have changed since it was passed in 1996, and the social media services IMO do wield a bit too much power, but I'm not certain repealing this will do anything about it to be honest, as with all government intervention, it will likely just make things worse
There is a lot of misinformation out there. I was told that 230 only protects social media is they don't "censor," but as soon as they try to control content; they become a publisher, not a platform, and are liable for user provided content. That is backassward. Prior to 230, ISPs that moderated content were deemed publishers. Section 230 allows user driven interactive media to set standards and moderate content. The intent was so they can keep the porn out, not to censor weird political views or weed out fake news.
The best argument for repeal is it was meant to apply to ISPs, not Social Media that function somewhat like publishers. Why should facebook and twiiter get a pass, while MSM like NTY or WSJ do not? The response is, the MSM are publishers, not user driven interactive media. They could set up interactive media and get the same protection.
Another argument for repeal is facebook and twitter are left center biased. The response is the 1st amendment. Go start something like Parler.
Another argument for repeal is is the general lack of accountability for stuff posted on social media. This is also a defense of 230. Someone mentioned the videos of police misconduct posted by users. If Facebook et al could be sued by the officers; they might be reluctant to allow the posts.
Nobody is sure what repeal of 230 would do. One educated guess is social media would either screen all posts; or would only moderate criminal behavior. That would suck.