Yup.
I don’t think people quite understand the legal history behind Section 230.
The short history is before Section 230 both CompuServe and Prodigy were sued back in the 90’s for things their users posted on their respective services.
CompuServe specifically said they did not moderate their content and because of that the judge threw the case against them out as the offending content was deemed to be from another user not CompuServe.
Prodigy on the other hand did moderate content to be more family friendly. When they were sued on a similar issue the judge ruled against Prodigy specifically because they moderated their content. With attempted moderation failing to remove the offending content the judge ruled Prodigy was now responsible for its user created content.
Congress said, shit we don’t want companies trying to keep porn, snuff films and threats off their sites to be held accountable if they fail for simply trying so they passed section 230 of the internet decency act.
After that advertisers were more willing to support sites with user generated content.
If section 230 is struck down then only two kinds of content sites will be legally viable.
Wholly corporate controlled content where the content creators are contracted by the company and subject to editorial review (Like news sites) or /b/ style anything goes no moderation what so ever sites.
Of course the problem with running a /b/ style site is whose going to contribute money. 99% of advertisers wouldn’t touch a site where scat porn and death threats were common posts.
So forums like AT would have huge financial and legal risks with virtually no upside. Think Intel, AMD, etc will advertise here if every other post here is two girls one cup, spam and personal threats? Same goes for YouTube, Twitter, etc.