It's not, I'm saying that first and foremost promoting and spreading anger is protected by the first amendment unless it is reasonably considered to incite imminent lawless action. Imminent meaning RIGHT NOW, not some radicalizing thing where they will go kill someone tomorrow. After all this is why the first amendment protects Nazis and Klansmen despite their evil and clearly violent ideology.
So first and foremost the first amendment protects them. So hate and lies are open season unless you're repealing the first amendment. What the first amendment doesn't generally protect is defamation, which is the main thing 230 is protecting against, and defamation isn't really what you're concerned about as far as I can tell.
I would just re-emphasize that the 1st amendment only prohibits
Congress from making any law that restricts speech, which has consistently been interpreted as fskimospy describes above. And this was broadened to any government agency, including all state governments as well as the Federal government.
However, the first amendment doesn't prohibit, for example, Facebook from censoring or blocking hate speech. But Congress can't mandate that Facebook do so. Nor does it prohibit private civil lawsuits for libel or for actual damages resulting from such speech. But criminal charges or government prohibitions are limited to that "imminent lawless action" standard.
The first amendment also doesn't prohibit identifying and "naming and shaming" publicly any or all purveyors of hate speech and violence with their real identities.