I am generally for keeping Section 230 per se. While I find the acts of Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon Web Services in the last 1-2 years to be contrary to the values of a free and open society, specifically in terms of censorship and well-documented partisan bias, repealing section 230 does not alleviate these concerns. The discussion of Section 230 comes from two separate forms. It is generally from those advocating censorship (you can argue if it is justified, but it is difficult to argue it is not censorship), or those using the threat of repeal as a nuclear option to deter further action. I am not in favor of censorship in the public square. People should be able to present and attempt to spread their views far and wide. Ultimately, the best ideas can and should win out. Racism is a disgusting and idiotic ideology and conspiracy theories can be extremely damaging, but they are not all consuming enemies. If the principles we live by are true, they should be always true. Because of this, I am somewhat sympathetic to the nuclear option. Repealing Section 230 would cause substantial damage to these companies business. Enacting the legislation would be the end of the internet, at least in the US, as we know it; however, the threat may be sufficient to avoid further censorship.
However, I believe there are more effective ways to balance these ends. The problem with social media companies is coercion. They have too much control, they frequently lie and mislead about their actions, and people are not able to easily be made aware of the actions of these companies. I would advocate for a legal requirement for a summary of the terms of service when creating an account. This would have to include how the data generated was used, if it could be sold, and the reasons adverse outcomes could be taken against someone. Deviation from these terms would be legally actionable. Companies would still be able to operate in whatever way they wish; however, they would not be able to mislead or coerce.