Ah, thanks for the clarification.
As I understand it, CDA 230 is there to protect companies from liability for their decisions to leave up or take down content posted on their sites. I.e., as a private company they have the right to allow or disallow what other people post there, and no one has can sue them for either leaving up, or taking down, content. Obviously, there are exceptions such as child porn, sex trafficking, etc.
CDA was an attempt to regulate porn on the internet. All of the law was struck down as unconsitutional, except section 230. Section 230 has been intepreted to say that internet services (everything from internet service providers to platforms like FB), are not to be viewed as "publishers" of the data, and thereby liable for the content.
I might add - pretty much everyone agrees with this distinction, and its not without precedent. A telephone service is an example of a platform service or a provider. They enjoy the same immunity from liability. If someone conducts criminal business over the AT&T network via texts, the provider is not resposibile for that activity. And the provider also doesn't engage in scanning each text in an attempt to filter content. In fact, it would be impossible to do so with any level of reliability or accuracy. This limitation was part of what spurred section 230 - that these growing internet platforms couldn't be expected to actually regulate the content - it is too much.
I also understand there are differing opinions about the meaning and extent of CDA 230.
Yes, the Supreme Count has yet to take a case regarding CDA 230. But what matters are the opinions rendered by the lower appellate courts.
I agree, the wording from 1996 is probably trying to do too much lifting in 2020. It would be good for congress, if/when it gets past its hyper-partisan divide, to consider amending it.
I believe what I provided earlier is a really good starting point. It is NOT, in any way, partisan. And the case law around the first ammendment is quite mature.