The bill protects everyone, even us, from stuff posted to your site's servers.
Before 230: random dude posts cp on your site, YOU are in trouble.
After 230: random dude posts cp on your site, you're protected.
So the idea was to protect you and giving you the chance to delete illegal things from your site without getting in trouble at all, but they wrote it in such a way that allowed them to also delete "otherwise questionable content", which they've taken it upon themselves to mean "we'll remove anything we don't like, even presidential tweets".
Eliminating it entirely will destroy all social media, but at this point, it's for the better because it will destroy big tech in the process (this move would be the equivalent of going full scorched earth against them).
(pd: that said, I'm not sure if text-only speech is allowed without 230. if it was, we wouldn't have to take this site down)
(pd2: the better move would be to reform it, but traitors in congress are completely bought by big tech, or to have the FCC clarify it, but Ajit Pai is pozzed too, he pulled an AG BARR on us saying he'll do it and then didn't do jack shit)
The bill protects everyone, even us, from stuff posted to your site's servers.
Before 230: random dude posts cp on your site, YOU are in trouble.
After 230: random dude posts cp on your site, you're protected.
So the idea was to protect you and giving you the chance to delete illegal things from your site without getting in trouble at all, but they wrote it in such a way that allowed them to also delete "otherwise questionable content", which they've taken it upon themselves to mean "we'll remove anything we don't like, even presidential tweets".
Eliminating it entirely will destroy all social media, but at this point, it's for the better because it will destroy big tech in the process (this move would be the equivalent of going full scorched earth against them).
(pd: that said, I'm not sure if text-only speech is allowed without 230. if it was, we wouldn't have to take this site down)