I disagree. The operators of websites should allow all speech unless it is lawfully prohibited. The problem lies in the operators choosing who can and cannot say whatever things they want. The evil arises as they become the prosecutor, judge and jury on what can to cannot be said on their platform. Who elected them? The laws on prohibited speech are presumably democratically passed by representatives of the entire population, not just the biggest bully.
Section 230 isn’t inherently wrong if it’s enforced as it was meant to be. If you repeal it, that’s the end of small social media startups which won’t have the bullying bulk of a Facebook or Twitter to administer checking and censoring every post or comment made by an individual. They would die. They wouldn’t need to be deplatformed as Amazon did to Parler. They would never survive their first encounter with the lawyers infesting the US in numbers more than the rest of the world combined.
Big social media would love the repeal of section 230. They would end up with an enduring, unassailable monopoly.
Free speech is difficult. It hurts some people. But it is the most fundamental human right and the only answer to all the rubbish posted on such sites. More speech is the answer, not less. Freedom is the answer not subjugation.