And if it were repealed, which Trump has called for, it does not mean that platforms automatically get treated as publishers either because the First Amendment has not been repealed. And Parler was treated as a publisher per AWS claims in spite of it.
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy, as is argumentum ad lapidem (ignoring what I’m pointing out).
it does not mean that platforms automatically get treated as publishers
Wrong, that is exactly what it would do. Try rereading the text of Section 230, which I sent you. The first amendment doesn't provide liability protection.
And Parler was treated as a publisher per AWS claims in spite of it.
Wrong, AWS treated Parler as a customer, not a publisher. But who cares, because section 230 doesn't apply to the situation unless AWS sued Parler for content on the site. AWS didn't sue Parler, they just said they didn't want their business.
Proof by assertion only applies to you here. I've provided the text of the Section, you are just making ignorant assertions, that are clearly and plainly in contradiction to the text of Section 230.
The weird thing is, why aren't you asking yourself why Trump wants to get rid of 230? Does he think it is unnecessary, and Twitter and Facebook will be fine because "First Amendment"? No, he wants to get rid of it because by getting rid of Section 230, and their publisher protection, they will get pummeled by lawsuits. It hurts them.
My point is, lawsuits will be an annoyance for Twitter and Facebook. Maybe they will lose a few hundred million dollars. Maybe they'll have to hire a 100 lawyers. But so what? That won't kill them. But how many lawsuits to kill Free Republic, or other small businesses? 1? 2? They cost of repealing 230 is greater than the possible upside.