A lot of these are straw men arguments. In particular it's taking a lot of statements about how Section 230 ought to be amended or replaced, and falsely portraying those statements as being about how Section 230 currently works. Obviously Section 230 doesn't work that way right now, which is precisely why people are proposing changes.
I regularly read HN threads that end up in discussion of Section 230, and find many posts that contain these same wrong ideas about what the law means.
To that extent, I think you're giving the author of the article too little credit, and the general discourse too much.
Clearly that's my subjective experience, and YMMV.
It’s hard to have a conversation when some (most even?) don’t understand how the law (both specifically this one and in general) work. I wouldn’t throw out “straw man” here — you need to have common (semi-accurate) ground, especially before proposing changes.
