[1] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/07/want-to-learn-...
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3025943
Looking at two parts of the law:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
> The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
I think employing people to create or develop information under your direction would likely cause you to "lose 230 protection," but paying them for content they created or developed independently probably doesn't. If you contract them to independently create something new, it might be your responsibility in part; I dunno.
Edit: reviewing the article linked by conistonwater's sibling comment, it seems pretty clear from Blumenthal v. Drudge that a contractor's work is not the site's responsibility. I imagine there could be circumstances where the site specifically sanctionable content, and they might be held responsible.
If there were some content on that site which was 3rd-party generated, say comments, they would presumably remain protected.