Killing 230 would make things much harder for smaller platforms. Big players like Google and Facebook have enough resources to find a way to reduce their chances of being fined into oblivion, but smaller sites don't.
I think there's a middle ground. If you do a timeline or up/down vote rankings then that's just transmitting what your users post and falls under 230. If you use an algorithm to curate then you're exercising editorial discretion and get the liability that goes along with it.
I do not think a world where sites either must moderate everything or not at all is a good world. The most realistic way for a tiny site to be moderated is in a reactive rather than proactive fashion.
It's not moderation it's promotion. If you're going to start promoting stuff it's on you to ensure you're not promoting stuff that gets people killed.
Also the major players can lobby legislation to add burdens to new players that they already have in place themselves. This locks out new players unless they can invest upfront, while allowing the existing players to use what they already have in place.
This was the biggest issue with the EU copyright restrictions where it required a massive investment up front to match what YouTube already had implemented.