Approving my comment was your decision, as it should be, and Section 230 had little to do with it. Unlike most comments, a human editor actually read it. Just to set the record straight, I never stated that Internet content providers would better edit their content. Please read closely. I stated “They would be forced to better edit their content“.
Please tell me where the misinformation is in that statement? The “force” is that Internet content providers would be subject to lawsuits if it could be proven in court that their misinformation caused damages as are print media content providers. You stated “Many/most services would in fact eliminate comments altogether without 230”. I doubt you can back up that statement with any facts. You should have prefaced it with “In my opinion”. In my opinion, the reason why comments would be limited is because Internet content providers won’t spend the time to edit the massive amount of content that they allow anonymous third parties to post on their sites. In my opinion, that has always been the problem.

I’ve approved your comment even though it’s misinformation because you incorrectly claim that Internet services would better edit comments without 230. Many/most services would in fact eliminate comments altogether without 230. I’ve decided to accept the risk of liability for your misinformation, but only because 230’s protection makes it a non-issue. Take away 230, and your voice wouldn’t be heard on my blog at all.