It's always worth remembering that lacking 230 protection, they won't be allowing this content... They'll be blocking more.
230 protection limits their liability if somebody uses their service to communicate information that could be civilly actionable to they platform as host if other people's words and images. Lacking that protection, vast quantities of content (potential copyright infringement, potential libel, potential slander, etc.) become too risky to host.
... And lacking 230 protection, Rand Paul and the Indian Congress Party would likely still lack any legal standard by which they could compel Twitter to host their content.
Worse than that, it effectively makes the site legally impossible to run. When people say "remove section 230 protection" what they're really saying is "shut the website down".
Yes. At which point, we'll be where we are right now but with several fewer communications services. People who want this content shared would still be able to host it on their own servers (and assume the liability if someone brings legal action), as they can do right now.
Then your goal is at odds with removing section 230 protection. Section 230 protection is also what shields ISPs... If it were done away with, ISPs would be at risk of taking lawsuits for things done via their service and would flee the market. Cloudflare would drop the Daily Stormer faster in a world without 230.
230 protection limits their liability if somebody uses their service to communicate information that could be civilly actionable to they platform as host if other people's words and images. Lacking that protection, vast quantities of content (potential copyright infringement, potential libel, potential slander, etc.) become too risky to host.
... And lacking 230 protection, Rand Paul and the Indian Congress Party would likely still lack any legal standard by which they could compel Twitter to host their content.