Yeah, no problem - I mean I've certainly flubbed references like that and will no doubt do so again.
However, that said, I think that 230 doesn't mean what you think it means. The main reason 230 exists isn't to give posters/users 'free speech'; it was inserted into the law to protect internet service providers, to effectively hold them harmless from harmful content. More specifically, it says that internet service providers, which was later interpreted to include social media companies, cannot be treated as "publishers".
Why is that important, you ask?
Because whereas service providers or social media companies cannot be sued for harmful content that exists in their domain, "publishers" can.
As an example, suppose that person A says person B is a "drunken, whoring, lying, cheating, embezzling scumbag" on Facebook. Person B says that's not true and I'm going to sue your ass person B, and I'm also gonna sue Facebook for 'publishing' that content, since they allowed it on their website/app. Facebook's defense is, "Well we didn't know - we can't possibly police everything that's on our service." Section 230 protects Facebook. It doesn't protect person A of course, who is later found liable and has to pay person B damages. But Facebook only has to pay its lawyer to get the lawsuit tossed.
Now if Facebook weren't some massive platform but were instead some small website or blog that allows Person A and Person B to post public messages to each other, that could be completely different, especially if person B emails the site owner and tells him that Person A is saying nasty, untrue things about him and that you remove the content immediately. Assuming the worst, that the website/blog doesn't take it down, the courts could conclude that the website/blog owner had editorial control over the content , and that they are also a "publisher", which makes them liable for a lawsuit.
That's what Section 230 is all about. It was not intended to protect "free speech" - the Constitution already does that. In fact the law predates Facebook and social media. The powers that be have said that social media companies enjoy protection and privileges under 230 because that is likely the most logical way to treat these platforms. They are so large and provide service to so many users, they can't realistically police everything that's on their servers.
As with anything, legal privileges can be abused. Regulators and lawmakers could at any time decide that Facebook is abusing its privileged protections under the law and take that protection away. That's why they have content moderators who monitor their site actively to flag illegal behavior (i.e., depictions of violence, physical or sexual abuse, child abuse, etc) and then report it to authorities. If social media companies didn't do that, they'd face torrents of criticism that they're hiding behind their legal protection, and they'd probably have that protection modified or even cut outright.
If anything that has been the criticism of social media companies for most of their existence: that Facebook, Twitter, and others have used Section 230 to basically allow harmful content, such as hate speech. And that criticism has come mostly from the left, not the right.
Which brings me to my last and most important point: MAGA's complaints about social media's suppression of "free speech" and the threat to remove protection under Sec 230 of the federal statute are completely bogus, because they have absolutely no connection to the law in the first place. Republicans hold 230 over their heads because they want to intimidate them into allowing the very kinds of things that Section 230 was intended to prevent: abuses of their platform.
