Ah I think I get it now... I don't know how anyone could misunderstand GDPR any further than you seem to.
Those dialogs are a requirement of GDPR and are not somehow some magic release of liability from it's protections. They are codified into law, along with a bunch of other stuff that continues to be hugely expensive for companies.
And it's incredibly doubtful you'd be able to wish your liability away with a button click if 230 was removed in the US.
They could almost certainly force you into arbitration, effectively shielding themselves from lawsuits from users. The courts recently upheld that for Epic Games on a hacking class action suit.
Section 230 is not about lawsuits from users though.
Section 230 is about criminal liability for illegal content that ends up on your servers or web site.
You can't wave criminal liability away with a "click OK after reading this" dialog.
You also can't wave away liability for all of GDPR or CCPR. I don't know what Epic Games and a class action hacking lawsuit have to do with any of this.
I don’t think you have a very comprehensive knowledge about section 230. It’s about both of those things.
The bulk of Section 230’s impact comes from a single sentence: “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.”
But the civil lawsuit risk is far bigger than the criminal liability. Because of the first amendment not much of what you say online is actually criminal.
The risk is that these guys get bogged down with lawsuits that say “@dogficker is making things up about me online, he’s defaming me, he’s harassing me, he’s organizing a harassment campaign against me and oh yeah, he’s using Twitter so they are doing it too”
My point is that tech companies will respond to this by putting a pop up that says “by using this website you agree to settle any disputes with twitter using an arbitration. Epic games store did this, was sued in federal court, and that part of the eula was held up. Meaning that approach has been tested in court and upheld
I’m trying to imaging what kind of criminal statute they would even Ben worried about and I’m bot sure what I’m missing. Like the FBI so probably not going to investigate twitter for being part of a criminal conspiracy because two users were talking abo it selling drugs on the site
