Yes, we already have censorship, and has it helped? Not that I think people like McCarthy care about helping, and I don't think that's what you're suggesting either, to be clear. However, if we get rid of Section 230, what's to stop the same people who allowed creationism to be taught as science from suing Bill Nye (just to pick a name out of a hat) for misinformation? That may seem like a stretch now, but you do seem to have a grasp on the amount of power those people have, what if it gets worse? Just as an example.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the article, but I specifically said that I thought the law as it exists strikes a balance between allowing companies to disallow things like threats of violence, while not holding them responsible for everything users post (not that I think the law is perfect, mind you). I also specifically mentioned at the end the point about "self-regulation," and how there's no easy answer, which I think should, taken together, suggest that I'm not advocating free-speech absolutism. On the other hand, it seems I would draw the line in a different place than you would, so to speak.
Education helps by teaching people how to not fall for frauds like Alex Jones. Also by helping to create a system wherein those kinds of people don't gain a following in the first place, because the public doesn't live in a world where the government and corporate media lie almost as much as old Alex himself. I know I'm talking pie-in-the-sky here, but that's what I think we should strive for. While I see the point of trying to keep people like that from having their voices amplified, part of the problem with that is that every time you censor them, it adds to their legitimacy in the eyes of their followers.
Another problem here is that it never ends with people like Jones.
You've never seen the "invisible hand" work properly because that *is* the invisible hand, but that's actually what you just said. While this is a related subject though, I don't think you came here to discuss my views on capitalism.
Anyway, it's like I said at the end of the article: it seems to me like it comes down to whether we prefer state or corporate censorship, and I don't think just getting rid of Section 230 will actually help anything.