Well that's just the point, isn't it?
Repealing/Killing section 230 would open up any site to potential litigation that allowed users to publish unedited content.
BUT... someone on that site would then have to publish something actionable (like "kill the President" or some dumb shit like that), and then someone would have to see it and take issue with it, and then someone would have to report it to an authority, and then that authority would have to investigate it, and then pursue a case against the owner of the site, and - if convicted - the owner of the site would go to jail, or pay a fine, or whatever.
But this is how ALL regulation works: the threat of potential enforcement.
You can drive 90 MPH in a 40 MPH zone any time you want to. It is the threat of enforcement that keeps you from doing so.
And, in the end, the threat of enforcement is MUCH greater against those with deeper pockets. Because the lawyers are only in it to get paid. Nobody would sue Hubski because there's no money to be made, and the lawyers wouldn't even make back their legal fees.
BUT, mk has other businesses, a family, a home, etc., and probably wouldn't risk those to keep Hubski up and running like a wild west outpost. Why take the risk? Where's the reward?
Which is the insidious purpose behind ALL regulation; get people to self-censor their behavior.
So Section 230 vanishes, mk sees his family potentially homeless due to a random post by goobster, and says "fuck that!" and shuts the site down. Why risk it?
So yeah. That's how 230 would affect Hubski.