That thinking strikes me as "clear, simple, and wrong". (I appreciate that 230's bright-line rule may also be clear, simple and wrong)
Consider defamation. Often, the difference between a defamatory and non-defamatory statement is truth. Expecting websites to distinguish true statements from false ones is a non-starter.
Let's say my family has a horrible experience with a youth pastor. I post about it on facebook to warn people in my community. If my claims are false, they're almost certainly actionable defamation. If my claims are true, disallowing them to mitigate Facebook's potential liability is also bad, but not in a way that affects Facebook.
Consider defamation. Often, the difference between a defamatory and non-defamatory statement is truth. Expecting websites to distinguish true statements from false ones is a non-starter.
Let's say my family has a horrible experience with a youth pastor. I post about it on facebook to warn people in my community. If my claims are false, they're almost certainly actionable defamation. If my claims are true, disallowing them to mitigate Facebook's potential liability is also bad, but not in a way that affects Facebook.