230 sucks - its horrid law. There is nothing just about giving publishes a free pass to be completely irresponsible and anti-social because they tacked 'on the internet' onto the end of the business plan. Its bullshit.
It appears that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms "publisher", "free pass", "completely irresponsible", "anti-social", and "bullshit", as well as having not read TFS.
The Times have editors who are employed by (and under the direct control of) the corporation, and who preview content before the content is published. The English-language Wikipedia alone has tens of thousands of volunteer editors, none of whom are under corporate control. More than a billion edits have been made to more than six million articles since 2006.
To hold Wikipedia financially responsible for the content of every single one of those edits would be insane.
Wikipedia is not a "publisher" in the sense you're thinking. They provide a venue, some basic rules, and a format to follow; they cannot be reasonably expected to police every single change that happens in that venue. (I challenge you to review every single change made to Wikipedia for accuracy, truth, format, tone, and content for just twenty minutes. (That's roughly 2,300 edits. Can you manage that in 20 minutes?)
Wikipedia did not get a "free pass". I'm guessing that just defending this lawsuit to this point cost them well over $10,000, if not twice that. There's nothing "free" here.
Wikipedia was not "completely irresponsible". From The Fucking SUMMARY, which you apparently did not even bother to read before spouting off:
this lawsuit was filed months after Wikipedia editors proactively corrected the error at issue in September 2020.
Wikipedia could be considered the antithesis of "anti-social"; it's the largest, most accurate, and most collaborative compendium of human knowledge ever assembled. How that equates to "anti" social in your brain is... unfathomable.
So to conclude, it's clear that your understanding of all of these fundamental ideas means that your application of the word "bullshit" is also completely incorrect. What you said, nearly all of it, was itself "bullshit".
The internet as we know it would not exist with Section 230. It may not be perfect - not everyone who hides behind it is Wikipedia (and I'm looking at you, facebook, and similar cunts), but it's better than anything else we've come up with so far.