EFF/FPF pushing against this made me curious as well.
The bill itself seems intent to go after child/human traffickers pretty heavily, as well as what I'd dub as E-Pimps. I'm not well versed in the sly language they use in CONgress, but it seems to read that on a place like 8ch, it would be the USER, and not necessarily the Operator, that would be subject to prosecution for pimping out other people, or trying to traffic kidz, as long as reporting such trafficking posts, and mods deleting them/reporting those users to authorities was continued as the standard procedure (intent to remove such illegal content that was posted by a USER).
The 230 section has a section of specific definitions (information content provider) and (access software provider) which are not used in the 2421A amendment, whereas (Interactive computer service) is used..
<a defendant may be held liable, under this subsection, where promotion or facilitation of prostitution activity includes responsibility for the creation or development of all or part of the information or content provided through any interactive computer service.
I'm also not sure if they specifically have a definition of intent..
Also, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where there was any retroactive enforcement as some claimed?
Regardless, this bill looks like a major attack against internet pedo traffickers, and I wonder if we would not just be doing their dirty work for them by fighting to prevent it on the grounds of pure internet freedom?
My gut tends to think this bill may be part of the plan to drain the swamp though.