Very well, it would remove the site operators obligation and capability of removing anything, and their activity would no longer rely on appeasing a hosting provider at all
I'm not sure this theory would stand up if you actually tried it. If you just make something immutable storage my expectation would be the law would say "well it's up to you to make really sure you're entitled to store things in it before they go in", not "Well why didn't you say so? Oh well put anything you like in there in that case".
what do you mean "tried it"? this reality already exists for a long time now
in this system design, anonfiles wouldn't be hosting it, any Section 230 exception problem would be the IPFS node's problem
and its not even about the legal aspect? its about working smarter not harder. what you are saying, to me, sounds similar to "this person made an online store to get around the zoning procedures of a brick and mortar store" never considering that they never ever considered making a brick and mortar store to begin with and would find the administration entirely unappealing and unrelated to fulfilling their vision
could always use additional gateways and CDNs
people pay subscribing for pinning, even if you don’t do the pinning yourself