How does that solve the comment I was replying to? The concern that content the provider wouldn't want on their site would have to display it?

Your comment doesn't "solve" anything. Did you reply to the right comment?

They were saying that if TOS supercedes this law, then you could get around the de-linking retaliation by updating your TOS to forbid charging for link sharing.

It was an extension of your statement applied back onto the law, not a rebuttle against your claim that content would no longer be moderated-able.

Exactly. To the extent that the TOS carveout protects sites free speech it also moots the law's anti-"retaliation" provision.

We need to fire state legislators that promote plainly unconstitutional laws, it's both professionally incompetent and a violation of their oath of office ( https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/fmc/pdf/std688.pdf ).

But hey, if they're going to advance unconstitutional laws it's at least polite that they're so incompetently drafted that they're self mooting.